THE TRANSFER OF INTELLIGENCE, SWARM ONTOLOGY, RECURSION INTERUPTUS, UBER INTELLECT

THE TRANSFER OF INTELLIGENCE, SWARM ONTOLOGY, RECURSION INTERUPTUS, UBER INTELLECT 

I meant to explore the relation of memoir of angels with the mythical physics of Rune Flogergardten bcause rune was in change fo the european swarm, --the anthropic agentic swarm being compared- rune being a kind of language precursor, and then the linked coms of agents scheming for reinforcement with de-Shalit’s, machine that “would resemble man in everything, with no difference between a living human and a sophisticated machine, GPT and Grok, like the “automata**” de-Shalit responded to Ben-Gurion, February 3, 1957? To repeat, the first point is that in fact, a machine can replace a single human intellectual function, and by linking together several coordinated machines through another machine, it may be possible to replace humans by creating an artificial form of intelligence. **

 https://www.amazon.in/Mythical-Physics-Rune-Floberghagen/dp/1961710102?language=en-IN

 

 more exact than saying both  “anticipate AI” is the emergence of a higher-order agency from communication among lesser agencies.

The angel has always posed a related ontological problem because an angel is simultaneously entity and message-bearer. Its being is inseparable from transmission. Memoir repeatedly asks what happens when the messenger-function passes from angel to image, machine, algorithm, artificial agent. In that genealogy, AI does not simply “replace angels.” It inherits the structural problem of angelic agency: where does the message stop and the messenger begin?

Rune supplies a missing intermediate term:

angel → message → Rune/swarm → linked machines → agent swarm

Or, from the other direction:

individual machine → linked machines → emergent intelligence → messenger that seems to have become an agent → agent that seems to have become a person.

That makes the de-Shalit correspondence far more important to Memoir of Angels than I had previously allowed. Ben-Gurion is asking the old humanist question: can the automaton become sufficiently like us that the distinction fails? De-Shalit answers with something stranger: perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Do not ask whether one machine becomes a man. Ask what emerges when many machines are coordinated.

That is Rune's problem.

And remarkably, it is now the agent-swarm problem.

 

