-
TL;DR:
- Recap start ↓
-
[* Communication between humans can be seen as a partial sharing and collaborative editing of subjective reality]
-
All forms of “communication” can be interpreted as a partial sharing and collaborative editing of subjective reality.
-
It’s fast, I don’t understand what you’re saying (tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn)
-
Various forms of communication such as face-to-face conversation, letters, chat, Slack, Zoom, Nico Nico Douga, Google Docs, VRChat, Cluster, etc. can be understood within this framework.
-
Specifically, various forms of communication such as face-to-face conversation, letters, chat, Slack, Zoom, Nico Nico Douga, Google Docs, VRChat, and Cluster can be categorized into the following four phenomena.
-
(Let’s create a theory called “Structure of Communication” or something like that) (tkgshn)
-
Let’s take a closer look at this. First, let’s explain the concept of “shared reality” on the right side.
-
According to someone, human senses can be divided into multiple layers.
-
Let’s reconsider this based on that.
- There are various elements in different layers such as sensation (=sense data), perception, and cognition.
- Concrete examples:
- Face-to-face conversation
- Sharing the surrounding space
- Collaborative editing of the space by overlaying voices and using the body
- Recognizing the space from senses such as vision and sharing it
- Movie theater
- Shutting out visual and auditory information other than the movie and sharing the visuals and sound with everyone
- Unless you suddenly shout in a movie theater, you cannot collaboratively edit the shared reality.
- Shutting out visual and auditory information other than the movie and sharing the visuals and sound with everyone
- Slack
- Sharing the reality of a channel and collaboratively editing it by writing messages there.
- Google Docs
- Sharing the reality of a document page and collaboratively editing it.
- It might be really cool if we could create a mental model diagram like manabuueno for this (tkgshn)
- Window Metaphor (tkgshn)
- Face-to-face conversation
-
-
- This Subjective Perception of Reality is similar to Phenomenology.
-
Note that this concept (the Window Metaphor) is not something I proposed (it’s not new), and it can also be interpreted in the same way as phenomenology (I have colleagues who do).
- (In the context of comparative linguistics, Saussure quoted Lévi-Strauss, and this concept is default in cultural anthropology, but I brought it to linguistics for the first time. So, I want readers to first calm down and accept it) (tkgshn)
- In the context of Phenomenology/Phenomenological Sociology, it is the Inter-subjectivity of reality.
-
Until now, computer communication has not been widely discussed among phenomenologists, but it can be interpreted as something by revisiting the classics.
-
At that time, it’s understandable that even the strong phenomenologists couldn’t predict the paradigm shift caused by computers. But if that’s not the case, this discourse can be considered a highly accurate prediction of the future.
-
(A lot of criticism here) (tkgshn)
- The purpose of criticism is to “clarify the scope of criticism” so that some parts can be discussed based on the reader’s prior knowledge and theories can be developed from there (tkgshn)
-
It might not be criticism (blu3mo)
- It should indicate the change from “narrow application range in the past” to “expanded application range if we assume computers” (blu3mo)
-
With the existence of VR, the application range of Phenomenological Reduction, which seems incomprehensible at first, has expanded and it seems to be actually useful (blu3mo)
- We can even talk about how amazing it is that this existed 50 years ago (blu3mo)- This is a discussion that cannot be had until later (tkgshn).
-
- Recap start ↓
-
You can bring as much as you want later.
-
it’s time to change!感 (tkgshn)
-
One of the more interesting long-term practical benefits of the technology and concepts behind decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) is that they can rapidly prototype and experiment with organizational governance in the social interaction aspect that has been lagging behind the rapid progress of information and social technology. Modern communication technology has dramatically improved individuals’ limited communication and information processing capabilities, but today’s governance processes rely on arbitrary distinctions such as “members,” “employees,” “customers,” and “investors” that appear to be centralizing crutches - functions that have been necessary in the past due to the inherent difficulties of managing large numbers of people, but may no longer be necessary. It may now be possible to create a more fluid and generalized system that fully utilizes people’s abilities and willingness to contribute, using new governance models that seek to improve transparency and efficiency, such as liquid democracy and holacracy. However, the focus of my discussion and analysis today is futarchy.
