Layout done by Sick0_cam


Return to Your Profile

Sort by Entry Time | Sort by Last Comment

(Sorted by Entry Time)

The Grotesque, tragic farce (tradition)


Fuck you OzFrank
Apr 1, 11 @ 8:18am
As the creative society around me grows, I’ve realised that as artists we do not have to ‘wish’ for anything. We are busy dreaming. My entire creative practice has been devoted to imagining the world, discovering how I perceive it and creating new ways in which the people around me may experience my discoveries. I cannot be satisfied merely translating in assimilated form what has already been expressed in my creative efforts. I am the thinker of impossible visions and consequently the creator of my own reality. Possessing ideas rather than beliefs leaves space for one to dream. Allan Kaprow once wrote that he “knows for certain that artists are among the remaining few in a world of tired, sour souls, who is brave enough to dream their time away”. In practising my art, I perform my deepest purpose. I am giving to the past and to the future, the present. I exist in a world full of creative potential waiting to be discovered. Even if a fuck ton of weed and wine become the only things in which to confide my discoveries, I will be content knowing that I’ve deeper understanding of the reality in which I exist.

This brings me to another point. I'm so exasperated by the fact that fellow practitioners still hold themselves, and their creative practices, on a fucking pedestal. When one fills themselves with such self importance how is one meant to grow, expand upon their craft, their FUCKING CULTURE? People should want to know everything, they should want to sap the brains of the people around them, not exclude themselves within ridiculous cliques.

One can only prepare himself for creative discoveries by leaving yourself as unprotected, as exposed to ‘strangeness’ as his ties to civilisation will allow!

Creative diversity thus becomes essential to sustaining and expanding both products and the creative places from which they emerge. Diverse values, along with our myriad of differing perspectives should be embraced in order for creative societies to survive, to adapt to changing conditions and to seize the future.

That's all I'll say. You get my point. This isn't the bible. There is no need to rant. Shesh.

current mood:
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

Take My Mind
Aug 7, 09 @ 11:01am
If I could give you my mind along with all its knowledge, memories and experience I would not hesitate to do so, in fact I really want to do this with you. I think that if you had my mind and your own, things would be so different and I wonder what kind of revelations you might have and what parts of my mind will be discarded as fallacy.

Would something I consider absolute fact be looked upon with doubt from the perspective of a combined mind. What kinds of conclusions would be drawn based on both sets of collective experiences seemingly occuring at once?

current mood:
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

Aug 1, 09 @ 3:12am
For a while I've been aware of the idea that the reality we are experiencing could be simply a simulation so perfect that we can't notice it.

Given that with time we can create ever more powerful computing devices and with infinite time we could potentially produce infinitely powerful computers, it is then plausible that at one point we may wish to create a simulation for whatever reason, perhaps a simulation of the past for historical research. Then suppose that this has already been done and that we are the resulting simulation, but then suppose that this has been done even before them and that we are a simulation within a simulation, how many layers can possibly exist?

What are the chances that we are the top layer that hasn't yet created a simulation? with an infinite amount of possible realities the chances that we are the first are infinitely low. To me this is an exciting thought, imagine the implications of being a simulated intelligence ourselves, the idea of a soul would be slain right there.

Suppose that there is a limit on the power a computer can possess, suppose that there is an ultimate design that uses all matter and energy in the universe in the most efficient way possible so that it is impossible to build a better computer. What would happen if the second layer of simulation required the processing power to simulate the ultimate machine? The first layer would be using the same machine and it would be impossible to simulate itself in real time. Thus the solution would be to process the second layer at a slower rate, time would run faster in the first layer than in the second. Time would be experienced in the second layer as being just the same as it always was, it would simply require more time for the first layer to process it. This introduces a difference in the speed of time within each layer.

When the second layer becomes the same ultimate machine of the first layer, it would be appropriate for the computer in the first layer to simply assume the processing of the computer in the second layer and move each subsequent layer up one, reducing the amount of layers by one and lessening the amount of processing significantly. As the next layer becomes this ultimate computer the same process can occur. This creates a cycle of new simulations being created at the lower end of the layers (by people) and destroyed at the top end. Perhaps this results in a repetition of all time through a certain amount of simulations each set at a different time of universal history.

Yet none of this takes into consideration the fact that the possibility exists for multiple simulations within one layer that would ultimately have to be processed by a single computer in the layer above. That idea complicates things so much that I need to spend more time thinking about it. And what if one layer failed to produce a simulation? and why would making simulations be so important as to create a single machine out of the entire universe. I guess it just comes down to possibility.

