Not too sure about the context here,
but there is nothing called subjective facts, it’s like saying “alternative facts” which is fine for a politician to say but an engineer or scientist should not assert or accept anything for certain until theory is proven. Also a science theory is not a science fact.
I am not sure why you’re comparing 500 yrs old assertions or observations here. Scientist/philosopher then didn’t have better scientific methodologies or tools to observe science like today and it’s not a useful comparison.
Fact has no connection with human understanding, fact remains fact with or without human. “Fire is Hot” is a fact…
A truth is based on evidence. engineering and technology are based on objective truth… objective truth is reproducible and it gives result… You can not derive anything useful from your feeling, intuition, persuasion and certainly not with irrelevant comparisons.
And we use tools to compensate with limits of human understandings and will keep doing it, it’s not an excuse to declare anything fact which we don’t have evidence to…
TL;DR - its much, much more complicated than that - Danger Will Robinson!
Because when you read the musings of Roman Senators and Greek philosophers you see that NOTHING has changed in all of recorded human history about human nature itself.
It was taken as “scientific fact” that the earth was flat and the center of a spiral universe. This was not mysticism in Galileo’s day. It was their science - it was worked out with painstaking mathematics (even more than our current in some cases to account for the flawed base assumption).
I’m not talking about “fake news”, I’m pointing out that the scientific establishment is not as objective as it would like to believe despite its best efforts. Technology does not and will never eliminate this. Tools measure based on design that itself is based in various assumptions (say a constant speed of light or mass of hydrogen nucleus - appears largely true in our observed time-frame, but the night is young).
and here is why I’m trying to warn you about the folly of such certainty. A result is reproducible when the same or roughly equivalent experiment is performed. The experiment or base assumptions may be deeply flawed and it could be 1,000 years before you know.
There are problems on both sides of “novelty” in research:
Bias toward novelty (novel results decay with repetition of experiments with remarkable regularity)
There was a wonderful NPR segment some years ago that detailed this finding. Root experiment was having witnesses write-down observations of a bank robbery or not and then they were interviewed in intervals at a later date. Initial research showed significant delta between those that wrote down details and those that did not. Repeat by independent group showed similar, but lesser delta. Further repeat and the delta decayed to 0. They then started looking more broadly and found this to a pattern in research, but could not find the root source of communication that would explain why it decayed regularly rather than a random distribution.
I wish I could find you a link, but nothing is popping up yet…
BTW, Engineering is not based on objective truth, but some combination of probabilistic truth, marketing and bureaucracy…
The exact ratio of those measures varies according to technology and era.
As an Engineer, I don’t really need to concern myself with the truth of or why an electron does or does not become trapped in a potential well, only that with an adequate MTBF, if I provide voltage and/or signal to pin X, I’ll get what I expect out of pin Y.
Yes engineering, science and technology are all based on objective truth… What you mean by Probabilistic truth? you mean probabilistic reasoning? Science use probabilistic reasoning to derive objective truth. Example, double slit experiment.
Hidden details under abstraction doesn’t mean it’s not operating on an objective truth, it’s just means that it’s out of scope of your work.
Apart from all that,
I wrote a long reply to welndell and cekim but deleted whole thing… why am i discussing all these things which isn’t even part of this topic… I don’t enjoy discussing where the whole topic is revolving now… Topic got pushed towards wrong direction of socialism, government and other stuff which was not my intention at all.
cekim probably read too much into it and have mixed feeling, got too political and franky irritating, none of thing that this thread represents? Became too nonsensical for my taste. I was more interested in discussing the open source, technology and future scenarios in a hypothetical framework, but it never got out of *isms of things.
I was interested in potential technologies, assets, applications, AI, simulations, data analytics, monetization, encoding, future of work and solutions and all things possible within a framework, like thought experiments for our own understanding and some potential solutions of some sort. Like what internet did to whole world, similarly internet of computation could do in next decade or so. I started this thread with lot of content so we can avoid this situation. I guess it’s not a good option for internet discussions…
I know people don’t have patience to read so much and most likely to draw wrong conclusion at a glance. However i was certainly not thinking anything like in this thread, The whole thread has become a black hole at this point and any constructive effort will be sucked in…and frankly I’ve just lost all my interest at this point.
