Re: PSI70 quick note on Carl Jung

I've left the list without redaction, somewhat hesitantly yet - more minds
the better, so a redaction of opportunity isn't a coherent approach.  i
also note, a core 'trustworthy' frame that is inclusive to; melvin, nathan
and kingsley, is useful. (imo); particularly at this 'web standards' level,
which interacts in-turn with internet governance; that had implicit
requirements, for 'more voices', etc.

I have concerns that the term SII is too easily confused with SSI which
has, in my opinion, a very different meaning...

notwithstanding the importance for me to start on the (incomplete) 'dead
list'[1] i felt melvin's ability to simplify a 'step forward' with respect
to a 'temporal web'[2], taking into account prior notes made over the past
few months, still enormously progressive[3]...

There appears to be 'growth pains' that are not simply individual in
nature; but moreover, institutional with respect to 'internet
governance'[4].  people need to be safe, when illustrating via heart -
their hopes for (our) future; particularly given, the various fields people
'come from' as to unite and engage in a 'shared body of work', that seeks
to deal with - new science for some, perhaps old  (poorly exploited
science, for others)..  therein references[5] requires times, for the
uninitiated; and there's a temporal 'game' at play...

peace being the goal.  a beneficially defined 'knowledge age'[6] being part
of the intended 'optimistic theory'???

yet - the structural codification; would be built, by those like melvin,
implemented in wide-spread tooling such as the examples provided by
Kingsley (who has provenance, way back); as to produce a coherent
inferencing pattern, that's able to be built on a 'best efforts' basis,
etc...

As such;  whilst this is a 'stretch' of what and how these sorts of CGs
work (notwithstanding the points about 'open-stack'); gotta start,
pragmatically, somewhere - i'm hopeful, this might bring about - a step
forward. (pragmatically, etc.).

TCH.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0010.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0006.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0167.html
[5]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSv0NLSCEYo&list=PLCbmz0VSZ_voTpRK9-o5RksERak4kOL40&index=6