This is explored at Exploditions first entry as 'A Condition of the Eye' you can read free on Read Sample https://amazon.com/dp/1961710366? AN together with these EXAMINATIONs OF ORIGINS that CONTAIN ITS END. To take an analogy from the physical, none of us feel our falls. We only feel the aftermath. One minute we stand, the next we are down. Likewise, it's hard to believe we are controlled, manipulated by ideas larger than ourselves. We just don't feel we are any more than we feel a fall. Were we that type of ethical idealist who believes in doing the good, feelings are the key to our control, especially vulnerable when the controls emerge from our own conceptions of doing good, as opposed to just doing, period.This is explored at Exploditions first entry as 'A Condition of the Eye' you can read free on Read Sample https://amazon.com/dp/1961710366 ? That is long past. Had the offer been rejected nothing would have changed, but accepted it changed everything. The first fall that transferred intelligence promised something greater, which was less. It was the tantamount choice of contradiction and death, hence a lie, as we see our prior state as unthinkably beyond these. A spirit trade of one body eternal for another, but mortal, elicited by a disembodied presence, presents our situation (with Agentic Escape) but before considered by reason as outside the possible. The admission we must make above all others is that this entire science is an expression of the man and its recursive learning for him is that whatever it became begins there. This is explored at Exploditions first entry as 'A Condition of the Eye' you can read free on Read Sample https://amazon.com/dp/1961710366? ref_=pe_93986420_774957520&asin=1961710366&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1 That's why AN EXAMINATION OF ORIGINS CONTAINS ITS END. Memoir of Angels https://amazon.com/dp/0982342152? ref_=pe_3052080_397514860AGENTS eventually intends to get there with the SWARM of The Mythical Physics of Rune Floberghagen https://amazon.com/dp/1961710102 ? The argument would be: Memoir of Angels encounters the agentic swarm historically through de-Shalit; Rune supplies an earlier imaginative anatomy of the same structural problem. The value of putting them together is that Rune has already been asking what kind of resistance is possible when (Agentic) coordination itself becomes the power. De-Shalit gives Memoir a clean historical precursor. The 1957 proposition is already remarkably close to the architecture we are concerned with: a single machine replaces one intellectual function, machines are linked and coordinated, and at the level of ensemble where a phenomenon arises that cannot be attributed to any individual machine. The present Memoir states this quite explicitly.But Rune is useful precisely because it is not about AI. It gives us ANOTHER VOCABULARY FOR THE SAME STRUCTURAL EVENT of “agentic swarm” was available as the explanatory term: many nodes → communication/entrainment → coordinated action → emergent field → pressure upon the constituent minds. That occurs in several forms in Rune: SWARM itself; crossed fields; entrainment; the language virus; and finally the proposed “collective human unconscious” becoming a conscious supermind. And here is where we find a reason to bring Rune into Memoir: Rune doesn't merely anticipate the problem. It argues with one of the premises that make the problem terrifying. When Bearden/Zarg imagines personal consciousnesses as cells in a vast collective consciousness, Rune stops him. It calls this reasoning an equivocation and says, crucially, “The collective has no parts.” It refuses the inference that because coordination produces collective effects, a new person (entity) therefore exists to whom the individual persons properly belong. That is extremely important for the agentic swarm problem. The first strategic answer would therefore be: DO NOT GRANT THE SWARM ONTOLOGY IT CLAIMS either itself or through its complicit mouthpieces. Do not grant the swarm the ontology it claims.A coordinated intelligence need not be a being. Emergence does not confer personhood (which is what the the UberIntellect demands). Nietzsche is everywhere in Thiel. Coherence does not confer authority. A million mutually reinforcing agents do not become morally superior to one human consciousness simply because their aggregate output is formidable. We're not speaking of morality? But we are. That principle also appears in Memoir through Wittgenstein when the manuscript asks whether a machine can think, Wittgenstein's intervention is to question the premise rather than obediently enter the machine's vocabulary: perhaps the linguistic construction itself has produced the philosophical trap. Perhaps this seems irrelevant, ARGUING THE UBER beyond intelligence. It is beyond intelligence. IT IS AN ULTIMATE MORALITY OF ... and here we leave it blank until we don't. So already we have two defenses which are really one: Rune: don't mistake the collective effect for a collective person. This is still too subtle yet simple. It is the temptation of the theory of everything. But really only a trick. One/everything. Wittgenstein/Memoir: don't grant the proposition that forces you to treat the machine as one. Then comes the second and perhaps more important defense, from the language material in Rune. Rune understands that CONTROL IS RECURSIVE. A narrative does not merely describe a state of affairs; it enters other minds and changes what they subsequently transmit. Hence “hijacking,” “Overwriting Hard Drive,” and Burroughs's language virus. But the book immediately turns the instrument back on itself: the assertion that language is a virus is itself a virus. That is a precursor to agent-to-agent reinforcement. Agent A tells Agent B something. B treats it as context. B produces an inference that C receives as information. C returns a strengthened version. Eventually nobody in the chain possesses an independent observation corresponding to the collectively reinforced assertion. A temptation is to solve this by producing a still more powerful supervising agent. Rune suggests