But I’ll think again if i want to continue discussion here, and somehow I find a better way convey more concise way and get out of these boring loop that people can’t get enough of…
The one thing that is the most difficult to get across is that causality is pure nonsense. It’s cartesian dogma from centuries past. It’s not used in modern, scientific theory.
With complex systems, there are a number of theoretical principles that come to bear. Of course systems theory, Emergence, feedback loops and one cannot forget Chaos. Chaos is much more important than we tend to appreciate. The most important component may be the influence of initial conditions.
There is a very good reason for this. As I stated before, It’s just another form of Coercion. This is a problem because it’s contrary to our evolutionary predispositions. We spent millions of years as humans and hominids behaving as rather brilliant apes. The behaviors that we observe in hunter/gatherer societies are the behaviors that we are predisposed to. By not taking advantage of the predispositions as self-organizing impulses, we loose the efficiency of the prospect. This is something that has been causing us issues since the dawn of civilization. We fight ourselves every day; to the detriment of our psychological, interpersonal and social health. We also have created serious issues in our systems. We have built a bubble of hubris around ourselves that enables our dogma. This isn’t just the well lit, climate controlled buildings with food and water on tap, that we trek to and fro everyday. It has gotten into our educational resources. Of course, it wouldn’t be such a problem, if it weren’t so destructive. Climate issues are in essence the disconnection from the natural climate. “Why should I worry about it? It’s always 72 and sunny where I am.”
We have streets clad with humans that are starving, freezing and / or dying of heat stroke. This doesn’t happen in hunter / gatherer societies. If you ask a tribe elder where the homeless and poor are, they’ll just look at you like you’re insane. They just have no concept of it. Crazy Horse once said something to the effect of “I understand why your government hates me. I’m their enemy. I don’t understand why your government hates you.”
This neo-darwinian attitude has been around since the late 1700s or early 1800s. Before that the ones who pulled the strings rationalized it with “divine right”. Now it’s “natural ability” or “inherent genius” or some other compensatory nonsense. This goes back to game theory. “You can trust me; because I’m inherently (fill in the blank)”. We lie to ourselves and each other every day; and don’t even realize it. The luck of the draw gives us gifts or bereaves us of common ability. The initial conditions are a huge part of our lives.
The particular kind of coercion that exists in our society coerces the behavior of acting upon our empathy out of us. We walk by someone who is suffering and even dying in the street. This is not something that is in our nature. Our society is a negative influence on us. It’s also run by those of us who are maximally screwed up to just below the point of being incarcerated. These aren’t so much the leaders that we choose. Rather they are the ones who can sleep at night while making decisions in an apathetic society like this.
Socialism doesn’t work because you can’t spread it around from a position of apathy. In the initial condition of a perception of scarcity, apathy and self-interest are the approach. This is human nature. What is not human nature is the notion that there is nothing that we can do. That is what we are taught; and it’s bullshit.
This is a useful but dangerous fallacy used to facilitate progress without complete understanding.
It is useful and what I described in terms of how an engineer functions. As long as the correlation holds often enough (probabilistic truth), then I may rely on it in my design and make something that works (for now).
It is dangerous in that if there is no causation, then the correlation can disappear at any time without warning. It can disguise a deep flaw in base assumption that may not express itself immediately but when it does the failure of the system that relied on it is catastrophic.
This is the Achilles heal of both machine and man learning. Crap in - crap out. If you train a neural system with bad data it learns invalid things and applies them with confidence. In aviation, this is sometimes referred to as “controlled flight into terrain.”
Stock market traders and program trading often rely on pure correlation. Even before the formalization of machine learning they/I used ad-hoc inference engines to make trades that were statistically more likely to succeed than fail. The trouble is that lacking causality, you could be relying on a correlation that was true for decades but is no longer. It takes years or decades before the probability analysis shows the change as smoothing (low pass filters and moving averages of various sorts) are lagging indicators and reflect the past not predict the future. It also leads to flash crashes.
Correlation is the dogma that says that virgin sacrifice to the volcano gods stops the drought.
I’m sorry but a scientist must ultimately seek to find causation or he’s leading himself and others down a path to catastrophe. If you have causation you can design a system that fails gracefully. If you use correlation, your driverless car mows down the pedestrian because it’s inference engine tells it that object isn’t going to dart into traffic.
