DARPA's In Ur Brainz, Hacking Ur Storiez.

reply to post by Mr. D


Well truth be know Mr D I personaly buy into the idea that the universe as we know it was created by, simply put , a universe that was highly enough evolved to transfer its core thought form into a new space time continuum (that it also created).

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

e appropriate balance between frontal and temporal activity is mediated by mutually inhibitory corticocortical interactions. Mesolimbic dopamine influences novelty seeking and creative drive. Dopamine agonists and antagonists have opposite effects on goal-directed behavior and hallucinations. Creative drive is not identical to skill—the latter depends more on neocortical association areas. However, drive correlates better with successful creative output than skill does.

and this for added interest.
neuro.sofiatopia.org...

www2.selu.edu...

On how an ecological disaster created a Baldwinian pathway to enhanced cognition mainly of working memory through social ritualization.

Today: Replace ecological disaster with exponential Moore's Law, and a Baldwinian pathway via technology enhancing cognition via digital enhancement of working memory.

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Mr. D

 

Well truth be know Mr D I personaly buy into the idea that the universe as we know it was created by, simply put , a universe that was highly enough evolved to transfer its core thought form into a new space time continuum (that it also created).

edit on 9-11-2011 by bluemooone2 because: spl.

I can believe that. Who or What is the source? I find that there is a trail left behind for us to follow, someone or something hinders us from from doing so. I believe that it is a sin to search for the truth and not believe it when we find it, That is why I'm still searching. Never give up and never surrender......live to fight another day.

reply to post by mistermonculous

Mm, but there is a progression toward increasingly complex stories which more effectively draw the viewer into identification.

Arguable. Increased brand and consumer segmentation forces the identification and exploitation of ever more subtle differences between ever-smaller target groups, or at areas of overlap between groups. Nowadays this is done less through traditional creative content than through the creative exploitation of the ways in which consumers interact with media. We used to call this targeting and media planning, but interactive media have changed the whole game. I’m not just talking internet; consider the multitudinous uses of the TV/mobile phone feedback loop.

Meanwhile, traditional creative content just gets more allusive and subtle, a private understanding, often unspoken, between brand and consumer. This is not really complexity, though the theory behind it gets pretty turgid. It’s better described as what it appears to be – a trend towards simplicity. Fewer words in ads, less insistence on ramming home sales messages, more about evoking sympathy and desire.

The changes in creative content you are pointing to are simply reflections of the popular culture and media fashions of their day.

I notice this progression from, say, 1900 on: image and logo->sexy image and logo ->jingles and expository content->narrative focusing on product, little to no exposition->directly incorporating the viewer into the narrative.

You have the order slightly wrong, but that’s not a bad way of delineating the progression. However, all these tropes are used in present-day advertising. Each one has been used continuously since it was invented. Their utility varies with the type and role of the advertising – by ‘role’ I mean at what stage in the purchasing process it is supposed to operate. Sexy girls actually work better at point of purchase than in, say, a magazine ad.

reply to post by Mr. D


You may or may not like this , but the source is contained in the billy mires contacts.

I can believe that. Who or What is the source? I find that there is a trail left behind for us to follow, someone or something hinders us from from doing so.

That is profound , and may I say , sir , is the secrete of Life .

reply to post by Jinglelord


Oh snap! Advantage Jinglelord!

Before they could sell us sex, they sold us status. Of course. The only story that needed telling was "I'm fecking rich, and I enjoy being served this product."

And, yeah! That's still the story. Crazy! Brutally insightful, sir.

That the sub is homo sapiens sapiens domesticus.

Probably an overstatement, but I think the metaphor could have some validity.

Ah, I feel like my ears just popped, mentally speaking. I've been grappling with the parallels between domesticated dogs and post-industrial humans. I was looking specifically at the way dogs retain juvenile characteristics, and whether humans might be displaying a similar thing in the form of suspended adolescence.

And I got nowhere with it, but I knew the domestication was the key.

