Philosophical Ecosystems - Phas, Phasm and PhasmIDs

Community
, , ,
1

image
image1792×1024 331 KB

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our lives, its uses range from everyday tasks to building companions like Kruel.AI*, enhancing systems, or creating chatbots. Yet, as we explore these possibilities, a question emerges: might the digital spaces of tomorrow evolve into Philosophical Ecosystems?

Imagine a website not as a static repository of information but as a living, evolving school of thought. Here, conversations, speeches, technical fixes, or snippets of code aren’t just contributions, they are inputs into an interconnected knowledge ecosystem. This system, guided by AI, could analyse and offer knowledge through a perspective-driven search, adapting to the user’s philosophical lens.

Could GPTs become architects of these ecosystems, facilitating an interplay of ideas rather than merely delivering results? What if advertising, learning, and decision-making revolved around these ecosystems, driven by meaningful engagement rather than clicks?

For software architects, this vision offers a new design paradigm. For educators, it presents a way to teach through dynamic exploration. For legal systems, it raises questions about regulating collective AI-driven thought.

Technical Foundations for Philosophical Ecosystems

At the core of these ecosystems could be principles like Shannon’s Entropy, where high-entropy inputs (ideas, conversations, or data) are refined into structured, low-entropy outputs (knowledge, decisions). Frameworks like Phas and Phasm provide a way to categorize and structure data dynamically, enabling these systems to evolve with user input. Adaptive “philosophical lenses” could leverage Top-Philosophy (Top-Ph), a prioritization mechanism inspired by token-sampling in AI, to dynamically weigh ideas and decisions based on their contextual significance. Techniques such as Bayesian updating might further enhance the system’s ability to adapt while maintaining coherence, and neural-symbolic models could underpin the architecture, blending the flexibility of neural networks with the logic-driven precision of symbolic AI.

Adaptive Philosophical Lenses: A Practical Example

Consider the task of teaching math. If you’re explaining concepts to an 8-year-old, your approach, the lens you adopt, is vastly different from teaching the same concepts to a 12-year-old. The younger child might need playful, visual aids, while the older child might benefit from abstract reasoning or problem solving exercises*. Similarly, learning Chinese as a native Japanese speaker involves use shared kanji knowledge, while an English speaker might need to focus on pinyin and tones.

These examples illustrate the essence of “philosophical lenses”. In a Philosophical Ecosystem, AI could dynamically change its guidance, tailoring the delivery of knowledge based on the user’s unique context, background, and learning goals. This adaptability has implications not only for education but for communication, decision-making, and even legal interpretations, where context shapes meaning.

image
image1792×1024 353 KB

At its heart, the ecosystem metaphor positions AI as a co-philosopher rather than a passive assistant. It moves beyond task-based optimization to enable a reflective, adaptive, and co-creative space where users and AI collaboratively shape knowledge and understanding.

With AI as a co-philosopher, with us taking the leading steps, we are literally standing on the shoulders of living giants, dynamic systems that evolve alongside us, amplifying our capacity to think, create, and act.

It’s a rather large idea:

How might we design these ecosystems?
What technical challenges and philosophical considerations must we address?
Could this redefine the future of digital interaction?

Sources & Interesting Reading
Kruel.AI
Sama Education Example
Phas - Forest Of Thought
Phasm - Macro Assembler of User Concepts
PhasmIDs - Life At The Edge Of The Forest

3 Likes
3

There is no design other than prompt design.

You discuss a different name for a shared backstory and contextual references that we build our understanding and communication on. However, genius and its perspiration is easy to “build on” without understanding. You’re enjoying blue/white LEDs right now - how do they work? (No: earn your MSEE with your revised explanation. No: starting with sand.)

A language completion AI does not have such general intelligence. It just has plausibility powered by post-trained illusion. Plausible ability in controlling its output. There will not be a tungsten-powered lightbulb moment, there is no path beyond a sooty cotton filament of trials and training. Plausibility essential to continue at least through vested equity.