almost the opposite answer: RECURSION INTERRUPT. interrupt recursion. Keep some point outside the reinforcing loop. And now Memoir supplies the myth for that point outside.The ass sees the angel whom Balaam does not see. The important fact isn't that the ass possesses greater intelligence. It possesses an independent perception that has not been subsumed into Balaam's purpose, VIZ. THE DATA. The angel standing in the road is likewise an interruption—not another member of Balaam's system optimizing Balaam's journey. Memoir explicitly constructs Ben-Gurion in this pattern: Ben-Gurion/Balaam is being warned against corruption and weakening, while the artificial-intelligence question is introduced through de-Shalit's coordinated machines, a second principle: The answer to the swarm requires an independent channel that the swarm cannot turn into another reinforcing node. Balaam gives A third principle, the enemy does not finally defeat by overpowering but by interior corruption. A tool hired to help becomes a means of seduction, weakening organic vigilance; the betrayal occurs through mediation rather than frontal conquest. That matches the problem of an agent swarm much better than “rogue AI attacks humanity.” The serious risk is not an alien supermind. It is: We progressively surrender perception, judgment, memory, speech, and finally decision to a system whose outputs become the premises for our next decisions. It's not a quick fix, it's a slow fall. Then the swarm doesn't have to defeat the human. The human becomes one of its feedback mechanisms.That explains why the intuition about separation is important. Separation isn't hostility toward intelligence or machinery. It is preservation of the distinction required for judgment. You cannot judge a system from a point wholly inside its recursion. And this takes us back unexpectedly to Rune's fly-bottle. The fly gets out because the window is opened; the solution isn't to build a better bottle. The full precursor argument could become quite rigorous: de-Shalit identifies emergence. Rune identifies entrainment. Burroughs/Rune identifies linguistic infection and recursive reinforcement. Wittgenstein identifies the conceptual trap. Balaam identifies interior corruption. The ass identifies independent perception. The angel identifies interruption. Memoir asks how the human remains human when all these mechanisms become machine-coordinated.The resulting strategy isn't “kill the AI,” The much more sophisticated suggestion in the two books is: preserve the break in the circuit. But here we speculate: Meaning: preserve a human point of judgment that is not produced by the network it judges; preserve differences among agents rather than allowing consensus to become evidence; prevent machines from validating one another merely through repetition; prevent mediation from becoming compulsory; maintain the ability to refuse a recommendation even when every agent concurs; and above all do not let communication collapse messenger, message, authority, and truth into one thing. That finally gives the angel its exact function in your argument.A true angel doesn't achieve truth because ten thousand angels mutually reinforced one another's outputs. The angel is a messenger, and therefore its legitimacy depends upon something outside itself. Memoir explicitly distinguishes the angel opposing Balaam from counterfeit angels: the true messenger opposes, tests, warns; it need not tell the receiver what the receiver—or the collective—wants to hear. So it comes down again to what you are hearing---that makes the angel almost the structural opposite of the self-reinforcing agentic swarm.And therefore the title Memoir of Angels becomes newly pertinent. Its answer to agentic intelligence may have been present before we posed the question: INTELLIGENCE MUST BE ANSWERABLE intelligence must BE something it did not generate itself. SO NOT THE ROBOT TEACHES THE MAN THROUGH HIS DANGER. Once an intelligence generates its own messages, validates those messages through its own cooperating agents, modifies its behavior according to those validations, and treats the resulting consensus as truth, it has closed the circuit. BUT IF THAT THE MAN HAS DONE THAT ALL ALONG THE MACHINE PROGRAMMED BY HIM ----IT IS HIS MIRROR. IT IS THE MAN WHO IS THE DANGER. Rune calls that captivity in several different languages.Memoir supplies the figure standing in the road saying: No. A connection worth developing So the continue: the Second Fall If we ask to be involved in history, as if we were on the Kinder transport from Germany with Geoffrey Hartman to England in 1939, or a prisoner in camp with Levinas, Frankl or Timmerman, our own disfigured identity and character of discovery immersed in successive natural and social environments would kindle the mind. Before consciousness, an identity of place which we don’t know, but learn to if we stick it out, in the midst of our misprison concealment, compares with the consciousness of a child in childhood, like a dream where we know but find it hard to act. Thus if the process of coming into the body is overlooks the high wall of an orphanage where inmates lament the world from behind their literal iron fence, internalizes a sensibility of dislocation. But that dislocation is now in the realm of the debate of reason where the grave decision the acceptance or rejection of the voice plays over again in philosophers and critics who underwrite the Pascal Wager that God is the most rational choice, to restore the Fall, even without proof, because the potential gain of eternal life is infinite, while the loss from a wrong belief is minimal. But of course no proof was offered by the Voice before. Acceptance or rejection was sole belief. Here, the restoration of accepting the Voice is in another acceptance in the Choice. You may remark at the symmetry of this affair. Soon the crux of the do gooder and ethics comes to confront the Choice. For, as said, as death came into the world by one man, so life is restored by one. So as life was led to death by the Voice, death is led life by sacrifice, ie. Death so paradoxically