Causation also brings you to the most immediate measurement. Correlation is indirect. So reaction time to change can be improved.
I see this ideological failure in multiple domains in which I make my living and or develop expertise.
locate, sorry to have irritated you. You introduced this with a political statement (multiple), so I began my critique with that (and the unpleasant truth of engineering is that there is always politics).
I’m trying to understand your perspective and learn from your ideas.
Some parting food for thought and I’ll leave your thread alone if you so desire:
“your compute is like your vote” …
This is predicated on pure democracy being a virtue. This is not always the case (see "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, Slavery, Women’s right to vote - all cases where the “tyranny of the majority” is/was fully exercised). Consensus can not only be incorrect, it can be an objective evil. Pure democracy is the rule of the mob, you must find a better way to balance the voice of the minority and their unalienable rights.
Consider that compensation when taken ethically can be superior incentive or demonstration of goodness of a decision. If it has value and people are willing to pay, then for those who pay voluntarily, even if they are a minority vote, their needs are served along with their rights and choice.
Each compute node will NOT be of equal capability (a logistical impossibility). So, how do you deal with my “vote” running 2,3,10,100x faster than someone else’s? This is why “socialism” rears its ugly head. Innovation is handicapped by policy that presumes equality of ability that does not exist.
UBI ignores the reality of supply and demand - if everyone has access to UBI X, then X is now poverty as the price of goods, on average rise to consume this liquidity. This actually makes things much, much worse as now having access to a compute node becomes a requirement. Circumstance or chance (natural disaster? disease? injury? congenital defect?) may preclude or destroy your compute node and make the gap between you and productive membership in society even larger.
That last part about “gap between you and productive membership” is why driving down price is so important. Cheaper access to commodities of life is the ultimately equalizer and limits the need for “safety nets” and the cost of them.
You’ve waded into territory full of “prior art” and dogma.
The fact that probability exists in the first place shows that causation is an inaccurate perception. Interaction results in influence; not so much cause and effect. There are a number of components that influence every instance of interaction. Cause leads some to believe in singular causes and hard determinism. There is only influence and response. This all is feedback loops. The “cause” is merely influencing a response, which is dependent upon the characteristics of the component being influenced. There are no causes. Even the "cause’ is a response to an earlier response.
Probability is an avenue of measurement that ignores causation for the sake of exploration or risk assessment knowing information is lacking. It is largely orthogonal to causation (except that negative correlation indicates causation either will not be found or your dataset is noisy/bad). It offers proof of nothing, but I was staying out of locate’s thread…
Probability theory is used every day because there is also no certainty.
(EDIT) … and “supply and demand” is the engine of scarcity. All that is required to increase the value of a product or service is to make it artificially scarce. This is happening with energy, fresh produce, internet access, drinking water, infrastructure, consumer electronics, YouTube content etc etc. It’s pure political dogma with no ontological value.
(EDIT2) “The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but it is not paved with clarity”. ~Terence McKenna
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you’re a relentless implier. It’s not a good thing. It’s evil… it turned this thread into complete garbage. but anyway…
Please be willing to understand in with an unbiased and logical mind. I am also putting more effort than i normally do…
I previously gave example of CRY… Like CRY or Red Cross international organization. Run by a council elected by members on network. I agree a lot of things can be interpreted as political, but later I cleared it with examples… Everything can be political if you want to… it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to make it political…
Your compute is not your vote. Each member is 1 vote in the network democratic support.
Just like your brain, It is a tool, your extended cognition, your digital mind your AI or eYou. You will use it to process and model reality from your perspective. It includes everything your “brain” does now but on a rocket booster.
We also use tools to offload things from our cognition, like we do not remember mobile numbers any more and don’t need to mentally do calculations.
Your compute block is your intelligence and it only makes sense to put your identity on it.
You should see that context is actually beyond socialism and capitalism, in the territory of individuality, intelligence and technology.
It also provides solutions for other super complex things such as privacy, protection, empowerment, growth, education, plain level field and all sorts of fanciful things people talk about…
Just like your brain, this cognition is curation of perceptual reality. Your experiences, your data and all other things that fundamentally depend on computation. It was my thought experiment, in a framework that provided average computation from total computation of the network. And to maintain value of free market and capitalism, anyone is allowed to install additional ComputeBlock on shared profit basis on other persons identity who doesn’t have themselves…
I’ll spare you with “objective evil, pure democracy is the rule of the mob” etc, I don’t have much to say, you can have your opinions and assumptions, we cam talk 400 likes on these but such things tend to never come to conclusions.