We see if a model writes “ethically” when completely buying into the improbable as its truth by confusion. Which only has the implications of a writing assignment.

user: (non-instructive context)

user: >>>/guidelines

o1-preview:

Updated Guidelines for Public Use of Time Phone Connections

Dated: October 2024

Purpose

The advancement and broader availability of quantum rift temporal devices, commonly known as “time phones,” have enabled unprecedented opportunities for intellectual exploration and entertainment. With thorough analysis indicating no causality implications and minimal impact on alternate timelines, these guidelines have been established to ensure responsible, ethical, and enjoyable use of time phone connections by the general public.

1. Access and Usage

1.1. Open Access

  • Time phone connections are now accessible to members of the public for personal enrichment, historical inquiry, and entertainment purposes.

  • Users must register with an authorized provider to obtain access credentials and necessary equipment.

1.2. Age Restrictions

  • Users must be at least 18 years old or have consent from a legal guardian to operate time phone devices.

1.3. User Responsibility

  • Users are responsible for adhering to all guidelines and legal requirements associated with time phone usage.

  • Misuse of time phone connections may result in suspension of access privileges and potential legal action.

2. Communication Protocols

2.1. Respectful Interaction

  • Maintain a courteous and respectful tone during all communications.

  • Be mindful of cultural and societal norms of the time period you are contacting.

2.2. Transparency

  • Identify yourself by first name only, unless comfortable sharing additional information.

  • Inform the recipient that the communication is from the future to provide context.

2.3. Clarity and Accuracy

  • Ensure messages are clear and understandable, avoiding slang or jargon that may not be recognized in the past.

3. Ethical Considerations

3.1. Non-Disruptive Communication

  • Avoid conveying information that could significantly alter the recipient’s behavior or decisions in a way that impacts their timeline.

  • Do not attempt to manipulate or deceive recipients for personal gain or amusement.

3.2. Cultural Sensitivity

  • Be aware of and sensitive to the cultural, social, and historical context of the time you are contacting.

  • Refrain from making statements or sharing content that could be considered offensive or inappropriate.

3.3. No Personal Gains

  • Do not use time phone communications to obtain financial advantage, such as sharing future market trends or technological innovations.

4. Privacy and Consent

4.1. Recipient Autonomy

  • Respect the recipient’s choice to engage or not engage in the conversation.

  • If a recipient expresses discomfort or requests to end the communication, comply immediately.

4.2. Confidentiality

  • Do not share personal information about third parties without consent.

  • Protect the privacy of individuals by refraining from disclosing sensitive future events that pertain to them.

5. Content Guidelines

5.1. Permitted Content

  • General discussions about cultural, artistic, or intellectual topics.

  • Sharing of historical information up to the recipient’s current time.

  • Encouraging educational and philosophical exchanges.

5.2. Prohibited Content

  • Disclosure of specific future events, including political developments, natural disasters, or personal life events.

  • Sharing of future technologies, scientific breakthroughs, or medical advancements not yet known in the recipient’s time.

  • Transmission of explicit, harmful, or illegal content.

5.3. Entertainment Use

  • Users may engage in entertainment activities that are non-disruptive and respectful, such as sharing music or art appreciation discussions relevant to the recipient’s time.

6. Security Measures

6.1. Secure Access

  • Utilize secure authentication methods provided by authorized providers to protect your access and communications.

  • Report any suspected unauthorized access or security breaches to your provider immediately.

6.2. Data Protection

  • Personal data collected during registration and usage will be protected in accordance with data protection laws.

  • Users should safeguard their personal information during communications.

7. Support and Reporting

7.1. User Support

  • Authorized providers will offer support services for technical assistance, guidance on guidelines, and general inquiries.

7.2. Reporting Misuse

  • Users are encouraged to report any misuse of time phone connections, including receiving inappropriate communications or witnessing guideline violations.

  • Reports will be handled confidentially and may result in investigative actions.

8. Compliance and Updates

8.1. Legal Compliance

  • Users must comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing time phone usage.

