Re: NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex

Jim Legg (
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:35:04 +1200

Richard Plourde wrote:

> At 07:37 AM 9/22/97 -0700, Freespeak wrote:

> >With this message I'm launching a debate on NSPIC.
> >NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex.
> >Later in this message I give a brief description
> >of what I mean by NSPIC.

> That enough of us deify political structures as to create
> effectiveness from expectation (self-fulfilling prophecy time)
> seems quite evident.

I tend to agree yet will point to this heretical order as being opposed
by mystical blind faith. One of the nice things about this debate's
chaotic permeability is its cognitive flexibility in allowing the
irrational to oppose instead of using blind faith. This is like getting
discontinuities to stick; - like the parasite in the vein that can't be
flushed. This alternate view is a goal worth getting politically
passionate about. I say the extropy list is good at surviving such
views; providing their are no sinister motives afoot in the way this
debate is being handled.

> I question, though, the terminology "neuro-semantic" in the
> context of these messages. Neuro-semantic operates as a technical
> term in the context of general-semantics, a term that
> characterizes the neural centers of our evaluations, perceptions,


> etc.. A neuro-semantic evaluation would, it seems to me, include
> a self-reflexive "evaluation of the character of the evaluation"
> from the highly specific perspective of human neural behaviors.

My Ingrid Tutor goes into depth concerning the neural behaviors and
their psychological counterparts.

> Leaving aside the appropriateness of such an evaluation in the
> context of this list for the moment, I don't see that

If you are implying that this list isn't up to communicating through my
AI, called Ingrid, then I would really appreciate being put in touch
with one that could. That is, providing it wasn't covert. But I repeat
that "the Freeware, called The Ingrid Thought Processor", is not beyond
the skills or context of this list. Mac owners, excluded of course:-{

> self-reflexiveness explicitly illustrated in any of the posts to
> this point. I find myself wondering if "neuro-semantic"

You didn't read my analysis and website which is being upgraded during
the nspic debate. There you will find me being quite self reflexive.

> represents a construct for later introduction, or if the NSPIC

Such a postponement would mean the immediate failure of the debate to
address its Hard Problem as none of its initial Purposes would have been

> topic, as planned for presentation, has little connection with
> neuro-semantics.

This isn't and either or but many agendas have strong connections to AI
models of neuro semantics. This process is sought requiring in this
instance, the extropy list to act as though it were G.s. and surrender
to the possibility that "the map is the territory." This Ingrid tool is
surely the means to communicate because if you think it has nothing to
do with neurons, please think again. The economic benefit comes in
seeing how all these elements are related.


> Addressing the appropriateness of the topic on various
> shared-interest lists, I can comment that, to the degree that
> "NSPIC" *does* involve neuro-semantic considerations, it may have

To bring in this new element which Ingrid hasn't considered yet is worth
pursuing. However, the neuro-semantic portions in such a wide field as
extropianism is so small and vital, yet is dominated by ruling class
extropians. I don't know about others but I came to the NSPIC debate
from Lloyd Miller's New Paradigms Discussion Group which is able to
handle such extropians without bloodshed. But the debate now has it's
own life. I won't stand by and see Lloyd Millers high value discussions
spilt asunder with people being scattered in all directions. Whether or
not some sinister people would order a dupe storm to kill this thread, I
for one get much better information treatment at than
I have ever had from the extropy gauntlet and would go back there
licking my wounds. But at least I'd nail my bragging rights into my
website, again.

> an appropriate 'home' on a list dedicated to general semantics.
> (I would forward the name of an appropriate list-manager upon
> request in order that the appropriateness of such a discussion
> might receive at least a preliminary evaluation of "appropriate
> for the list.")

This thread can be cross threaded by all means as far as I'm concerned.
But I can't conceive of an ethical reason why this should be blocked,
by_any_means, from the extropy list until such time as consensus says it
should. While there exist difficulties communicating "with the current
style of the Extropy Institute," I personally would feel cheated by
having gone to the trouble of joining extropy. I can't know who else
came from where to join Frederick Mann. I think he was courteous to make
the invitation so that many could be in sync with the beginning of the
thread. I don't know about your thread management but I still don't see
any wrong intentions in starting this debate the way he did. If so, tell
me and I will include the sentiments in tomorrow's update.

> Moving to such a list, though, might represent a bit of a problem
> for stirring up political passions. G.s. doesn't seem to lead to
> passion, but rather to careful analysis of both evidence and human
> analytic methodologies. The passivity of agreement with
> philosophical perspectives tends not to find a fertile ground in
> such a context.

One transcendence gained from not moving, might be the resulting
unfalsifiable prediction of an overturn of one or more of the current
contenders for statism. This move however, might also sidestep the
predatory nature in which this thread maybe being handled. And as it
there now an identified purpose to, I quote, "develop the means to
communicate about NSPIC to extropians," what you suggest sounds odd.

Given that many extropians are Uploaders who now question the "nothing
surer than death" meme. Given that the MURG neuroscientists speak for
the elite in their attempts to delay uploading. Given the extropian idea
of 'singularity' and given that MURG's mind uploading timetable is
distinctly out of sync with extropian timetables, then I vote for the
discussion to stay in the extropy list in order to properly present the
models to G.s.

> I would find it useful to have some framework, some evaluative
> model, presented in the context of NSPIC. Think of the framework

This is my evaluative model contribution and I hope you find it useful.

> as a specific experimental procedure, or, if more appropriate, as
> a specific theory from which we might draw predictions and thus a

It might even be called Conspiracy Theory.

> path towards falsification. Such a framework would, itself, stand
> as susceptible to criticism, both for its evaluative

As I said in my background however, Ingrid is not a reductio ad absurdum
as my hubris claims it is and it is now surfacing on the Internet as a
result of much rubbishing and destruction of AI's other critical tools.

> appropriateness and for its appropriateness in the context of this
> list.

The context of this list is about chaos and control in the future. I
think it's time to reconsider the political and economic foundations of
the ruling ideology in the extropian list. Because appropriateness is
also what I have in mind, please, when you check Ingrid out just don't
frighten the guys who are into Personal Construct Theory on the PCP

>>"The word is not the thing, the map is not the territory"

This is where the Ingrid map of neuro semantics comes alive for me, in
that I see through it the future of my own multi-agent awareness. As you
will hopefully want to know me better, you will see why I disagree with
what I see as the illusion in your sig. Alas, my death is the thing that
will stop me being the map. After all is said and done this the debate I
felt should be here in this space. This is why I joined.