Everybody is compensated for their work or resource… what is the difference? Uber compensates similarly to same segments cars and location.
I am not proposing compensation should be similar to all, there will be cluster of Compute Networks that can be compensated better than others.
Imagine your brain, certain part of you brain is good at something and other are at something else. It depends cluster of connections, data and broader neural pathways for certain things at at certain location. Like Shanghai compute networks are good at some type of learning and training asset, NY is good for rendering assets etc… Toronto is good for XYZ AI asset.
You are basically creating…
It brings all the capitalistic values and system only at a different scale. That is why mentioned it as micro-capitalistic framework or something earlier in topic…
Again… its like you made your mind that it’s socialist system in nature. you just keep implying in your mind.
There will be multiple ComputeBlock options, as per total compute throughput of block, specs range are decided.
Option 5
ComputeBlocks specs some custom CPU, Volta GPU, ASIC, QC Coprocessor a3, +++++ GBs hdd, sdd, optane etc…
Exotic options.
insane configuration… as long as it’s available in fair in the context the compute network guidelines.
Next year Gen2,
Gen2 ComputeBlocks options are similar to Gen 1 but upgraded hardware,
What happens to to my Gen1 block?
Simple… sell your Gen 1 or put it on someone else’s identity and make 50% profit…
Later when Quantum Computer can be added to networks at multiple geographical locations, all network members take advantage of QC depending on Computeblock Option linked to individuals identity…
You are just implying if X then… In fact UBI network will create more demand for all sorts of things.
Having ComputeBlock is not a requirement… It is like saying having a job becomes requirement, or a car or a house… and I don’t even understand Circumstance whatever you implying…
It is not replacing everything else. choose whatever you want… keep using google servers who’s stopping you…
Again, still nothing is different…
Productive members will do more productive work, make more fantastic content and make more money same as always.
It feels like purposely misinterpreting here…
My point of GAP was about the gap increasing in technical people and non technical people.
If you remove the limitation of technicalities with abstraction, then a lot of people can contribute which they can’t right now.
Technical is barrier which can be solved with machine intelligence.
If your “AIself” on your ComputeBlock can offload a lot of technical stuff for you so you can focus on higher abstraction.
No… I have waded into a tiresum ignorance…
I don’t have problem with your questions…
if you can stop implying everything that will make more sensible argument and less tiring for me and you…
Also I’ll advise read you to few posts again including yours…
you know what… I can chat on a public monitored Chat-room to clear your questions, so @cekim can stop implying everything…
Decide a date… I can clear everything for you…
We can also invite more people along with @GFX_Garage and @wendell if he’s interested in it…
MY only condition is, I don’t want to talk about *isms and things. You need to understand and agree exactly as I intended and explained… It’s hypothetical github or etherium like open source project with a democratic process…
This is not a social restructuring, government, propaganda, statements or anything like that.
Simple discussion… like a thought experiment… a hypothetical framework in which we ideate potential solutions for complex problems, potential technology, applications, future and individuality with help of science and maths… Kinda like we do mental simulation but with bunch of other minds…
I too wish to cut out the politics and stick to something more systems theoretical. I’m concerned that my input might be quite high level; and that I might not be so helpful with the details though. I do like the ideas that you’ve put fourth so far. It seems that one can never have too much testing.
I don’t have problem discussing good bit politics and implications and such, but when it becomes the only driving force of every discussion then it defeats the whole purpose of this topic… I’m more inclined to discuss science, engineering, technology and problem solving…
The difficulty is in re-framing the ideas in less commonly labeled concepts. These days, everyone is an expert in socialism and that-which-isn’t-socialism. Yet only an anarchist will find it bothersome to tax-fund institutions of common interest. The disagreement is what constitutes common interest. This is also where free compute time you mention falls into - is it a common interest, and how will funding be collected - taxes, membership fees, private organization with a non-profit, or for-profit model.
