Know why LBGT, social media, and so many other changes in human behavior are ascendant? No fear! Ure’s been evolving a new “Compact Digital Cosmology” to answer just such inquiries.
One of the points in my latest book (“Psychocartography: Mapping the Human Dream“) that continues to rattle around in my head is how “screwed-up” the field of psychology seems.
We need to remember that basic Freudian concepts were from the early steampunk era: 1885. The world back then was much “flatter” than it is today. As a consequence, psychology has not evolved into specialties in the way way medicine, for example, has.
While there may be usefulness left to the “three-legged milk stool” of Id, Ego, and Super Ego, my sense is that in a multidimensional shared reality, we need something more robust than a milk stool.
Broadly, we might begin by dividing psychology into individual and group a little better. Because what seems to get missed is there is a planetary psychology and it’s operating modes are similar to individual samples but with extensibility into global politics, for example.
This all matters greatly, since the topology of how the world work is constantly changing.
Why, yes, indeed! Just as early intelligence research into how “smart or dumb” people were was distilled into a 2-dimensional rendering – that was later refined into a multi-dimensional topology – so, too, many things we think about in two-dimensions are really evolving multidimensional data structures.
While this may seem a bit far-fetched, let me roll though what got me on this path.
1. How would be teach AI a cosmology that “made sense?”
Let’s see: A “regular cosmology” would explain to AI “origin and development of the universe.” Therefore, a Digital Cosmology would attempt to explain evolution of the “digiverse.”
Let’s face it, feeding an AI a Bible, Koran, or Tibetan Book of the Dead would only result in yet-another-partisan believing in a particular rule-set.
2. Is there a “data-based” approach?
Yes, possibly so.
From the top: Humans (in my own work-up of psychology) spend their time in three general domains. They line up like so:
Pretty sure you’re aware of the waking state, since you’re able to read this. The boundary zone is where deep meditation, powering through physical challenges, and religious experience – oh and let’s not leave out drugs! – happen. Enough of these latter and quick as Bob’s Ure uncle, you drop into sleep or dreams (of which, hallucinations are a special class).
Next we ask “What has changed in the past 1,000 years or so, that might vary the width of the Boundary Zone: Perhaps compressing it like this:
Which now gets us to the data on “reincarnation” that was gently written out of the Bible with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Yet, even here, hints of “rising from the dead” is held out…just a longer line for that ride because it doesn’t happen until Judgment Day and I haven’t see the date on that in a memo, yet.
There’s a dandy Psychology Today article (“ The Problem With Reincarnation – It’s not the lack of evidence “) that includes this juicy bit:
“According to Wikipedia the percentage of people who believe in reincarnation ranges from 12 to 44% depending on the country being surveyed (in the U.S. it’s 20%).“
Parallel with reincarnation, a growing body of evidence also argues for past lives being semi-recoverable through regression, and personal deep meditation.
One way to understand this topology is to generalize that Past Lives are another realm on the “other side of the Boundary Zone” like so…
Here’s where Ure’s Digital Cosmology (UDC) gets particularly useful.
Studies seem to indicate that everyone who has had multiple past lives, is very likely to have experienced lives as both males and females. And THAT – if the Boundary Layer is sufficiently thinned – might offer a greater number of past-life issues to “print-through” over into the Nominal Shared Waking State Reality which I refer to in my book as the NSR.
That leads to a potential data structure like this:
Since it would be the objective of reincarnation to resolve past life issues (of what’s call burning karma) many more people would be able to deal with past life sexual issues in today’s shared waking-state world.
What might be increasing the number of LBGTQ persons in today’s world is a thinner boundary zone. Schematically, it might be something like this:
Does a greater fraction of the population today use alcohol or drugs than in past times? Certainly in Colorado and Washington state, lol.
But might electronica also be responsible for a thinning of the boundary zone? Remember, humans have only been tinkering with radio for a bit over 100-years. Even with this apprehended, the radio waves surrounding us generally didn’t reach 100 MHz until the early 1950’s. Some of us olde fartes can remember TV’s with ONLY 13 channels and no UHF’s. We have no measurable data on how this changes “permeability” of width of the Boundary Zone.
Connectica is another aspect few pay attention to: That is, where in the olden tymes a person could make it through life knowing 50 (or fewer) people, Today I’m connected with 300- Outlook contacts, a few Peoplenomics subscribers, a Linked-In network of 750 AND that’s before we get to the Big Connectors like FB, Twitter, Instagram and…well, you got the list.
Another example of “connectica” is in education. As you can see in this Statistica chart, in 1949-1950, only 104 women and 328 thousand for men were bagging a four-year degree. Round off to 433,000 in a country with a population (1950) of about 152.3 million, so call is less than 3-10ths of one percent.
More recently, over a million women and 798,000 met were snagging the paper. 0.57 of one percent. Meaning on a per capita basis, college grads have about doubled. Does that squeeze down the boundary?
We also note that many religions offer prohibitions on drugs and alcohol. Might that have something to do with maintaining a wide Boundary Zone?
There is much more to study. For example, the Wikipedia entry on homosexuality and religion.
But for now, Ure’s Compact Digital Cosmology and its Boundary Zone concepts, is a useful thought-modeling tool.
3. Can You Reduce this is an Algorithm?
Yes, I believe so.
In fact, it may already have been done and we’re increasing the (boundary zone) thinning pressures even now.
AI is quickly evolving. While it’s not “perfect” it’s well-suited for exploration into ideas most humans can’t fathom. Like sorting out the world’s deep divisions over religion and views of human psychology, for example.
I like to think of such tasks as trying to assemble the largest “picture puzzle” ever. There are so many ways the world might be assembled into a whole and coherent view. But, which one is the “best fit?”
As outlined here, there are some ways to model it, even for a crank in the Outback like me. But, what a dandy AI mission, huh? Feed a super inferential engine all the data and books p-assed down through history and ask “What’s the best fit of our history?”
I think the answer might be quite surprising. And, it might even lay bare one of the core concepts around here: People will do anything to build a business model and pe3rhaps we could evolve further as a species if we could do less business model building and instead do more science.
Could AI help us evolve a Compact Digital Cosmology? Perhaps so. But as the history tells me, there’s a lot of money, and hence inertia, in existing models. Perhaps AI would like to try moderating that ?
Write when you get rich,