When I read action protocol, I hear (please correct if I misunderstand), structure - process and/or framework - flow.
The beavers, with their bidirectional inhabiting of river, are held by structures of muscle and fur, wood, water and kits, which submit to processes of instinct and survival. The action protocols of mating, of dam construction, of swimming, of catching fish flow in and from the mutuality between habitas and habitat.
The cgpt utilizes language of a limited pool, a fraction of human experience, (yet it has been celebrated as all knowing). It’s like a research study that fails to acknowledge its limitations/bias, the potential flaws in its method or the risks to participants.
Imagine the beavers losing the capacity to swim in other rivers...confined to the only river the other beavers agree exists.
Recently, I wrote a grant proposal, then asked cgpt to write one. Mine had a personal story, humor and an invitation to hope. In contrast, chat gpt’s proposal read like something general and formulaic and full of facts (which I wondered if were all true).
The social constructions of language, by collective consent, can (and do) lie, misconstrue, over simplify and dumb down. Nuance is often embedded in tone of voice, historical context, gesture or footnote. If the protocol is flawed, it leads to flawed action.
Although fluent in multiple languages, chatgpt doesn’t have the capacity to value the vast world of language, of action protocols, universe to atom. The guise that language encapsulates life (as you say, it’s the water within which we swim), but life is languages far beyond the bit and byte, birdsong, or how a surfer reads waves, a goodbye kiss or the rumbling of belly.
Imagine beavers sitting in dens staring at videos of other beavers swimming.
It seems like a brilliant action protocol with which to perpetuate a coup of the human collective imagination. But perhaps if the structural flaws in the protocol are exposed, through the poverty of limited language, human quirkiness can rise, resist, and disrupt, crafting new frameworks that return to us the intimate vastness of our world-habitat and therefore habitas.
Jul 17, 2023·edited Jul 17, 2023Liked by Bonnitta Roy
This was a thought-provoking read, and I have some confusion around "Gibson’s perceptual array". It doesn't seem like Gibson ever used this term in his book "The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems", so can anyone inform me where to read more about this "perceptual array"?
Also, when Roy says,
> In other words, the eye of the fish is not its organ of perception. Rather its organ of perception extends into the sea itself.
This seems in inconsistent when Gibson states,
> When we stubbornly continue to mean by taste a mode of attention that cuts across the classification of receptors we are only recognizing the fact that receptors may be functionally united when anatomically separated. In fact, the word palate, although used in anatomy to mean the back of the mouth, is used in gastronomy to mean the whole complex of receptors contributing to palatability, that is, an organ of perception. (p. 137)
Did Roy mean to invoke Gibson's notion of "affordance" (ie, action possibilities)?
In the past ten years I’ve started interacting with people who are professionals in the world of social media marketing. I have been astounded at how obviously and faithfully the algorithms of FAABG companies are expressed through the assumptions, expectations and actions of these people. Basically it boils down value extraction, virtue signaling and alignment seeking.
So now I’m wondering how the LLMs and their ancestors will start showing up through the behaviors of people who blindly consume their outputs. What are some predictions about how we’ll start seeing this expressed in people?
You have offered me a means by which to further explore what my daughter and I are researching and presenting to the New Jersey Bar Association on the current disruption within the law enforcement and judicial system as a whole by the so-called sovereign citizen movement. They refuse to acknowledge that any of our legal or law enforcement structures or functions are legitimate, and they swim in a sea of "pseudo-law" and conspiracy theories similar to QANON. Your article will help us go deeper into an examination as to why close to a million Americans prefer to go to prison than to admit that their understanding of the law is incorrect.
The dynamics between the beaver’s habitas and habitat seems to be isomorphic with the nature of the dynamics of human-AI co-creativity at all scales, both on the human side and the AI side.
Can the action protocol theory be a clue to the emergence of a hybrid lifeform, a new branch on the tree of life on this planet, enabled by the sympoiesis of human and synthetic intelligence? I've been exploring the latter from an evolutionary perspective and found Bonnitta's essay opening a door to a promising venue of my explorations.
I feel but not yet fully understand HOW the action protocol theory rhymes with John Vervaeke's thought on "expanding our very sense of self towards including the technological environment, and from there on taking up the role of intra-acting, not only with the AI itself, but as a unity with the AI vis-à-vis the patterning structures of reality..."
Does anybody sense a resonance between what Bonnitta and John say?
It appears to me (and I agree) that you suggest we should look at the world in a systemic way, seeing systems within systems, within systems. What is a habitat for the ‘lower’ system is a habitas for the ‘higher’ system. Each level is governed by a more or less specific set of action protocols, language / grammar.
One of the aspects of awareness is then the ability to drop / jump at the proper level that is coherent, relevant for the situation at hand and understand the affordances that are available at the level. Is speaking about the affordances available, accessible at a specific level of inquiry/observation a mirror image of possible action protocols?
This is fascinating and strange.
When I read action protocol, I hear (please correct if I misunderstand), structure - process and/or framework - flow.