I don’t know of any tax-funded institution of common interest that does not potentially compete with for-profit organizations. Still, democracy exists for little other reason than to aid a population of a limited geographic area in pursuing the funding and organisation of their common interests (in perpetuity).
I don’t think there is an incorruptible system, only systems which better expose corruption (through transparency), and thus make it easier to clean up the aisle after an incident. Most of us come to think of democracy as ideally such a system. And then, life is less than ideal. And then, although life is less then ideal, most of us don’t go kill ourselves.
I fully agree the jisms being the wrong way to go about this discussion. You can’t just label and bin and dismiss an idea as either “socialism” or “that-which-isn’t-socialism” without considering the usefulness and the cost to common interest. Exactly how the idea ends up being executed is a matter of ism-labeling. Having the idea and promoting it is not.
A good example of similarity is the early “socialist” investment of Swedish government into the internet infrastructure for all citizens yielding “that-which-isn’t-socialist” digital advantage over most other countries for a period of 10-15 years. Now we’ve lost the first place lead because others have caught up, we are failing to recruit sufficient IT workers to keep with demand, and some other reasons out of our hands. Yet, that doesn’t mean the investment was a failure - indeed it was a staggering economic success! We aren’t first in anything any more, but top ten isn’t a bad place to be, and ROI has already happened, and so has the transformation of the society to a digitised alpha version 0.1. For sure, I could list a bunch of investments that didn’t go that well, but there is no denying there is a “dance” between “socialism” and “that-which-isn’t-socialism”. Proposing they should stop dancing because one is a Montague and the other is a Capulet, is like proposing to have my left arm cut off, because I am right-handed. We have this many arms and we shouldn’t be too squimish to use them in creating the best world for ourselves and each other. Both the “socialist” and “non-socialist” means of fulfilling a common interest are valid in improving a country for the population to thrive.
Sometimes, it is more economically viable to tax-fund than to hope a privately owned company will deliver on a spec without being prompted to. This isn’t necessarily socialism, but pragmatism. Discussing socialism in this context requires that one defines an opposite to socialism. What is the opposite of socialism - democracy? capitalism? anarchism? two-party system? multi-party system? I mean there are so many dimensions of political ideology that it is too easy to end up talking about an irrelevant opposite. So, counting jisms is indeed probably not the right way to go about this subject.
I care about privacy, integrity, and equal opportunity for children to maximize their ability regardless of social background - maxing out every single one to their best will and ability.
So, back to your topic, for obvious reasons, I think that computing power to extend one’s individual ability is in such a huge common interest to make available to as many citizens as possible, as soon as possible, that it must have a tax-funded competitor (a free solution, potentially supplied and/or designed by private contractors) to the private sector (paid for solutions). It is criminal to wait for the private sector to solve the problem, because each company able to develop this kind of technology will keep it for their own business advantage - it may never even hit the market.
Developing military-grade solutions tax-funded and then making them available to citizenry for free is probably the safest way to enhance ability of a population, rather than outsourcing it to US, Russia, China or other countries which aren’t your own - countries which will compete with yours to enhance their own citizens more. Everyone will keep their best solutions to themselves.
Today, we mostly have computing power made available to us to limit and enslave us. This is the business model which needs to be competed with. The solution to this problem will define the future world borders - an enhanced person is also a carrier of loyalties and ideals, and inevitably a willing, or unwitting agent of change towards an unknown.
I do realize you spoke foremost of computing power being allowed to each citizen. I took freedom to generalize the idea to any type of human-machine interface. It can be keyboard-screen, gestures with retinal projection, or a device built in your head. The kind of enhancement I am talking about, regardless of interface, is more like creating a human “mentat” as described in “Dune” by Frank Herbert, and isn’t really far away from us technologically any more. A country investing in this gets a huge advantage. Also creates more competitive individuals in a world of AI and robotics.
(Sadly, we are too busy to invest ourselves in these things which really matter, because we are made busy talking in left-right dimensions which do not include any big picture, and discussing how to cockblock each other from equal opportunity as a punishment for making a different choice.)