I think a lot about the relationship we have with our computers, which seems to have supplanted the one we formerly enjoyed with dogs. And whether that new relationship might not afford us similar transformative advantages. (No duh, right?)

But can that relationship physically or genetically alter us? Why is it happening so goddamn quickly? Because Moore's Law is carrying us along for the ride. Spooky territory, very exciting. Thanks for that, dude.

If I were the evil propaganda mastermind with access to this technology and a whole lot of media sway I think the trick would be selling a third party as the self which both groups would have to identify with.

Dang, I hope somebody's standing by with an extinguisher, because you are on fire!

How well would this approach work, say, in the Balkans? I think you might need a baseline stability to float that magic third party. I think they're going to use another approach in the war zones.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

If I were the evil propaganda mastermind with access to this technology and a whole lot of media sway I think the trick would be selling a third party as the self which both groups would have to identify with.

Dang, I hope somebody's standing by with an extinguisher, because you are on fire!

How well would this approach work, say, in the Balkans? I think you might need a baseline stability to float that magic third party. I think they're going to use another approach in the war zones.

edit on 9-11-2011 by mistermonculous because: (no reason given)

There has to be some basis for the thing to be set up on. Without common language - and there isn't - mutually exclusive socio-dynamic meme structures can't be reconciled without one of them moving.

Currently the tolerant move, and in doing so move to a place where they will be less tolerant in the long run. Social meme structure colonization.

I know I have a favourite, and I won't go. And I'm one of the nice ones that wants to get along.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

That the sub is homo sapiens sapiens domesticus.

Probably an overstatement, but I think the metaphor could have some validity.

Ah, I feel like my ears just popped, mentally speaking. I've been grappling with the parallels between domesticated dogs and post-industrial humans. I was looking specifically at the way dogs retain juvenile characteristics, and whether humans might be displaying a similar thing in the form of suspended adolescence.

And I got nowhere with it, but I knew the domestication was the key.

I think a lot about the relationship we have with our computers, which seems to have supplanted the one we formerly enjoyed with dogs. And whether that new relationship might not afford us similar transformative advantages. (No duh, right?)

But can that relationship physically or genetically alter us? Why is it happening so goddamn quickly? Because Moore's Law is carrying us along for the ride. Spooky territory, very exciting. Thanks for that, dude.

edit on 9-11-2011 by mistermonculous because: (no reason given)

This to me is a very interesting line of thought. When did the human animal become domesticated and who are it's masters? Can you domesticate yourself? Are we domesticated?

Jinglelord's Law: A person's girth will expand to fit the size of their computer chair the longer they sit in it.

Our relationship with out computers is one that will be difficult understand the impacts of until the technology matures. For now though it certainly looks as if it is replacing so many other relationships it could easily be the primary tool of our domestication.

But who is domesticating us? We are domesticating ourselves by choice. Look to Felis Domsticus for an example. Their brains and behavior are closer to ours than any other domesticated animal. Essentially the wild cats began hanging out a granaries to munch on the rats. The people thought "Well that is useful I hate rats eating my food!" So they started being nice to the cats. The cats thought "Well this is a pretty cool set up and I can live much easier this way, these hairless primates are cool." One thing led to another and cats domesticated themselves for an easier way of life. This is what we are doing. Now "Feral" cats are often collected and killed, people treat cats like dogs or other "tool" or "nuisance" animals. There is a distinct risk to becoming domesticated and I'm not sure it is the path I would like to choose for my lineage. But is there even a choice anymore?

Sure there is.

The key is the same as alway. You can be what you are, but accept and embrace being flexible. Hyper specialization tends to be a dead-end.

Naturally people are attracted to people of similar backgrounds and values, but not of overly similar genotypes. Since we are so very similar compared to many species, this is probably a pretty decent fail-safe.

However, removal of natural selection via culture or messing around with hormones might end run this. In which cultures where selection is chosen by other people than those engaging in reproduction removes the fail-safe. The birth-control pill and other hormone based fertility control methods are also end-running this fail-safe as they make women prefer men who are too similar to them.

Promotion of rationality based on real information stated in understandable ways may be the best innoculation for hyper-specialization.