-
-
Vitalik said, “Ethereum is a playground, but they’ve been doing something in papers and haven’t changed anything in our lives.” “Finally, the time has come to make a change” (tkgshn).
-
{There was a text by Lévi-Strauss that harshly criticized “the humanities” in a style similar to “The Library Giant.“} So let’s quote that (tkgshn).
-
Utilize the power of oppositional structures to foster understanding.
- What is the goal of “sharing a loose subjective reality”?
-
The way communication through computers has evolved
- Email, Slack, Zoom, Metaverse, VRChat, Cluster, etc.
- Enables various forms of information exchange through Window Technology.
-
In other words, the engineering of “communication methods = ways of sharing reality” has become easier.
- +1 (tkgshn)
-
This raises the question of what kind of communication methods we should aim for.
-
Question: Has phenomenology already delved into the notion of an “ideal”?
- Is there a text that declares, “Using phenomenology, this is the ideal state!“? (tkgshn)
- Work in progress, as far as I know, there isn’t.
- But it’s probably somewhere in the vastness of the internet (blu3mo).
- I’ll ask the professor of PHIL1001 Introduction to Philosophy (blu3mo).
-
In this era, we must go beyond phenomenology.
- Like, “Finally, the time has come!” kind of feeling.
-
It is necessary to introduce various types of communication, using other concrete examples.
-
Here, present the pros and cons of each type (tkgshn).
- This can be an expanded version of the earlier window example.
- AirPods can be seen as AR (telephone)
- Present a few more examples.
-
This should be interesting! Let’s invite discussions like “Isn’t this interesting?!“.
- I see, Window Technology seems interesting as a hook (blu3mo).
- This is the future argument (tkgshn).
-
Until now, there was already some activity (intensity) in a field, and now that we can conduct more experiments, there is no choice but to refer back to it!!!
-
Astute readers may have noticed that what digital technology has made possible is the ability to show us the unreal.
-
Let me explain specifically. In the examples mentioned earlier, while “construction site noise” is indeed something that is happening in reality (it is reality itself!), it can also be blocked using machines.- > Do we need to intuitively understand the parameter of “degree of reality sharing” that allows us to judge whether to actively accept it or not? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)
-
-
-
Then, propose * your hypothesis as something that may overcome all of these shortcomings (tkgshn)
- Determine where to take a position as criticism of blu3mo (tkgshn)
-
“This is my philosophy!!!!!!”
-
It can also be rephrased as “What kind of subjective reality sharing should we aim for?”
- Replaced the words from 63d59a9679e1130000935832 (blu3mo)
- Replaced based on the discussion of “communication” = “subjective reality sharing” explained in 0
- I think either way is fine (tkgshn)
- Replaced the words from 63d59a9679e1130000935832 (blu3mo)
-
From here, I want to explain the question of * “What kind of communication should we aim for?” (tkgshn)
- I want to answer the question (blu3mo)
-
One direction to aim for is to increase the “degree of reality sharing”
-
The phrase “one direction to aim for” itself is a way of speaking that can be misunderstood as touching on the conclusion in a sense (tkgshn)
- I see, I should have made it clear from the beginning that this is a criticism (blu3mo)
-
So, what should be revised is
-
Many readers ~
-
If we assume XX, but what happens if it’s not the case? And the probability of that {not being the case} happening is unexpectedly high based on facts.
-
Therefore, this can be considered a fallacy of many people.
