3C/ HumanOS & IIW: Fit & Finish of Neuro/Technology at IIW

From IIW

HumanOS & IIW: Fit & Finish of Neuro/Technology at IIW

Tuesday 3C

Convener: Jeff Orgel

Notes-taker(s): Jeff Orgel 

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps

Discussed: Where and/or how does our neurology dovetail or collide with technology at the data and code level.

Discussed: Is the body’s complexity as a functional model re-delegating/bounding functional data points (like cells in a living system) a benefit in data-scape/data system management?

O – rigid compartmentalization of “relying systems” (read as human areas of knowledge/awareness) may cause incongruent outcomes. If you are a doctor who is expressing political sensibility which interferes with valuing other scientific truths sensibility may go rather sideways. (AJ)

O - hormones>catalyzing reaction (generation of data)

O - hormones are pervasive as they travel through the bloodstream and therefore affect the system at large through a version of saturation whereas nerves have distinct endpoints directed at specific sensory or notification function. (AK)

O - email 1 to 1, 1 to many more nerve like

O - providence of data is like the immune system in that it recognizes self and non-self

O - unlike the body, data can exist in a number of distributed, potentially boundless systems and therefore it is subject to that number of idiosyncrasies, each possibly with different data priorities and sensory characteristics.

O - design of systems and spaces in the digital landscape are well served by modeling real world analogues regarding UX and human behavior. To design a digital system, space or tool in the digital landscape without a real-world tether may create process/awareness short-sightedness with great implications. 

O - at what layer does who/what get to apply and influence the optics/lens through which HumanOS (raw experience) data is compiled? Our brains have already processed by the time we experience something.

O – excellent trust as a relationship w/the future diagram (per Wip)

O - trust is rather contextual regarding risk assurance so thinking vulnerably may put the brain in a more base nature space of consideration.   “I trust my sister with my kids but not my bank. I trust my bank with my money but not my sister.”

O - is assurance of the risk outcome of a situation a formulaic encouraging or discouraging trust (investment a risk reward choice)? If I’m standing next to policemen in a public space I may have more assurance (therefore I trust them that I’ll be cared for. In that space if I make a comment exposing my misalignment with an opinion or action (a vulnerable/risky position sometimes) somebody will not grab my hat and pull it down over my head because I am likely assured that law-enforcement would “break it up“, probably before the risk cost went beyond my comfort. If I was an outlier expressing divergent thinking in the midst of an intimate community, my sense of a positive risk reward assurance of not catching some heat may suggest that I can’t trust my relationship/position with the group. Vulnerability lives in this space?!

O - what functions are we creating w-VR? Maybe moving to tier two re-metaphysics through these opportunities?

O – Re: force of technologies (VR): What about the idea of the technical precariat? Those showing sensitive psycho-metrics suggesting deep & non-real world internalization experiences may not be healthy for them or those around them… How well does an individual segregate and restrain the values developed in those spaces from leaking into real world actions and implications?

If tech is there to help us know who we are, it’s not the idea that the opposite happen”. Magic Leep 3 minutes scrambled mind affect. “Maybe to understand multiple realities I would prefer to speak with my medicine man friend.”