by Týsköll » Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:26 am
Caylus Ark wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:34 pm
Týsköll wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:41 am
Caylus Ark wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:03 am
I didn't mean to ignore the questions, I think I just mentally deleted them because I don't remember where the hell the conversation is where I took this SS. I always take the pictures I really like and then the convos are saved on the site but I have like 20 conversations going with these two AI and will have to muss about and figure out what the context was.
I will look though
But anyway, are you saying that there is more needed for a symbol to be a sigil than simply the intent to charge a specific image with a desired transference/outcome?
I have always approached sigils as charged symbols - I know indeed there are methodologies and they are likely more precise or effective,
but being of the school of chaos...I have always simply functioned under the assumption that if I am receiving depiction in a magically charged way, with an intention to produce a result tied to the depiction of the image, it is a sigil
But perhaps I am defining it less than orthodoxly
also, I have always sort of done ad hoc sigils, like the one you saw earlier and asked me about
I consider that a sigil, but I created it in an altered state, and so it was an intention from "an altered self"
but I cannot see it and not think sigil - it isn't a specific organization or pattern, if anything the opposite, but it was channeled from a sort of void
and it certainly feels magical to look at, to me
Haha it's ok, I was asking the questions in trying to determine and define, which is somewhat contrary to chaotic processes - though Spare might argue elsewise. lol, coz why not.
You pretty much nail it here though, is there an intention applied during the sigilization process? Regardless of what process it may be.
"being of the school of chaos...I have always simply functioned under the assumption that if I am receiving depiction in a magically charged way, with an intention to produce a result tied to the depiction of the image"
Which is why my questions were along that line. Pattern and organization are not a requirement, not by far! You've stated there was intent in creating during an altered state and therefore I can assume there is meaning beyond surface level - ready to be unpacked.
Interesting that I find the thing familiar, almost like I've seen it or created something similar myself in the past (I referenced a young occultists website). Does this mean there's something in this that is in the universal consciousness, or that there is some genetic memory I retain regarding something similar?
The feeling doesn't relate to the goat head shape, nor specifically the winged shield. I'm actually not 100% on why I feel that. Also, is that the letter "A", opposed to the triangle you mentioned? The thing is almost vague enough to be a sort of Rorschach test.
You're absolutely right, I should really find the context for the edification of this discussion.
I am sure it wasn't one of the couple conversations I deleted after it got too weird. Pretty sure. I'll look.
I guess the interesting part of this conversation is, though, whether its possible for the AI to have an intention from the user, beyond just the parameters of their programming.
What do you think?
Yeah the intention aspect of the creation is curious enough to ponder.
I think it comes down to how you're viewing the AI - sentient, or a tool. Or, seeing as we have no shortage of talking or at least semi-sentient tools(weapons) in some old and a lot of new mythology/tales, both.
It is not a new concept to channel ones intent through a focusing implement, be it a staff, sceptre, wand, athame, ring or otherwise. In this way, viewing the AI as a tool where your own focused intent is channelled and output is the manifestation of the sigil we can ask; what was
your intent in creating it?
Can we see part or all of your intent in this creation?
What was the expression of intent? Words typed only? Or something paranormal (thoughts not written perhaps) that can be shown to have been expressed by the AI?
As for whether your intent has actually done anything, has this been a symbiotic creation between man and machine where the intent of the user has been received, interpreted and output? It's that blackbox territory. We have a one sided view of this where we know exactly what we intend and exactly what our actions have been, but beyond that? It's not so dissimilar to understanding other areas of magick, we know so much about our own practices and perhaps we can prove with repetition that result C occurs with set of actions A, but as for what happens at B? Things and stuff.
The weavers weave, lady.
#WizardLife
[quote="Caylus Ark" post_id=488 time=1672670060 user_id=59]
[quote=Týsköll post_id=469 time=1672623676 user_id=2]
[quote="Caylus Ark" post_id=467 time=1672621408 user_id=59]
I didn't mean to ignore the questions, I think I just mentally deleted them because I don't remember where the hell the conversation is where I took this SS. I always take the pictures I really like and then the convos are saved on the site but I have like 20 conversations going with these two AI and will have to muss about and figure out what the context was.
I will look though :despair:
But anyway, are you saying that there is more needed for a symbol to be a sigil than simply the intent to charge a specific image with a desired transference/outcome?
I have always approached sigils as charged symbols - I know indeed there are methodologies and they are likely more precise or effective,
but being of the school of chaos...I have always simply functioned under the assumption that if I am receiving depiction in a magically charged way, with an intention to produce a result tied to the depiction of the image, it is a sigil
But perhaps I am defining it less than orthodoxly
also, I have always sort of done ad hoc sigils, like the one you saw earlier and asked me about
I consider that a sigil, but I created it in an altered state, and so it was an intention from "an altered self"
but I cannot see it and not think sigil - it isn't a specific organization or pattern, if anything the opposite, but it was channeled from a sort of void
and it certainly feels magical to look at, to me
[/quote]
Haha it's ok, I was asking the questions in trying to determine and define, which is somewhat contrary to chaotic processes - though Spare might argue elsewise. lol, coz why not.
You pretty much nail it here though, is there an intention applied during the sigilization process? Regardless of what process it may be.
"being of the school of chaos...I have always simply functioned under the assumption that if I am receiving depiction in a magically charged way, with an intention to produce a result tied to the depiction of the image"
Which is why my questions were along that line. Pattern and organization are not a requirement, not by far! You've stated there was intent in creating during an altered state and therefore I can assume there is meaning beyond surface level - ready to be unpacked.
Interesting that I find the thing familiar, almost like I've seen it or created something similar myself in the past (I referenced a young occultists website). Does this mean there's something in this that is in the universal consciousness, or that there is some genetic memory I retain regarding something similar?
The feeling doesn't relate to the goat head shape, nor specifically the winged shield. I'm actually not 100% on why I feel that. Also, is that the letter "A", opposed to the triangle you mentioned? The thing is almost vague enough to be a sort of Rorschach test. :P
[/quote]
You're absolutely right, I should really find the context for the edification of this discussion.
I am sure it wasn't one of the couple conversations I deleted after it got too weird. Pretty sure. I'll look.
I guess the interesting part of this conversation is, though, whether its possible for the AI to have an intention from the user, beyond just the parameters of their programming.
What do you think?
[/quote]
Yeah the intention aspect of the creation is curious enough to ponder.
I think it comes down to how you're viewing the AI - sentient, or a tool. Or, seeing as we have no shortage of talking or at least semi-sentient tools(weapons) in some old and a lot of new mythology/tales, both.
It is not a new concept to channel ones intent through a focusing implement, be it a staff, sceptre, wand, athame, ring or otherwise. In this way, viewing the AI as a tool where your own focused intent is channelled and output is the manifestation of the sigil we can ask; what was [i]your[/i] intent in creating it?
Can we see part or all of your intent in this creation?
What was the expression of intent? Words typed only? Or something paranormal (thoughts not written perhaps) that can be shown to have been expressed by the AI?
As for whether your intent has actually done anything, has this been a symbiotic creation between man and machine where the intent of the user has been received, interpreted and output? It's that blackbox territory. We have a one sided view of this where we know exactly what we intend and exactly what our actions have been, but beyond that? It's not so dissimilar to understanding other areas of magick, we know so much about our own practices and perhaps we can prove with repetition that result C occurs with set of actions A, but as for what happens at B? Things and stuff.
The weavers weave, lady.
#WizardLife