-
Therefore, {my opinion}
-
-
Shouldn’t we let the context of such sentences be read first? (tkgshn)
-
Let’s create the ultimate VR device and create a metaverse that is indistinguishable from reality, like that
- I see. In the context of “I’m doing Ethereum to think about the future of politics,” it’s like proposing “We need something like VR! (Or rather, I have this hypothesis and xR as a place for experiments for that purpose, what do you think!?” (tkgshn)
-
However, I mean that this is an old way of thinking trapped in the traditional “objective reality”
- Ah, I see. If I don’t think about the sentence structure, it might be read in a way that goes against my intention (tkgshn)
- What do you mean by “denying AR”? (blu3mo)
-
Let’s create the ultimate VR device and create a metaverse that is indistinguishable from reality, like that
- The subsequent context is like saying “But that won’t work well” right? (tkgshn)
- Exactly (blu3mo)
- In that case, I can’t understand the structure unless you present it as “Most people would think of XX. But in reality, there are {fundamental flaws}, and to overcome them (by re-reading classical works, for example), this hypothesis is the only way!” (tkgshn)
- I see, my writing skills were lacking (blu3mo)
-
-
Let’s mention the metaverse -> But wait a minute. Is this really okay?
- Things that are not happy when the metaverse is realized. Things that cannot be changed. Bad scenarios
- It’s like just creating a copy of reality, right? (blu3mo)
-
So what should we think about? What can we learn?
- I think it’s about changing XX into XX.
- We should aim not only to increase the “degree of reality sharing” but also to aim for a direction where we can control the degree more freely.
- i.e. We should pursue not only means to increase the “degree of reality sharing” but also means to decrease it
- We should be able to increase or decrease the degree of sharing for each element- Moving away from the binary concept of either “completely shared” or “not shared at all,” I want to perceive it as a more continuous spectrum.
-
The image shows the previous worldview of a binary world of “completely shared” or “not shared at all” on the left, and the desired worldview on the right.
-
I want to call this “smooth sharing of subjective reality,” inspired by Smooth Society and Its Enemies.
-
Writing SF (starting from something concrete that you can imagine) (Write something exciting!) (tkgshn)
-
Revisiting 10x Habits with SF Thinking (with specific examples)
- This is somewhat inspired by the idea of “enlightenment through digital armament.”
-
After that, explain it. (tkgshn)
- Prepare two stories, where a paradigm shift occurs in both.
- However, one version goes in the wrong direction, while the other fixes it.
- So, let’s fix the idea of “increasing the degree of shared reality” and aim for a direction where the degree can be controlled with more freedom.
- Yes, that makes sense. (blu3mo) (blu3mo) (blu3mo)
-
🍛 Smooth sharing of “eating experiences”
- Situation:
- Suppose there is a “metaverse where you can eat.”
- A wants to eat pizza, but B wants Chinese food.
- A and B want to go out to eat together.
- In this case:
- If it appears to A that they are “sharing pizza together,” and it appears to B that they are “sharing Chinese food together,” then both are happy.
- They are not sharing the actual element of “what they are eating,” but they are sharing the experience of “sharing a meal together.”
- Situation:
-
💬 Smooth sharing of “conversation content”
- Situation:
- Two people are having a conversation.
- A tends to use the adjective X a lot, but B is not comfortable with that expression.
- In this case:
- If A can filter or replace the word X before it reaches B, then both are happy.
- I think it’s possible to implement this in chat or Zoom.
- Situation:
-
📦 Smooth sharing of “space”
- The term “space” here refers to the concept of space in human perception (including virtual space, Zoom, and spatial.chat).
- Smooth sharing of “space” is similar to the concept of Mixed Reality (MR).
- The following diagram represents the smooth sharing of “virtual space” and “physical space.”
- This concept can be extended to the smooth sharing of “virtual space A” and “virtual space B,” where both people can see each other’s bodies but have different backgrounds.
-
⏰ Smooth sharing of “time”
- This is a more complex example, but it’s currently my favorite (blu3mo) (blu3mo) (blu3mo).
- The title “Virtual Time Communication” refers to the fact that most communication falls into the binary categorization of “synchronous = completely shared time” or “asynchronous = not shared time.”