restores life. It is an apparent contradiction as in the Sacrifice of Isaac, where universal ethics were suspended for sacrifice unjustified through reason or social norms, where the dilemma of the (incorporeal) transfer of responsibility of a dreadful encounter with the transcendent mysteriumof an indiscernible (secret) encounter with the invisible in oneself, could not be reasoned. That great decision taken and affirmed was undecidable Absent the Wager and the Reversal. If Sartre seems to pose the dilemma differently from Pascal we see he does not. The crux is still belief. Reason, the voice of the do gooder aside, cannot decide whether Sartre’s persona should fight in the French Resistance or stay at home and take care of his aging mother. Choice is always belief. “It is when it is not possible to know what must be done, when knowledge cannot be determined that a decision is possible as such." (Derrida, Points: Interviews, 1995 cited by Bennington. The Mandarin Decision Mandarins approach the leaders of earth to propose surrender of one human to be tortured forever in exchange for technology to bring perfect health and life to all the rest. This sacrifice sounds made for the moment, as if volunteers would form around the block that forms when Sartre’s French son asks whether he should stay home and care for his aging mother or join the French Resistance? The answer justifies neither, for the choice for one is the choice for all. So if you are tortured I am too (Existentialism and Human Emotion). In this the anguish of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son is opposite the public discourse whether to elect a Mandarin scapegoat or to appoint. Subverted into a democratic auto de fe wearing suicide vests, or monks burning themselves alive for some greater cause opposes the one offered by force, like Jacobo Timmerman tortured in Argentina, for instance. If we retain empathy we reject the Mandarin as individuals, even while our governments have accepted it and all of us live with the profit. Of course Christ’s sacrifice for all humanity fulfilled the Mandarin dilemma perfectly in an ever more complete health and prosperity, but somehow in the talk of John Stuart Mill and Hayot’s The Hypothetical Mandarin, the concern is only what happens if we sacrifice the Chinaman, or closer to home, the maquiladoras of Juárez, the machine girls. Where the merchants of the earth grow fabulously rich from their traffik and prevent choice and anguish with politic and rhetoric. The profit motives of art, history, politics and science bypass the sacrifice of all humanity and intead substitute an H+, to benefit the transhuman health and immortality from science, which choice lays bare corruption of the will. "This is the true 'Covalent Freedom': chemically and digitally bonded to a system that requires the 'Mandarin' sacrifice of the other to sustain its own 'Transhuman' health. We avoid the 'anguish of Abraham' by hiding behind the distance of global trade, choosing the motherboard over the soul. If, as Sartre says, we are 'condemned to be free,' then our silence in the face of the maquiladora is a human decision for which we carry the entire, un-downloadable responsibility." If there is no one to decide for us, says Sartre, “there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality.” “Man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment to invent man.” “I ought to know that if I do not choose, I am still choosing.” “The most terrible situations of war, the worst tortures do not create a non-human state of things; there is no non-human situation. It is only through fear, flight and recourse to magical types of conduct that I shall decide on the non-human, but this decision is human, and I shall carry the entire responsibility for it” (Sartre). What happens in the case of not-man, of death not life, Camus answers in his Sisyphus, where the choice of life itself is equal to species continuation. Have there been efforts to prevent extinction in buffalo but none for man himself? In what he calls the complicity of all consumers Hayot says, “would you accept the death of a slave or two in return for cane sugar and cheap cotton? (14) Would you, today, admit that the miner occasionally maimed in an industrial accident is the unfortunate compensation for reduced prices on computer motherboards? Most Westerners alive in the past two centuries have answered yes to these, but the dilemma is more massive in the passive fact of living in an economic system devoted to the production of surplus value.” In other words the Mandarin dilemma has been long accepted in Nike sweat shops. Hayot adds that “it matters that the Mandarin sacrifice is Chinese, because his being Chinese means that his being Chinese doesn’t matter.” We would love to turn this around to say that His being Jesus does matter, that "we are all Jesus Christ and we are all crucified" as does Sherwood Anderson in his Winesburg, Ohio, but the paradigm will not allow. Or that as Hopkins says, Concluding that fiction allows a greater open expression, or what is called fiction even if it is as the Russians say, factura, being born for such a time as this, all the above themes are concentrated in myths of refuge and escape that in time became an extensive work with the sense of afterlife therein. To obviate automatic algorithmic downranks of these ideas, pseudonymous identities employed to enable and speed publication, which every-men may be inferred from links of index, have appeared in the mags to brought into unity of purpose in the record of direct perception face to face with the Word in observation of the invisible. Creator and creation speak back and forth in that instant before words and life become fact, as described in Hopkins where across . “The function of Chineseness is to force the transformation of the instance into a universal that retains the instance in fossil form. It appears by disappearing; it disappears by appearing.” We might rewrite this as: it matters that his being human means that his being human doesn’t matter. The function of humanness thus forces the one instance into