The beavers, with their bidirectional inhabiting of river, are held by structures of muscle and fur, wood, water and kits, which submit to processes of instinct and survival. The action protocols of mating, of dam construction, of swimming, of catching fish flow in and from the mutuality between habitas and habitat.
The cgpt utilizes language of a limited pool, a fraction of human experience, (yet it has been celebrated as all knowing). It’s like a research study that fails to acknowledge its limitations/bias, the potential flaws in its method or the risks to participants.
Imagine the beavers losing the capacity to swim in other rivers...confined to the only river the other beavers agree exists.
Recently, I wrote a grant proposal, then asked cgpt to write one. Mine had a personal story, humor and an invitation to hope. In contrast, chat gpt’s proposal read like something general and formulaic and full of facts (which I wondered if were all true).
The social constructions of language, by collective consent, can (and do) lie, misconstrue, over simplify and dumb down. Nuance is often embedded in tone of voice, historical context, gesture or footnote. If the protocol is flawed, it leads to flawed action.
Although fluent in multiple languages, chatgpt doesn’t have the capacity to value the vast world of language, of action protocols, universe to atom. The guise that language encapsulates life (as you say, it’s the water within which we swim), but life is languages far beyond the bit and byte, birdsong, or how a surfer reads waves, a goodbye kiss or the rumbling of belly.
Imagine beavers sitting in dens staring at videos of other beavers swimming.
It seems like a brilliant action protocol with which to perpetuate a coup of the human collective imagination. But perhaps if the structural flaws in the protocol are exposed, through the poverty of limited language, human quirkiness can rise, resist, and disrupt, crafting new frameworks that return to us the intimate vastness of our world-habitat and therefore habitas.
Is AI primarily the mind seeking itself?
Here is me again... I 'sense' there is something important in what you wrote here, but I don't grok it yet.
Is there a session in the Pop-up school where you have spoken this? (I'm way, way behind in catching up there)
This was a thought-provoking read, and I have some confusion around "Gibson’s perceptual array". It doesn't seem like Gibson ever used this term in his book "The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems", so can anyone inform me where to read more about this "perceptual array"?
Also, when Roy says,
> In other words, the eye of the fish is not its organ of perception. Rather its organ of perception extends into the sea itself.
This seems in inconsistent when Gibson states,
> When we stubbornly continue to mean by taste a mode of attention that cuts across the classification of receptors we are only recognizing the fact that receptors may be functionally united when anatomically separated. In fact, the word palate, although used in anatomy to mean the back of the mouth, is used in gastronomy to mean the whole complex of receptors contributing to palatability, that is, an organ of perception. (p. 137)
Did Roy mean to invoke Gibson's notion of "affordance" (ie, action possibilities)?
In the past ten years I’ve started interacting with people who are professionals in the world of social media marketing. I have been astounded at how obviously and faithfully the algorithms of FAABG companies are expressed through the assumptions, expectations and actions of these people. Basically it boils down value extraction, virtue signaling and alignment seeking.
So now I’m wondering how the LLMs and their ancestors will start showing up through the behaviors of people who blindly consume their outputs. What are some predictions about how we’ll start seeing this expressed in people?
Action protocols, as described here, make perfect sense within a framework of ontological continuity -perhaps only within a such a framework.
Very well presented. I look forward to the next installment.
You have offered me a means by which to further explore what my daughter and I are researching and presenting to the New Jersey Bar Association on the current disruption within the law enforcement and judicial system as a whole by the so-called sovereign citizen movement. They refuse to acknowledge that any of our legal or law enforcement structures or functions are legitimate, and they swim in a sea of "pseudo-law" and conspiracy theories similar to QANON. Your article will help us go deeper into an examination as to why close to a million Americans prefer to go to prison than to admit that their understanding of the law is incorrect.
The dynamics between the beaver’s habitas and habitat seems to be isomorphic with the nature of the dynamics of human-AI co-creativity at all scales, both on the human side and the AI side.
Can the action protocol theory be a clue to the emergence of a hybrid lifeform, a new branch on the tree of life on this planet, enabled by the sympoiesis of human and synthetic intelligence? I've been exploring the latter from an evolutionary perspective and found Bonnitta's essay opening a door to a promising venue of my explorations.
I feel but not yet fully understand HOW the action protocol theory rhymes with John Vervaeke's thought on "expanding our very sense of self towards including the technological environment, and from there on taking up the role of intra-acting, not only with the AI itself, but as a unity with the AI vis-à-vis the patterning structures of reality..."
Does anybody sense a resonance between what Bonnitta and John say?
Got it! Thanks.
It appears to me (and I agree) that you suggest we should look at the world in a systemic way, seeing systems within systems, within systems. What is a habitat for the ‘lower’ system is a habitas for the ‘higher’ system. Each level is governed by a more or less specific set of action protocols, language / grammar.
One of the aspects of awareness is then the ability to drop / jump at the proper level that is coherent, relevant for the situation at hand and understand the affordances that are available at the level. Is speaking about the affordances available, accessible at a specific level of inquiry/observation a mirror image of possible action protocols?
What do I miss? Thanks!