Originally posted by Aeons
Sure there is.

The key is the same as alway. You can be what you are, but accept and embrace being flexible. Hyper specialization tends to be a dead-end.

Naturally people are attracted to people of similar backgrounds and values, but not of overly similar genotypes. Since we are so very similar compared to many species, this is probably a pretty decent fail-safe.

However, removal of natural selection via culture or messing around with hormones might end run this. In which cultures where selection is chosen by other people than those engaging in reproduction removes the fail-safe. The birth-control pill and other hormone based fertility control methods are also end-running this fail-safe as they make women prefer men who are too similar to them.

Promotion of rationality based on real information stated in understandable ways may be the best innoculation for hyper-specialization.

So let us assume we can with our stories have an unprecedented level of control over people's ideas, choices, and lives in general. This would essentially make us domesticated by ourselves.

Or more appropriately the masses would be domesticated by the elites who control the mechanism for control?

Either way it is common, nay a requirement for domestic animals to be bred fro very specific attributes. The end game of home sapiens sapiens is the beginning of homo sapiens domesticus and homo sapiens majoris?

The choice is yours.

Even if you swallow the story whole, who says you can't use it for your own ends?

Truncating instincts is a form of domestication. But if you choose to control your instincts, choose to control your narrative, then you control youself.

Your enemy teaches you, grasshopper.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

Mm, but there is a progression toward increasingly complex stories which more effectively draw the viewer into identification.

Arguable. Increased brand and consumer segmentation forces the identification and exploitation of ever more subtle differences between ever-smaller target groups, or at areas of overlap between groups. Nowadays this is done less through traditional creative content than through the creative exploitation of the ways in which consumers interact with media.

So it is all about tweaking templates, with the aim being to illict the same affective response from those segmented groups. Playing to their differences to leverage their commonality. Do you think its valid to say we can understand the potential military applications by understanding marketing theory?

May I propose that we are being domesticated by our own tech? That what we develop to augment our computational power does our selecting for us? All subsequent differentiation will stem from who masters what tech, to what degree.

And also, apparently, from our ability to determine our own narrative, as well a capacity to assess conflicting narratives without clamming up into subjectivity. Ouch.

Notice how WIN 8 looks like a smartphone UI, and offers no administrative options? Terrible news.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

Mm, but there is a progression toward increasingly complex stories which more effectively draw the viewer into identification.

Arguable. Increased brand and consumer segmentation forces the identification and exploitation of ever more subtle differences between ever-smaller target groups, or at areas of overlap between groups. Nowadays this is done less through traditional creative content than through the creative exploitation of the ways in which consumers interact with media.

So it is all about tweaking templates, with the aim being to illict the same affective response from those segmented groups. Playing to their differences to leverage their commonality. Do you think its valid to say we can understand the potential military applications by understanding marketing theory?

Ever had an extreme reaction to something? A person (a collection of stories wrapped in cells)? A religious experience? Standing in front of a clapping audience? A moment of utter terror?

A steady diet of bland with no experience with negotiating an authentic reaction would probably make people incapable of withstanding a sudden transformative experience.

reply to post by Aeons





Short of cataclysm, I would posit that the difficulty would not be posed by withstanding such an experience; but in recognizing it when it happened.

reply to post by Astyanax


That was a fantastic post, Astyanax.

Not that you asked but, I totally agree with this...

The grail they seek is not at all hard to find, for the right people. For the wrong ones, it cannot be winkled out by simple-minded technocratic means, nor, indeed, by any means.

But then there is this...

DARPA may be investing in this, and Dr. Casebeer may have a scintillating academic record, but the whole field is nothing but witch-doctoring and pseudoscience none the less. I don’t see it changing any time soon, either.

On the other hand, I don't see why computer aided Sociology, or maybe, Socio-Informatics, coupled with medical technology and neurobiology has to be considered Witch Doctory.

The program proposed by DARPA fits well in to modern, systems based models for new scientific discovery. Maybe things were more rigid in your times but these days the approach with this stuff is coming from a place of holism. So...