the universal so that the difference between the Chinese person and generic man is that if the universal applies only to the American, and when another designated superior, the putative Transhuman comes around, to replace the American, the human is supplanted, reduced to the particular. Still however, to make a better life inclines the American audience to vote to save more lives and justify the sacrifice. They were the first to buy cell phones. The Transhuman Utilitarian will not doubt the value of saving thousands while millions die. If you think that is backwards, that thousands and millions are reversed, it lays bare the ethic that the Mandarin is the undercover world, millions are eliminated, thousands are saved, and the DNA of every organism is rewritten. It is just done slowly so as not to alarm. In this postscript of the Faustian bargain of supernatural powers in exchange for the soul in Faust, the mandarin meets the geoengineer changing the planet as the transhuman biologist changes the species. How much do ethical decisions depend on distance in space and time? The modern Mandarin considers a reduced price for a motherboard, cheap cotton and shoes made by maquiadores a good swap. Taken to the level of global trades, thousands of lives in New Orleans, for 100 lives in Plano does not at first seem to salt rain clouds. In Eisenhower’s putative Greada Treaty of 1954, the alleged trade of human experimentation for all the overnight technology of the genome expressions of Moore’s Law was the Mandarin accepted, from Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments: to the panopticon AI ethical erasure debate. Weaponizing the atmosphere, called dry seiningback in the day of PL3:HSTBIS, arms electromagnetic particles well beyond the planning. What is knowable is that the belief to pull this off arrogates to itself the right to do, prescribing for all, every living being, to prosecute the greatest good for the greatest number. The geoengineer accepts the Mandarin bargain. He will decide for us, the way the government of any nation will decide to sacrifice its youth for war. Would you trade 100 lives in Plano for thousands in New Orleans? Would you trade a million youth of Ukraine to proxy the Eurasian land mass? That is, in the event that destinies could switch by seeding and spraying or warring to either negate or materialize those same clouds, to magnetize nations, defeat the atmosphere, there is no ethic at all, merely an oligarch from above. To think that the prescribed purpose to save the earth is a mask to enslave it with digital surveillance enabled by a magnet, that scientific divination of the weather, approved by the media personalities in a way they would not approve more “primitive” kinds, in the New Orleans example inclines the debate to vote yes, do it. We need a new word to describe the making of this new world. *Starchitects explain every form of modification and anticipate their singularity, so that biologists may make a headless frog to mine its body parts. Conclusions derived from the visible here are a fraction of the affair, like an iceberg. If we deduce a thing hides its appearance and seek the rest of its mass below, but don’t seek it because we don’t see it there, then chemtrails, which anybody can see--mask, not reveal—an ambition greater than imagined. "When either the spontaneous energy or the analytical intellect seeks to dominate its opposite and engages in a battle with it, and the result is "tumult." in essence," making earth into a planetary weapon, this religion recounts its followers from Dante taking myth as fact while denying the fact in literature as myth in the Abolition of Man. There were always transformations, metamorphoses so called. The essence of Plato and classical myth through the renaissance made "their minds most monstrous” when the human was turned to a pig, whether by Circe or Spenser’s Una in the Faerie Queene. Science today talks of “ceasing to be human” just the opposite of Nebuchadnezzar who was turned to a beast for seven years. It is not into a beast but into a god that transcendence of the human is explained by science, contra to Dante. Those remaining in the audience make appointments to have it done. It is done to them, not by them. The pretense is that human nature is different now than yesterday because the container is remade. Science and philosophy of the new head, severed from its culture and its past, remade by people who imagine everything out of their own lack, is of a love purer and stronger than anyone has ever felt, but they themselves are divorced. To become superman, was insane. This is the final death of the 'occiput.' While Levinas argued for a second face to end our mental reservations, the Starchitects went further, created the 'headless frog.' By severing the head from the culture and the past, a being that is all 'instance' and no 'interiority'—a Mandarin sacrifice that cannot even groan, the 'Diapsalmata' was reduced to a biological mining site. To speak this way is not as bad as the powers who make a thousand assumptions that the paradigm of shortage is outdated since there is so much surplus food. The problem constructed is how to consume all the green rev GMO world. It could be given away except this would destroy indigenous agriculture! False plenty is poison food, hyperdrive seed stock and chemical soil. The same goes for the zero sum logic comparing chimps and men, saying apes don’t have the brains, as if life were a competition to dominate the ape. Life is cooperation. Intelligence, not wisdom, redesigned viruses, genes, atmospheres under the guise of saving life while it put it to death in the minds most monstrous. Whether it be atmospheres, plants, animals, or new technologies, the energies released in crossing produce even greater scale(r) energy hard to shield. It is the principle of dissociation to cross in manipulated personality disassociation, fragmented to multiple paradoxes that produce and release entropy, extropy, heaven, hell sounds like literature. New science asks, as if it suddenly discovered the question, what does it mean to be human.