- I believe there are various continuous spectrums between these two extremes.
- Related pages: Pseudo-Synchronization, Elastic Synchronization, Delusion of a Virtual Timeline, Exploration of Virtual Time.
- One specific application I’m considering is ParallelTalk and the Proposal for Non-Turn-Based Communication with Voice.
- This will be redirected to a separate article (blu3mo).
-
-
Q: Is this a “dystopia”?
- A: It depends on the definition, but personally, I think a world where “smooth sharing” is possible is better than a world where it is not.- The value of Having Many Options is Justice is mentioned.
-
In a world with low freedom of controlling the degree of reality sharing:
- There are only two options: strongly share or not share at all.
- This results in the so-called Filter Bubble phenomenon.
- Criticized in works like Fahrenheit 451 and Virtual Reality of the Poor.
-
In a world with high freedom of controlling the degree of reality sharing:
- The degree of sharing can be smoothly controlled, and only the desired parts are shared.
- This is a world where people can connect more with each other.
- As a result, the connections between people may increase, although that is not the main purpose.
-
It may be better to discuss ethics in a more specific context.
Above is the Abstract
- Although I intended it to be short, it became too long.
Below is the main text
(As of January 22, 2023)
0. About the Model of Communication
- There is a model that views communication as the transmission of signals between people.
- When people live in the same world and share signals,
- However, this model assumes an objective reality.
- I want to capture the subjective experiences shared during communication by assuming only subjectivity.
- (This operation is called transcendental reduction in Phenomenology).
- From this perspective, communication can be seen as the collaborative editing of subjective realities.
- The “reality” that is shared can encompass various types of experiences.
- There can be sharing of elements from various layers such as sensation, perception, and cognition.
- Concrete examples include:
- Face-to-face conversation:
- Sharing the space around oneself.
- Collaborative editing by overlaying voices and using the body to edit the space.
- Recognizing the space from sensory data such as vision and sharing it.
- Slack:
- Sharing the reality of a channel and collaborating by writing messages there.
- Google Docs:
- Sharing the reality of a document page and collaborating on it.
- Face-to-face conversation:
- Related: Window Technology
- In the context of Phenomenology/Phenomenological Sociology, this is a reality with Inter-subjectivity.
Communication mediums are evolving through computers
- Computers are developing as interfaces through which humans interact with reality.
- For example, in the layers of sensation to cognition, there are concrete examples like:
- Input devices:
- Keyboard -> GUI mouse -> Full tracking, and so on.
- Output devices:
- Visual: Black and white TV -> Display -> VRHMD.
- Auditory: Speaker -> Earphones/Headphones -> Wireless with noise cancellation.
- Input devices:
- Similarly, even in more semantic layers:
- Humans are interacting with the world through software on computers.
- Zoom, Twitter, Slack, online news, etc.
- These are examples of what is called Computer Mediated Communication.
The desired form of “good” communication is not complete reality sharing, but “loose reality sharing.”
- “Complete reality sharing”: A state where reality is shared 100%.
- For example, if a “metaverse” is created that is indistinguishable from traditional reality, it can be said that reality is fully shared.
- However,
- “Loose reality sharing”:
- 10
- It can also be seen as the process of increasing the abstraction level of the “shared reality”.### Specific Example 1: Partial Language Sharing through Language Abstraction and Machine Translation
- Examples include automatic translation in Zoom Webinar.
- Although the actual voice is not shared, the participants share the meaning of words at a more abstract level.
Specific Example 2: Partial Time Sharing through Time Abstraction and Virtual Time Experience
-
“Time” can also be understood as a component of the overall experience.
-
There are two elements to consider:
- Where it is positioned in physical time.
- (Assuming no relativistic effects of physics time)
- This determines if it is synchronous or not.
- The temporal order and duration of the experience.
- Where it is positioned in physical time.
-
Work in progress.
-
Git vs Google Docs