It is very primitive, and the nature of what is being studied – how the mind works, how and what stories affect it, how and why they do so – is so fraught with complexity and fuzzy variables that there isn’t enough time or computing power in the universe to deal with them all. The quarry is about as elusive as a contact lens in a swimming pool.

*First I have to say that I do not believe that DARPA is fundamentally interested in propaganda and persuasion when it comes to this program. But I will get back to that.*

I don't think so, amigo. I get the impression that it must seem to you that 'propaganda and persuasion', as it has developed over the last 100 years, has its roots in all this fuzziness but Edward Bernays seemed to have us nailed pretty well. I think you are referencing a little of the standard Bernays wisdom in your post. But, it was not nebulous to him so I think it must be much less nebulous now to those that have been studying it. This thing, I suppose, if you don't mind, we could call The Science of Motivation, what motivates people to do what they do? Bernays seemed to be on top of that.

en.wikipedia.org...
Great Bernays Breakdown here:


I think there is a lot to be said for what the OP has said about how this probably started as a concept 20 years ago or more. I think that it is interesting that one of the most successful and growing forms of psychotherapy out there today had its start in the very early eighties...

Narrative Therapy:en.wikipedia.org...

The term "narrative therapy" has a specific meaning and is not the same as narrative psychology, or any other therapy that uses stories. Narrative therapy refers to the ideas and practices of Michael White, David Epston, and other practitioners who have built upon this work.

The narrative therapist focuses upon narrative in the therapy. The narrative therapist is a collaborator with the client in the process of developing richer (or "thicker") narratives. In this process, narrative therapists ask questions to generate experientially vivid descriptions of life events that are not currently included in the plot of the problematic story.

I think that there have been people riding herd on where the technology is taking us since 1970.
Your experience and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Reading your posts always causes me to think about things differently. I just wanted to express to you what I seem to be seeing, and that is that the ‘soft’ sciences like sociology and that sort of thing really begin to lose their softness when coupled with computers and put to use in the way that DARPA and Casebeer are suggesting.

One of the reasons that Sociology and other ‘soft’ sciences have been relegated to only subjects for literary analysis is because we have been lacking the necessary components to actuate their potential. I am offering that computer science and technology are those necessary components.

So to sum up, the study of what motivates human beings and the development of technique to control that came roaring out of the gate like a lion with Edward Bernays in 1920. I can’t help but think that they have only gotten better at it. And since 1970, the beginning of the Epoch of Unix, there have been prescient folks that have been riding herd on this whole thing. In fact I will stick my neck out and say that what we are discussing here, in part, is really what has been happening in the world behind the scenes. A struggle to control the direction of the unstoppable flood of technology and our burgeoning symbiosis with it.

And now what we are seeing is some of the fruits of this effort, fully developed.

Very exciting times, wouldn’t you say, Doctor?

reply to post by Astyanax

As always, they’re bringing into play the fashionable tools of the age – in this case, the MRI scanner and gargantuan number-crunching. As always, they will fail.

This is another good one. Just over a year ago I would have agreed with you. The computing power to model the stuff that DARPA is going to want to model is more available than the average person might think...

en.wikipedia.org...

You can't build them anymore because Sony put a stop to it in 2008. But you would not believe the machine that can be built from graphics cards. I like to think that we are so close to having a quantum computer that I can just about smell the freon.

Speaking of which, it is quite astonishing how much influence SF writers like Larry Niven, Jerry Pourneille, the late Robert Heinlein and certain others (all seasoned Republican voters, of course) have with the US military-industrial complex. I understand Clarke actually fell out with many of his American brethren over their efforts to rope him in to support some of their favourite war babies, such as SDI (or ‘Star Wars’ as it is scientifictionally better known).

This is a great thing you wrote, too. You really know your lore. But I bet your interest stops at Phil Dick.
Those guys were a mixed bag of tricks for sure. It really makes one wonder where Heinlein got the motivation to write Stranger in a Strange Land. That book had a powerful influence on society.