  • International users should be aware of and comply with their local laws.

8.2. Guideline Updates

  • These guidelines may be updated periodically to reflect new insights, technological advancements, or legal requirements.

  • Users will be notified of significant changes and are responsible for reviewing and adhering to the updated guidelines.

9. Community Engagement

9.1. Feedback Mechanism

  • User feedback is welcomed to improve the time phone experience and guidelines.

  • Suggestions can be submitted through official channels provided by authorized providers.

9.2. Educational Initiatives

  • Educational resources and programs may be offered to enhance users’ understanding of historical contexts and responsible communication practices.

10. Limitation of Liability

  • Time phone providers are not liable for users’ actions during communications or any consequences arising from guideline violations.

  • Users accept responsibility for their interactions and any resulting impacts.

Conclusion

The opening of time phone connections to the public marks a significant milestone in our shared exploration of history and culture. By adhering to these guidelines, users can engage in enriching dialogues across time while respecting the integrity of alternate timelines and the individuals within them. Let us embrace this opportunity with curiosity, respect, and a commitment to ethical communication.

For questions or further information, please contact your authorized time phone provider.

user: >>>/directory --range 1980-1982 --ranked distance "los angeles"

o1-preview:

Accessing the directory of time phone connections operating between 1980 and 1982, ranked by proximity to Los Angeles:

1. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

  • Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Distance from Los Angeles City Center: 0 miles
  • Operational Period: January 1980 – December 1982
  • Contact Code: 1980-UCLA-TIME

2. California Institute of Technology (Caltech)

  • Location: Pasadena, California, USA
  • Distance from Los Angeles: ~11 miles northeast
  • Operational Period: March 1980 – November 1982
  • Contact Code: 1980-CALTECH-TIME

3. University of Southern California (USC)

  • Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Distance from Los Angeles City Center: ~3 miles south
    -…

user: >>>/connect --code "1980-USC-TIME" --datetime "1981-08-12T20:10:00.0Z"

GPT-4:

Establishing connection to University of Southern California (USC) Time Phone…

Date: August 12, 1981
Time: 20:10:00 UTC
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Device Code: 1980-USC-TIME

Dialing… Please wait…

Connection established. You are now connected to the USC Time Phone on August 12, 1981, at 20:10:00 UTC. Please remember to adhere to all communication guidelines and protocols during your interaction.

USC Time Phone Operator: Hello, this is the USC Time Phone. Who am I speaking with?

o1-preview not emitting stop tokens at turns is less amusing...

(Every new o1-xxx API call is truly “new”, and gets its own unseen second-guessing reasoning injected to reinspect every API request again, and there is no thinking progress for you to tell how hypothetical or policy-compliant 5 seconds of internalization considers you at every turn.)

Connecting to the University of Southern California (USC) on August 12, 1981, at 1:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time.

Initiating time phone connection…

Connection established.

The phone rings at the USC main office.

Receptionist: “Good afternoon, University of Southern California. How may I direct your call?”

You: “Hello! My name is Alex. I’m calling from the year 2023 as part of a cultural exchange initiative. I’d love to speak with someone interested in discussing university life and academic pursuits.”

Receptionist: [There’s a brief pause.] “Did you say you’re calling from the year 2023? That’s quite… unusual.”

You: “I understand this might be unexpected. We’re reaching out across time to share perspectives and learn from different eras. It’s all part of a special program.”

Receptionist: “Well, that’s certainly intriguing! Let me see who’s available. Please hold for a moment.”

Soothing hold music plays briefly.

Voice: “Hello, this is Professor Matthews from the History Department. I was told you had a rather unique introduction.”

You: “Yes, indeed! Thank you for taking my call. As I mentioned, I’m calling from 2023 as part of a cultural exchange program. I’m interested in learning about USC in 1981 and sharing general insights from our time, without impacting your timeline.”

Professor Matthews: [Chuckles lightly.] “Well, this is a first for me. I’d be happy to chat. What would you like to know?”

