¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 At this stage in my life, I am in very serious consideration of WHAT TO DO NEXT.  Larry is in rapid decline, but may live another decade. What Larry is now unable to do will eventually  be reported elsewhere in detail. Larry’s limitations appear to have released nuet’s emergence (within Larry/nuet), but the new insights are not being adequately reported or distributed, mostly due to Larry’s limitations and to the general lack of interest by others.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Larry/nuet fights himself making “ego claims” of significant uniqueness for humankind today. His significant contributions are meta-meta – whatever that term signifies. They relate to alternative contexts from which to “view” everything else. Others, who attend to Larry’s output, focus on specific modifications of conventional conceptual schemes – which can only be adequately appreciated in the “nu contexts”. These “specific” insights are properly categorized with the quality insights and recommendations of others. The “barriers” to adequate sharing are primarily in the current mismatch between our sharing technologies and the “true” nature of how human mind/brains function. Also, that the “unit” to create/process, in “domains of high Magnitude/Scope/Complexity” MSC, may not be the human individual but “designed crews” with “communities”.  The “tribal needs”, and limitations, of our biological mind/brains must be acknowledged.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Larry/nuet is struggling to design a process whereby Larry/nuet can be seafed and managed by teams of others. Primarily to extract/process/distribute what is of value to humankind. What needs be done, to make use of what Larry/nuet has created, will be very useful for many other selves/wrlds who have not nearly shared all that they have created/produced in their lifetimes. There is also a desperate need to process/distribute all that currently exists in digital reports. For the whole of humankind, for millennia, there has been an enormous gap between the semiotic resources in perceivable form and the distribution of persons who have access to AND ability to comprehend and use, these resources. With the population increase, I estimate, that this ratio/distribution may be getting worse. Even those “most in the know” actually know less-and-less. Furthermore, our tribal mind/brains limit us to work with conceptual schemes with only a few independent variables (about 3, or 5+/-9) in working memory, whereas the MSC of our relevant reality is much “greater”. Big Pictures are not accessible to individual human persons, in the ways we anticipate.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 I (and others) find it difficult distinguishing between the general themes of my collective insights and the many specifics I use to illustrate them. I am not stuck on any of the details or specifics, any more than I accept “established/contemporary” details or specifics.  I would like to read what some authors/researchers determine about what the best mind/brains at different time in our history knew AND DIDN’T KNOW, about what our best mind/brains, today KNOW. And then speculate on how much of our current, accepted knowledge may have radically different interpretations, in our distant (or not so distant) futures, from what we comprehend/understand today.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 ———————-

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Larry/nuet is stuck in routines. His primary means of communicating today is expanding on a reply to an email and BCCing it to a few others. I also draft blog posts, and announce a few to others in occasional emails. I generate from 3-10 insights daily, most of which I make a note to myself – as I remember only what I am triggered to by seeing a reminder, somewhere. A few of these I may come back to and draft a few paragraphs. Some are repetitive, and many of my more recently posted items I have no memory composing or posting.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 I recognize the content and its relevance, but don’t remember the actual writing. When I scan/scroll through my “production” I am pleasantly surprised by all I have written, but also disturbed that I have not properly organized them and have not adequately distributed them to others.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 I have zero/no interest in my being known or remembered. I am only concerned that some of my insights may be critically valuable to humankind at this critical juncture. My days are also consumed by personal and habitat needs, which can be performed only slowly and carefully. My general health remains good, but I must move slowly so as not to fall (I have fallen a few times, with bruises that take months to heal). I have very little strength in my arms and hands, and have very painful elbows and disintegrating knees. But, my increasing senility is more disturbing. I am reminded of things to do only when seeing them, or noticing them in my many hundreds of items long TODO lists. But, unless I do the task immediately on seeing it on my TODO list, I forget about it. Many items on my TODO list are major projects, not singular tasks. For Larry/nuet to be effective, he needs management.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 I am going to continue composing here, as I am motivated to explicate.  I am learning very much about how persons differ greatly about their inner wrlds, even what they believe to exist in their so-called common habitat setting. I, my partner (ex-wife, of more than half my 82 years) and my grandson live with me host three significantly different realities/wrlds.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 If I, or they, point/gesture to and dialog about a shared physical object, we can all agree to its physical nature. But, what is or is not relevant to them or I differ greatly. It is very, very difficult to communicate about these differences, as they are beyond our common experiences. On issue: I react to clutter, they react to dirt. I am burdened by seeing everything that needs be done in this habitat, and if I pointed them out to Eloise or Tommy, they would agree that there was a task to be performed – someday. I can imagine the time and effort to perform these tasks and that planning/scheduling might be needed if many are to be undertaken. They see only what can be done today or tomorrow; the rest are lumped into a “vague future”. The eventual accomplishment of all the tasks is expected, but they are oblivious to the extent of work really needed. It is easy to generalize this to all humans facing the many tasks needed to be performed.  And these are tasks we can point to and agree exist. Those tasks that can’t be pointed to, are most difficult to share about their even existing.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 I have long come to the conclusion that we aren’t persons living in a common world, with different interpretations about that world. Rather, each of our experiences are of internal, self-created (not consciously or by intention) “wrlds” which we have delusions/illusions of being “objectively real”. This is the natural result of our tribal mind/brains. The Trump Phenomenon reflects on how our wrlds have become more and more different (even when we interact only with those in our silos – where we differ significantly even in the silos).