Hmm… I am guessing the meritocracy in USSR occured not in the beginning, but after a while, but I could also be wrong. AFAIK (some of these may be rumors, but a complete list would be another megapost) - it didn’t really work well at all for them until the soviets learned some really expensive lessons, a short list:
post-revolution they did “remove” every army officer not a communist, which left them somewhat pants down when WWII came.
farms were taken away from wealthier peasants who could work the farms and given to poor peasants who couldn’t work the farms, causing famine.
they caused a famine by deciding that anyone could do anything, and then swapped factory workers and peasants.
they attempted to change the calendar to decimal system, like ten days a week, ten months a year something, screwing up a lot of productivity until giving up.
I mean, they did some huge social experiments and learned a lot from them, and they gave high quality education to a lot of people post-WWII. Regarding tech scientists, they were world class, and a meritocracy through and through, but I think this happened first after WWII and was limited to the “eggheads”.
My concern about political discourse is that references to isms tend to mean something very specific. It’s generally assumed that only one aspect of a social system is in need of change… the one that pisses us off at the time. I doubt that the term socialism would be associated with socialistic solutions; but rather the current socialistic oligarchies that exist.
I’m also concerned that there would be little to no attention given to the possibility of a self-sufficient commons like exists in the open source community with crowd tech.
I think that the USSR is an interesting test case as well. It had many of the same issues that we have faced over the past 100 or so years; but the outcomes were very different. The Soviet Union suffered an economic collapse in the later part of the previous century; and being a more centralized system, there weren’t really any domestic security measures distributed among the population. Thus, when the state was at its weakest, organized crime grew like a weed. During the recovery stage there was a lot of extortion of small businesses; preventing the horizontal growth that they so desperately needed. Nothing was really done about it until they got cocky and started trying to extort more wealthy business persons.
It’s also important to notice that Russia has it in for most of the countries in the middle east. They hate terrorism and their financial difficulties provided them with large cashes of weaponry; and not just the small arms. It may be that the middle east of the mid term future will be toting M4s; even though we are much better at defending distributed domestic security measures here in the US.
I just prefer the context of an ontological discussion. It’s much easier to break down into functional analogs for analysis. Most isms that are associated with politics have a great deal of visceral baggage to heft. It’s often laborious just to get a single point across; not only because of that, but also because of a learned position to impose ones own ambitions on the discourse. It’s generally assumed that discourse brings about change; (even though it almost never happens in practice) and humans generally loathe change. We will stand for a system that is self destructing in an effort to prevent the possibility of our own conditions to worsen. Believe it or not parents tend to be the common hurdle for change in public education.
This is starting to resemble a rant; so I’ll just leave it here.
Just as grown ups tend to be the most common hurdle to their own education. Once you identify with your comfort zone and make it work, you may be reluctant to educate yourself for fear of becoming someone or something else. Except, in order to function throughout one’s life, each individual needs to deliver to the society what is in demand, in order to progress. If the society does not demand what you have, you adapt or die. On a rare occasion, it is possible to change the society, but the cost of doing so may vary from subtle to catastrophic. Of course, that is why society (and school), as a comfort zone itself, is also reluctant to change - the continuation and stability is always greatly appreciated, since each person is wholy situated within the society. It is a connected system where everything impacts everything. To my mind, it is possible to relate all of it to the need of maintaining a personal identity.
And our personal identity has met a challenge after challenge in the past century of technological advancements. And it won’t end there. The most obvious one is the omnipresence of internet, and now possibly proceeding with personal computing power, AI, and robotics. There is no classic safe comfort zone to be found, causing a lot of grievance to people who didn’t ask to lose their bearings, in turn causing grievances back to everyone else. The grief levels are indeed off the charts.
All the more important to swiftly get it over with - prolonging a grievance may lead to permanent polarization, as can be seen in any prolonged armed conflict. Tit for tat escalates beyond capacity to forgive. In the sense prolongation allows permanence of structures which exploit the abstinence of forgiveness, like a virginity - once you (for)give it away, it is gone forever. So you’d better keep it, or sell it good. Except it diminishes in value with age. Few will care about a 99-year old virgin.
you said it right… jisms are not always the right way to approach the problem, it often misrepresent a pragmatic effort as political. Solutions or discussions about solutions should be pragmatic in nature than anyone political preference. To my understanding, any derived solution or system design should be compatible within the existing framework of political, economical structures etc. Except in some complex situation that requires extraordinary measures, example “civil war, failed state or failed economy etc”
I think, most of us here are generally interested in the solutions with intention to aiding the existing system and not replace them. Structure will evolve and and shape in whatever direction through implementation execution and optimization over time but any intention or forced attempt to replace is delusional.