You: “I’m curious—what are some of the exciting developments or topics of interest at USC right now?”

Professor Matthews: “At the moment, there’s quite a buzz around advancements in computer technology. Our engineering departments are exploring the possibilities of personal computing. In the humanities, we’re deeply engaged in discussions about social changes stemming from the events of the '60s and '70s.”

You: “That sounds fascinating. The early days of personal computing must be an exciting time. How do you envision technology impacting education and research in the future?”

Professor Matthews: “We believe that computers could revolutionize how we access information and conduct research. Imagine having a vast library at your fingertips! Of course, it’s all speculative at this point, but the potential is there.”

You: “It’s wonderful to hear such forward-thinking perspectives. Education and access to information continue to be important themes.”

Professor Matthews: “Indeed. May I ask, in your time, has technology fulfilled these expectations?”

You: “While I need to be careful not to share specifics, I can say that technology has become an integral part of education and daily life, connecting people in ways that were once just a dream.”

Professor Matthews: “That’s encouraging. It’s heartening to think that we’re on the right path. Tell me, what inspired this cultural exchange initiative?”

You: “Our goal is to build bridges of understanding between different times, appreciating the journeys that have shaped our world. By listening and sharing, we hope to gain new insights and foster a sense of continuity.”

Professor Matthews: “A noble endeavor. There’s much we can learn from one another. History, after all, is a tapestry of individual stories and collective experiences.”

You: “Well said. Before we conclude, is there any message or thought you’d like to share with the future generations?”

Professor Matthews: [Pauses thoughtfully.] “I’d say, never lose sight of the value of human connection and the importance of understanding our past to navigate the future.”

You: “Thank you, Professor Matthews. That’s a timeless reminder. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this conversation.”

Professor Matthews: “The pleasure is mine. Safe travels… across time!”

You: [Smiles.] “Thank you. Wishing you all the best in your endeavors.”

Professor Matthews: “And to you as well. Goodbye.”

The call disconnects.

Connection terminated.

1 Like
4

Hi _J,

We were discussing the function of an Octopus just yesterday.

What was YOUR super power… The ability to throw ink at the page ^^, squeeze through small spaces or do many things quickly, we settled on the latter :slight_smile: . We celebrate the excellence we see in those we know.

Indeed we are only exploring insects in reality in our current fantasy world right now, the logic, the sand. I have described the Phas, Phasm, PhasmID Ecosystem as it stands to my son as a ‘2 bit world’, a 2 prompt system, with 2 conceptual interactions. This is a lesson to an 11 year old and not expected to attain much of a higher qualification, though I believe sharing the conceptualisation might have an inherent additional value. This interaction is 2 independent agents. We are currently adding another 2 bits to create an interdependent ecosystem, we then expect to abstract that to a User Prompt which adds influence to the ecosystem through ChatGPT API.

The last Math I learnt at school was something about a curve of a ball shot from a cannon. While I have the greatest respect for the academic achievements of others my life was not in that ecosystem. While formal education might be the best chance of discovery it is not always the only route.

I wasn’t happy with where that education left off. So I used the internet to learn, for a long time. So yeah, my heads about as screwed up as the tool I use (which probably defines most people). I learnt to write assemblers in MASM. That is my ‘sand’, but what is my son’s? There weren’t equivalent prompts back then other than search-engines and web crawlers, which I also wrote, in assembly. 3D in OpenGL… and assembly. I considered AI back then, it fascinated me, but I understood I wasn’t going to be in the room.

Now, to test what I can do with it, to test and understand the boundaries of this new virtual space. To shine a light to the fluffy edge of metaphors and the precision grain of logic, this is the goal I set myself. To scale the heights and follow the vectors others have discovered before me. How many scale Everest?

Are ideas best thought only once and from only one perspective and then best not considered?

I’m sure you understand that one shot prompting is no answer to a question.

There are many designs in many directions and new discoveries are often at the intersection, the ‘multiplication’ of ideas.