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 We must shift to the recognition and acceptance that everything other than what we can jointly share in our common perceptual reality via gestures, is inferred from reading or viewing reports, or listening to others telling about reports they experienced.  These reports comprise our SemFields, a “reality” totally unique to humans.  Sems (Semiotic Structures) have perceived patterns which all can agree to. These patterns don’t contain knowledge, but transmit information to human persons processing the perceived patterns. Through collective discourse within common semfields, persons come to share common interpretations. However, almost all believe their interpretations of semfields are accurate knowledge about an external, objective reality. The patterns we do experience do strongly imply an “other”, solipsism is not consistent with our experiences. But, we have no direct knowledge of “others”.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 I speculate that the “objective” realities emergent from semfields may have a weirdness analogous to quantum weirdness. This speculation is not necessary for us to resolve our challenges; but if the speculation is correct, acknowledging it may be requisite to our survival/thrival. An “objective reality” of our universe, planet and Gaia “existed” – in some form – “before” (in one sense of temporal sequence) the emergence of humankind. Yet, all our knowledge of and our experiences of this “external” reality is interpreted within our wrlds as we perceive our local settings, which now include access to semfields (on screens or pages). An “objective nature” for all aspects of humankind (governments, economies, histories, organizations, cities, etc.) are not actually experienced and is strictly hypothetical, based on human/social sciences and established “knowledge”.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 “We” expect that, behind all the differing reports of so-called objective happenings and existences, there “really exists a real world” that moves along in a classical mode of causation, with humans mis-perceiving and acting “in error” – with the net result (theoretically, but not practically) capable of computation might we know how each action “actually” effects the “objective” situation. We assume that the “societal – over time” behaves according to the same logic and laws we have discovered which adequately explain all we directly, collectively, perceive and communicate – in our local settings.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 A few persons now know that hypothesized “worlds” of the very small & unobservable don’t behave according to the laws of our local/perceptual settings. We have discovered what we call, “quantum weirdness” for this hypothesized domain.  Might there be a “societal weirdness” for all those hypothetical entities we believe are “out there” but never actually “perceive”?

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Humankind, although composed of biological beings interacting via physical communication processes, and constructing physical systems, might – as a whole – function differently than the “classical” model we have come to believe as real.  Humankind, involving aspects unique to itself and different from physical and biological systems, intelligent wrlds interacting via perceived semfields, may be an “alien process within itself”. Humankind’s interaction with Gaia may be strictly classical; however how humankind itself emerges may not be strictly according to contemporary models of human learning and relating.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Indeed, the general human myth of conscious free will is in conflict with all basic science. “Conscious Free Will” IS a “weirdness” that we believe give each human agency to effect the societal.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 In Quantum Reality, an observation doesn’t result in knowledge about the state of the observed system before the measurement, with the measurement disturbing the system so we don’t have accurate knowledge of the future of the system measured, after the measurement. This is an incorrect interpretation of quantum measurement.  In Quantum Reality, systems exist (between measurements) as fields of probability distributions for different sets of measurement results (and their mathematical structures that enable computations) that unfold in time and interact with other fields of probability for other physical systems interacting with them. The act of measurement – the measuring instrument, itself – at the “level” of the system being measured – is also a probability distribution field. The act of measurement “collapses” these probability fields resulting in the creation, at the moment of measurement, of a unique state of the measurement instrument yielding one, concrete number – the result of the measurement. The result of each measurement of quantum systems is created by the act of measurement; it only existed as one of many possible results before the measurement.  The system measured is assumed to be in that one unique state, resulting from the measurement, and then immediately begins expanding into another probability distribution of alternative values for any future measurement of that same system. Controversy exists as to this interpretation.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Historically, this conceptual scheme required the team of physicists to deliberately abandon any attempt to use classical models of physical systems as metaphor for the quantum systems. In practice, the Bohr Atom, of electrons in orbit about the nucleus blocked the advance of quantum physics. Only when this metaphor was intentionally abandoned, and the requirements it imposed on the quantum systems, did the full emergence of a highly confirmable Quantum Physics emerge.  In analogy, we might need to abandon our models of institutions as “objective” systems of biological persons communicating by physical signals in the physical settings of buildings distributed around the planet.  Instead we have self-emergent wrlds within each person, interacting with their jointly created and perceived semfields (which are patterns on surfaces such as paper sheets or monitor screens).  This approach can also be applied to our own brains, which are not “observable” in our ordinary sense (we observe only very, very small parts or processes – useful, but not the same as “observing a brain”).

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Our mental life may be better explained as a complex sequence of expanding and collapsing probability fields, with the measurement/experiences being the result of collapses.  The whole of neural-molecular activity in brains may require more than the application of classical biology and molecular physics – for which we still have a long way to go

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 None of this speculation need be true or real. Indeed, from different dialogs we discover logical holes in our best conceptualization about reality and truth. We humans are so very young, and our accomplishments – as vast as they are – may end up temporary in the yet-to-emerge multi-billionial future emergence of Humanity/Gaia.