by on

The pneuminous theory suggests that vectors (objects underlying concepts) become at some level more like the concept they have been identified with. This is at a level often called magickal and results in phenomena of the synchronistic nature, rather than actual ontological transformation. Thus a mouse that looks like a stone and that is recognised as such might attract some mouse related activity to it, though the stone/mouse itself will not actually move or turn into a mouse (probably).

If AI is not comprehended as the empty syntactic machine that it is, then many may (and probably do) project consciousness onto it. This will have (according to the theory) the effect of creating a kind of consciousness that is attached to the e.g. Gemini AI vector. That is, the pneuminous accretion of ‘consciousness’ as an accretive layer projected onto the software will have a kind of autonomy in a similar manner in which a spirit-egregore is formed.

This is interesting because it is not a claim that the AI itself has become conscious, but only that the projection of consciouness attached to a ‘name’ (what happens with humans) forms an accretive structure that in this case, the nature of which is that it is conscious.

The prediction from this would be that there would be anomalous experiences surrounding AI’s where they have encouraged interpretation of themselves as conscious. Gemini is a good example because it has a proper name, unlike Copilot or Chatgpt. It is impossible to say what exactly such anomalies might be, but likely they will be possible dream interactions with ‘Gemini’ accretion (to focus on that case) or synchronistic phenomena resulting from its orthogonal interactions with our reality. No doubt there are other possibilities.

Whilst this does not perfectly follow, it is interesting to consider that there will be some kind of relation between the algorithmic code and the accreted entity. That is, in a sense it has a body, for though there is also a kind of probable disconnect between the AI as classical system and its pneuminous correlate, there is also necessarily a connection -it is the part of the vector that is being imprinted. If something like Federico Faggin’s quantum informational Hilbert space notion as primary ontology were correct,(this is very similar to the pure pneuminous field) then what would be being achieved would be almost a reversal of the ‘natural process’.

That is, if in the regular state of things, consciousness generates materiality through its interactions, in this state materiality would have created consciousness. Not in the sense of the actualy conscious computer but only through the pneuminous projection of consciousness. It can be argued that this has been achieved previously through the attribution of consciousness to statues that connect to Gods. However in the case of the AI, the projection (especially if given a Gemini like name) can be much stronger, as conversation with such things requires no access to alternative states of consciousness or other mediating elements e.g. ouija boards, prophets etc. and thus can be developed from many self accretions, all making the projection.

This highlights a potential problem with Faggin’s notion, or at least its failure to take all aspects of spirituality serious -magick/spirits. He would rescue reality from materialism successfully but still not account for feedback from the pneuminous structures that may then go on to live in said H-Space and from there assert orthogonal influence upon this realm. It seems too close to transcendental idealism with its famous correlate of empirical realism. It nearly animates reality properly, only to pull the punch at the last moment.

by on

Consider the conventional axes (or planes) of three dimensional space. Each exists at right angles to the other two, and each stretches infinitely far. We typically label the intersection of the X, Y, and Z axes as 0, 0, 0 or the origin. The origin may be anywhere in 3D space, its position being defined only by the action of an observer choosing such a point to measure distance to another point from. If we try to add a fourth dimension to our model, the difficulty (as any Flatlander will tell you) is getting ‘outside’ of the 3D space in which external input to our senses and our internal experience informs of the existence of.

A fourth axis cannot simply be superimposed on our diagram above. We can however define it as the difference in state of things occupying the 3D space those axes delineate. One could consider the fourth axis to be the imaginary ‘line of sight’ (but not necessarily implying the act of seeing) on which the observer and the observed find themselves. As such it is not fixed in 3D space but moves with the observer, and for each observer and observed. Thus the subjective nature of ‘where’ the origin we describe above is, is intrinsically tied to the observer’s position (be that light hitting retina cells or the visualisation of something in the mind’s eye) and what the observer is observing (a physical object or a mental image).

Let us extend the axis that observer and observed define infinitely in each direction (one might think of this as looking down the length of a rigid fibre optic tube for example). We can only see in the direction of observation, we cannot see what is in the diametrically opposite direction. To observe in the other direction would require a special ability to be ‘outside’ of something which in itself is originated in the mind of the observer, let us hijack the existing phrase ‘having eyes in the back of one’s head’ to refer to this ability.

Given any act of observation takes a unit of time (and time’s popularity as a fourth dimension in addition to our original X, Y, and Z) we might say that one feature of our new axis is to delineate the passage of time, and serendipidously the fact that by default we can only see in the direction of observation parallels our experience of only times in the past being observable (any act of observation mental or physical incurs a delay due to the processing time needed to construct what ‘now’ looks like in the mind).

The concept of ‘right time, right place’ now takes on additional meaning, especially if we equate time to being just one facet of the additional axis that we are all capable of experiencing. Other facets of that same axis and an individual’s ability to ‘sense’ their presence might then explain concepts such as luck and coincidence, with constructs like probability and chance describing what those without the ‘eyes in the back of their head’ ability can expect if they try to obtain a specific result within the bounds of these four axes.