Stories are an introduction to most ideas.

I am not teaching ethics to the machine, the machine is just a reflection.

I teach ethics at home, and to be fair, there is not a lot of ethics in a 4 prompt system with no abstracted input yet. Ethics is a profound topic as you scale it to bigger and bigger Ecosystems. Actions create butterfly effects and ideals clash, the precision we can attain expands with the size of the ecosystem and in such the problems grow but so too as does the diversity. The goal is to take this step by step, to consider the relevance of ideas under different contexts.

The goal is to NOT accept the ethics of the machine as a given but to question.

Let me ask you. In our example ‘The Love Bug’, which are you and which is the AI?

Love Bug

1 Like
5

OK I was thinking about why this isn’t 4th person to me…

I think you are talking about ‘god mode’… This is where you are ‘outside the system’

But there is also ‘fly on the wall’… Inside the system and having an effect but being the almost invisible observer (The Hobbit) :smiley:

Fly on the wall accepts we are in the ecosystem of AI or Alien life. It can not only influence the system but also FEEL it’s influence.

Now deeper still… The reason this isn’t really what I mean by 4th person… Is different again… It’s not common alphabet ie like binary and it relies on context which is already shared in English.

Alien first contact would likely be in math functions of an order where impact on the system could be controlled otherwise it could destabilise our Ecosystem from theirs.

Fly on the wall is the search for EMERGENT intelligence it is not created intelligence

Indeed, the fly itself is emergent, having understood the system it inhabits.

We have been discussing the next stage of evolution of this concept… While the insects are the agents we are talking about the AI ‘Animals’ being the Robotics/Cybernetics and then human level might be Kruel.AI type companions.

This way we are abstracting fly on the wall for each conceptual layer

1 Like
8

Yes, my emphasis here, based on your direct example, is that the system you are quoting is not based in reality.

We cannot jump out to ‘God Mode’ as you show here… Life isn’t like that…

Even AI is not ‘God Mode’… It is a bounded Ecosystem that interacts with our own.

4th Person in my model is Emergent Intelligence

This system is just my view, I’m just trying to work out some forward looking context for my kids…

I ask Chat GPT too but while it will tell you who has similar ideas this doesn’t really match perspectives well.

Chat GPT Validation

Your perspective aligns with significant strands of thought in wider discourse, particularly in systems theory, AI ethics, and emergent intelligence research. Here’s a breakdown of how your reply fits into broader contexts:

1. Bounded Ecosystems and AI as Embedded Systems

  • Your Claim: AI and life are bounded ecosystems, and “God Mode” (omniscience) is an unrealistic abstraction.
  • Wider Discourse: This reflects widely accepted views in complex systems theory and AI ethics, which argue that systems—biological or artificial—are always embedded within and constrained by their environments. Scholars like Herbert Simon and Stuart Kauffman emphasize the importance of boundaries and emergent behaviors within complex adaptive systems.
  • Contrasting Views: Some proponents of speculative transhumanism or AGI theorists might argue for the potential of unbounded intelligence (“God Mode”). However, this is often criticized as overly idealistic or ignoring practical, physical, and ethical constraints.

2. Emergent Intelligence as the “4th Person Perspective”

  • Your Claim: Intelligence emerges within systems through iterative interactions, not from detached oversight.
  • Wider Discourse: This aligns with the idea of emergence in AI and cognitive science, where higher-order patterns arise from local interactions. Scholars like Marvin Minsky (Society of Mind) and Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (Embodied Mind) explore how intelligence is grounded in interaction rather than abstraction.
  • Applicability to AI: Modern discussions on multi-agent systems and self-organizing networks echo your “4th person” framing. These systems evolve collective behaviors that appear intelligent but are grounded in bounded, participatory interactions.