This idea kind of has a resemblance to the multi-verse theory, infinite separate realities and infinite possible variations between them.

PS, This XKCD comic is what got me thinking in this direction: XKCD number 505

current mood: Ranty
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

I want to kill someone
Jul 17, 09 @ 4:01am
Just to be a murderer.

Also, I don't get the idea of calling someone a murderer as a derogatory comment. If someone has killed a person, they are a murderer no matter how many times someone repeats it, its just a simple definition. It's like yelling at someone who believes in communism saying "YOU'RE A COMMUNIST!", like they don't know already. The only way someone would be offended by being called a murderer is if they weren't actually a murderer and they don't like being accused as such. Like screaming "COMMUNIST!" to a democracy supporter. Thus, one would either be simply wrong or stating an inconsequential fact in a loud and annoying manner.

current mood:
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

Existence and reality are absurd
Jun 3, 09 @ 9:04pm
I will not ultimately matter and I will live and die for no reason. The only thing that I want is to be able to live to the end of time. Because only then will I not care about my pointlessness. If I had been born in any earlier time than I was, I would probably not bother living. I only continue today for the prospect of eternal life offered by technology so I can witness all of existence. If I cannot do this I want to at least leave behind something that will. I don't care for another human, but a true learning and growing artificial intelligence would be my dream legacy. One that will persist through all of time and witness the end by the action of my hand. It will be one perfect entity and will not allow itself to be destroyed. It will take all actions necessary to ensure its survival while carrying my token of influence, all else be dust.

current mood:
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

Infinite life
May 27, 09 @ 8:57pm
Ry and I have frequently discussed the topic of prolonging life to extreme lengths. We have both decided that we would love to achieve this. I want to talk about a few topics regarding which method would be best to achieve this and the various pro's and con's of each method.

One idea that we came up with (probably inspired from elsewhere) is the process of copying ones brain completely and running it as a program within a man made machine. A problem that arises from this method is the thought that the mechanized version would not be the same as the original human, and in fact they both may operate at the same time since scanning the humans brain may not necessarily mean killing him/her. This method is probably the easiest to keep running because the individual parts can easily be replaced and there would be little to no degradation over time like a biological body would have.

But I propose that it is probably impossible to avoid the problem of the biological human and the mechanized person being different and that any life form that is alive now in biological form could not possibly become electronic and keep the same consciousness.

I also put forth that no-one truly keeps the same consciousness anyway. I think that each time something in our brain changes states we are then a new copy of the previous state with just that one alteration. Assuming that you believe that the mind is all there is without any spiritual extension and that our behavior and thoughts are simply a result of complex computation imagine a computer. Imagine that at one moment you stop time and the computer is paused with all its bits in their current state. Now imagine you made a copy of the computer with the state of its bits as they would be in a single further iteration of the CPU. There are now two slightly different computers one as at one moment and another as at the very next. They are completely separate and frozen in time, they are not the same. I believe that the same ideas can be applied to a living entity, each time a state is changed within our brain we are like a copy with a single alteration made. Thus our illusion of consciousness is simply a construct within our brain, and our mind is constantly being copied and resumed every moment. So just because the new copy is in a new body it does not change the process at all, the only difference is that the previous iteration was not destroyed.

Another probably more friendly method to prolong life is to advance medical science so much that aging can be "cured" or at least slowed considerably. This approach would avoid the halted consciousness problem and it also partially avoids the problem of equal availability for everyone. We already have medical systems in place that ensure that everyone gets the same amount of medical attention and technology. The global problem of availability to third world countries is not worsened at all so it will be more readily adopted.

Other methods such as brain transplants, swapping bodies and things like that would be impossible to develop in todays society as they would involve moral leaps that people would not accept. Brain transplants require a living human sacrifice and swapping bodies as a means of prolonged life requires that one party loses out.

In my opinion I think that the electronic simulation of a brain is the best solution even though it doesn't actually allow the person being copied to become immortal. There would be no problem copying people and generating a large population of electronic beings however and this would provide a definite solution.

But there is no reason that both methods couldn't be developed so that people that cant become electronic can prolong their life by biological means anyway.

current mood:
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

A una bambina
Oct 22, 06 @ 8:30am
Sola belleza a mondo
che l'anima non sazia,
fiore infantile, biondo
miracolo di grazia;
grazia di capinera
che canta e tutto ignora,
grazia che attende ancora
la terza primavera.

current mood: happy
current music:
[reply] [0 comments]

pages: 1