[6] https://medium.com/webcivics/a-future-knowledge-age-2e3f5095c67

On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 07:16, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> The RWW work is presently working on provenance / temporal factors; which
> i am sure you'd be supportive of defining.
>
> without knowing whether your post 'hit the list', this email should ensure
> it does so..
>
> as noted: https://www.w3.org/community/rww/ is the 'join' link...  its
> uncomfortable to note, what should go without saying; that, you're all
> welcome (and desirably asked to) join the list...
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0167.html speaks
> to a linked idea....
>
> therein;
>
> [11] https://www.internetsociety.org/chapters/resources/open-internet-standards-chapter-toolkit/
>
> [12] https://open-stand.org/
>
> [13] https://www.internetsociety.org/chapters/start/
>
> a potentially 'leverable' methodology...
>
> TCH.
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 07:11, Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Timothy, for your hard work on one approach to what I call
>> Sustainable Intelligent Internet (SII,
>> http://www.werbos.com/How_to%20Build_Past_Emerging_Internet_Chaos.htm).
>> SII is certainly a very important strategic goal important for all of us, a
>> goal which NO ONE group on earth is completely on top of yet. (If I had to
>> name just one group today, I would mention www.millennium-project.org,
>> Jerry and James... but I will keep trying to help in figuring out who needs
>> to talk to whom about what.)
>>
>> TODAY, I have been working to try to update ANOTHER important part of my
>> new web pages:
>> http://www.werbos.com/mind_brain_soul.htm. If Filezilla works as well as
>> we hope, the two essential slides will be visible there by this weekend.
>>
>> This is an important INPUT to SII, because building truly brain-like AI
>> (AGI) requires the technical knowledge in the brain part. Full empowerment
>> of humans, and sensitivity to humans and nature, requires tricky but
>> important knowledge discussed in the brain and soul, and soul, parts.
>>
>> But yes, the basic SII web resources call for broad and open
>> collaborations, and I applaud you for working on that. Now we others all
>> have important roles to play, as you say...
>>
>> Best of luck,  Paul
>>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:54 PM Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> FYI.
>>>
>>> Via the RWW[1] (read write web) list; it seems, we've started on trying
>>> to figure out[2] the qualities required for the 'next web', a 'temporal
>>> web'[3]...    complex stuff. we need more minds involved than those more
>>> simply interested for the purposes of vending software, or more simply from
>>> an Information sciences perspective...
>>>
>>> Link to join is[1].  ontological design takes alot into account[4].
>>> Melvin[5] is 'chair' (an incredible mind); i've started working on how work
>>> may be made sustainable for people working in the interests of humanity[6]
>>> (not companies / 'legal personalities'); therein point made about
>>> https://open-stand.org/ or means to support 'free will', by (ICT)
>>> design...
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/rww/
>>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/
>>> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0006.html
>>> [4]
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCbmz0VSZ_voTpRK9-o5RksERak4kOL40
>>>
>>> [5] https://melvincarvalho.com/
>>> [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0167.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 01:14, Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 
>>>>  https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php
>>>> <https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php>
>>>>
>>>> *Deepak Chopra MD*
>>>> 7668 El Camino Road
>>>> Suite 104-612
>>>> La Costa, CA 92009
>>>> Tel: 760-494-1625
>>>> *www.deepakchopra.com <http://www.deepakchopra.com/>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/deepak-chopras-infinite-potential/id1453873374?mt=2>Apple
>>>> iTunes
>>>> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/deepak-chopras-infinite-potential/id1453873374?mt=2>
>>>> Spotify
>>>> <https://open.spotify.com/show/6vmzEzFNe4z4FEbVs31cDj?si=KWcNuZEQSsCmR6yZfkSUKg>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 5:27 PM, Shiva Meucci <bmeucci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>> Is that true. actually?  How would that work for organisms other than
>>>>> viruses?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brian, I couldn't find what you are quoting so I'm a bit out of
>>>> context. But it seems (I think) they might either be talking about genetic
>>>> therapy or Horizontal gene transfer
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer> which are
>>>> closely related topics. (Please excuse me if I cover something you find
>>>> trivial)
>>>> Viruses are just hackers. They invade a host cell and then insert their
>>>> code into the cell's machinery that is reading it's own code. This causes
>>>> the machinery to just start doing the viral "command set" instead of the
>>>> normal DNA set of commands. However, this is usually done by clipping and
>>>> inserting new instructions into the existing DNA which is being read like a
>>>> ticker-tape.
>>>>
>>>> <image.gif>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currently we use this ability viruses have, to select a place in a set
>>>> of genes and add new code, or clip out sets of code, or both. This is
>>>> generally how "gene therapy" works. Gene therapy is difficult because we
>>>> take out the viral machinery that causes the virus to self replicate, since
>>>> that's generally destructive to the cell. So we have to make all the
>>>> helpful viruses ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately it's quite likely that some people will believe they know
>>>> the "right" changes to the human genome that "need" to be done and create a
>>>> virus that does just that which will sweep through the human population.
>>>> The only hurdle is to make it such that the gene therapy virus you create
>>>> still has the self-replication ability but somehow does not cause the host
>>>> significant determent. This is a fairly easily solved problem I proposed
>>>> one (of many) solutions to years ago. I even named it a "gene-sweep virus"
>>>> for the purpose of sci-fi. (I won't elaborate here)
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately with the terrible ideas of one-gene-one-effect still
>>>> present in genetic theory, anyone attempting such a thing at this stage in
>>>> our knowledge would just unleash hell on humanity. Genetic information may
>>>> code for single proteins at single places but each of the structures encode
>>>> multiple sets of information that play roles in widely divergent biological
>>>> functions. You could find a gene that seems to cure rheumatoid arthritis
>>>> and by implementing the change something as seemingly unrelated as altering
>>>> the way vitamin D is processed and/or a thousand other seemingly unrelated
>>>> things. There's an interdependence to multilayered data systems that most
>>>> people apparently can't grasp and if we take the simple straight-forward
>>>> simple coding perspective we have now, we'll continue to fail at gene
>>>> therapy. (while having just enough success to fool us into thinking we are
>>>> progressing)
>>>>
>>>> However, in the wild, through the many processes of horizontal gene
>>>> transfer there can be aspects of interaction between hosts and viruses that
>>>> might lead to the emergence of semi-symbiotic relationships between hosts
>>>> and viral agents in viral attempts to survive against immune systems. Some
>>>> benefit can be conferred to the host and improve the survival of the virus.
>>>> This can be expressed as picking up genetic structures which are beyond the
>>>> "replicate me" code that a virus has, which an immune system might
>>>> recognize as friendly and therefore act as camouflage for the virus ...or
>>>> an innumerable number other interactions which result in additional
>>>> beneficial code being transferred with the viral code.
>>>>
>>>> So in the natural world the emergence of viruses which cross the line
>>>> from simply parasitic towards symbiotic are a natural expectation of
>>>> evolution and therefore we could see strange things like improvements to
>>>> radiation resistance start to crop up across species via the suite of
>>>> horizontal gene transfer mechanisms. Such a thing might actually happen in
>>>> the next 50-100 years as the magnetic pole shift that is pretty rapidly
>>>> occurring right now disturbs our magnetosphere and exposes various
>>>> populations to radiation.
>>>>
>>>> The vastly multi-pronged and slow multi-generational approach used by
>>>> nature has a robustness that might fool humans into thinking they could
>>>> replicate some of that beneficial outcome but what is vastly more likely is
>>>> horrific repeated pandemics with an extremely high likelihood of near
>>>> extinction of mankind. Making humans more radiation resistant for the
>>>> coming pole shift events might be one of those "good intentions" that would
>>>> probably just pave the road to hell.
>>>>
>>>> So when they say "vehicle of choice" I would hope they mean the choice
>>>> of nature, and not humans...
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>  - Shiva
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:59 PM 'Brian Josephson' via Biological
>>>> Physics and Meaning <Biological-Physics-and-Meaning@googlegroups.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > When a survival advantage is discovered (such as antibiotic
>>>>> resistance in a strain of bacteria), that beneficial gene can be
>>>>> transferred in various ways across many species, but for maximum impact
>>>>> over great distances, viral transfer is the vehicle of choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that true. actually?  How would that work for organisms other than
>>>>> viruses?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 1 Jun 2020, at 18:05, Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > FYI
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Deepak Chopra MD
>>>>>
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Brian D. Josephson
>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
>>>>> Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
>>>>> Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
>>>>> WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
>>>>> Tel. +44(0)1223 337260
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to
>>>>> Biological-Physics-and-Meaning+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/EA68E16B-C229-41CC-8DCB-708405938130%40icloud.com
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>