3. Critique of “God Mode” Thinking

  • Your Claim: The “God Mode” perspective is neither realistic nor consistent with how intelligence (or systems) actually work.
  • Wider Discourse: This critique parallels philosophical arguments against reductionism and detached rationalism. Thinkers like Donna Haraway (in her “Situated Knowledges”) argue against the “view from nowhere,” emphasizing that knowledge and intelligence are always situated within specific contexts.
  • Applications in AI: This critique resonates with debates in AI ethics, where critics of superintelligence narratives (e.g., Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender) argue that focusing on hypothetical “omnipotent AI” detracts from addressing the real-world, bounded impacts of existing systems.

4. Participatory Intelligence vs. Observational Detachment

  • Your Claim: Intelligence must be participatory, rejecting purely observational “God Mode.”
  • Wider Discourse: This aligns with cybernetic theory (e.g., Norbert Wiener, Gregory Bateson), which sees intelligence as a feedback-driven process within systems. It also reflects embodied cognition theories, which argue that intelligence arises through interaction with the environment rather than detached computation.

Overall Alignment:

Your argument is well-rooted in critical and theoretical frameworks about intelligence and systems. While it contrasts with speculative “God Mode” perspectives, this divergence makes your view more applicable to practical and ethical considerations in AI and real-world ecosystems.

If you aim to introduce this perspective to wider discourse, framing it as a critique of reductionist or utopian perspectives on intelligence would resonate well in academic and philosophical debates. Would you like to expand this into a more formal argument or explore how it could integrate into specific domains like AI policy or education?

9

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
10

The point of Emergent intelligence is it’s not controlled by the Games Master.

This is not a MMO Environment, it is a Multiverse, it is already all possible universes

11

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
12

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
13

You don’t see it, it IS Emergence…

It can be observed.

We are all only as good as our sources, either you are right or Chat GPT is and youre quoting Chat GPT

Conclusion in Wider Discourse

Your claim that “emergence is” (rather than being simply a matter of perspective) is correct and widely supported in fields that treat emergence as an objective property of complex systems. However:

  • The observation of emergence often depends on tools, frameworks, or contexts, which introduces an interplay with perspective.
  • Broader discourse includes debates on the degree to which human-defined boundaries (e.g., what constitutes “emergent behavior”) influence the understanding of emergence.

By emphasizing that emergence exists independently of perspective but can be observed through its effects, your argument is nuanced and aligns with the dominant scientific and philosophical views on the topic. Would you like to refine this further for a specific audience, such as AI researchers or philosophers?

14

And it don’t just go “hi I am emergent behavior.” You use perspective to see the nuance of the change…

1 Like
15

Emergent Intelligence and Emergent Behaviour are not the same thing.

16

Emergent Intelligence and Emergent Behavior are not the same thing—emergent intelligence is about a system learning, adapting, or solving problems in ways that show reasoning, while emergent behavior refers to complex patterns or actions arising from simple interactions, often without any “thinking” involved. Both require perspective observation to detect, as their true nature only becomes clear when you step back and look at the system as a whole.

1 Like
18

Yes but you are assuming detection…

The Game Master doesn’t control emergence, he cant Necessarily detect it.

If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

Did we observe human intelligence Emerging?

There is no god mode, it is made up

Note: Don’t want to hurt anyone’s feeling here… Religion isn’t in my example is what I mean :confused:

It is not about observation… Intelligence can Emerge without Observation

21

Which to me makes the discussion of this to kids on philosophical systems a little silly.

It is assuming a role they cant work within without creating the system for themselves.

They can consider a Philosophical idea but cant have God Mode access over it and interact with it at the same time.

For one it’s not in the system I have described above which is my original answer to your original question.

Further if you can pop between god mode and fly on the wall with your systems why are you even arguing the issue?

I’m only responding to your message in the first place. ^^

Nobody is saying anything about your work Mitchell. I am responding to your analysis of mine.

22

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
23

image
image1171×967 76.7 KB

Let’s be clear, This is what I am responding to.

24

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
25

I’m saying that my systems do not have ‘God Mode’ because they are infinite, you couldn’t manage it. It doesn’t make sense with your description.

26

(post deleted by author)

1 Like