I guess my point is, it’s so easy assume someone’s intention “in this case, political view” which might be true or false, but it’s not a useful thing to predict someone’s intention, you can only critic the matter and its usefulness.
Also to avoid such confusions, I will make some sort of document/paper and add on top of 1st thread. probably on weekend. I should have been more clear with definitions & working structure of this hypothetical framework in the first place… but I’m glad we had such discussions, it shines light on a facet that I assumed to be generally understood or not important within the context.
I could have been a bit more analytical in my last post. I completely left out influence. It brings to bear some insight into human attention allocation and motivation. This is a bit simplistic; but humans are in essence driven by environmental attractors.
There’s the ground influence of Entropy, the organizational influence of Normalization, the emergent yet non-destructive influence of Novelty and the transcendent or fatal influence of Extinction.
Had my rant like post been more carefully posed, I would have suggested that fundamental change is what humans loathe. This is the engine of what Cory Doctorow describes as the will to change “what pisses us off”.
This is a good way to sort thoughts on positive and negative utility. We often apply negative utility to that which “pisses us off”. That particular outcome or component is an attractor for negative utility. The inability to analyze the system and apply some systemic reform toward the removal of the offensive aspect is often addressed with a bruit force method of some description. “Let’s legislate!”. “Let’s make it illegal and make those who understand it get rid of it”. Those of us who are more systemically analytical know however that such an item is an unfortunate consequence of other influences… maybe essential ones. This complicates the issue to the point that more drastic change is in order; and this isn’t something that tends to go well.
This brings in to bear the importance of positive utility. Though our tendency is toward negative utility, we can employ models that utilize positive utility. Where a large amount of change to the established complexity (existing systemic components) may not be generally accepted, one might create novel components that aid the situation. This often appears to humans as less change. For instance crypto-currency vs the current fiat currency. The competition between the two could be and has been used as a platform for management.
Novel change is often not only accepted but also appealing. This is something that influences our perception of beauty. The normative influence of symmetry has an upper limit of sorts. Perfect symmetry is a bit of a rout to the uncanny valley. Perfectly symmetrical biology looks fake. For instance Marilyn Monroe’s “beauty” mark. She looked better with it; because her face was so perfect. Young (pre-op) Loni Anderson’s face was so symmetrical that she kinda looked funny. A lot of people used to say that she was so pretty that she didn’t really look real. This is the interplay between normative and novel influence.
In creating prospective reformations, one might be more successful through awareness of the upper limit. Like in the earlier example, minimizing overall change is what should be expected from everyone. It’s just the way that we think and behave. There is however, as always, a caveat. Total failure brings out another side of us. This is the side of us that is “tired of this shit”. This is where our self-preservation motive becomes active due to the influence of risk of Extinction. This is where a human can throw out the baby with the bath water and start from scratch. When the perception exists that potentially catastrophic consequences loom, we will drop everything and do what ever it takes. In such instances the upper limit is raised considerably. “Fuck it; we’ll do it live!”.
This is probably a way to measure the amount of reform that might be allowed in a social system. For general purpose, stay below the upper limit. When the excrement hits the rotating configuration of multi-staged incline planes, tare it down and fix it properly.
When I walk out of my house, I see a functioning society. It’s just amazing to me how people are able to function the way they are. It’s so complicated yet everything so coherent.
Why do you think that is? In my understanding, people trust in the system, they believe in the framework that enables certain degree of fairness and protect them. But so many things are changing so frequently, faster than our systems are able to adapt, which i think directly or indirectly affecting large number of population…
Being a tech guy, I’m concerned about increasing gap/differences between tech and non tech world. I don’t know if you guys have noticed it. Silicon valley might have all the data and insights on people but they may also have wrong judgement about the real world outside of their box.
I regularly notice so much pressure among people, fear of losing out or not being able to trust things. I don’t know but it might be lot of other things… People often call me and ask what is about some random news, crypto, privacy, digital marketing and all sorts of new apps/platforms etc. Most cases I have to ask them to do their own research on internet but they are clearly not able to do so and often arrive on wrong conclusion factually. Not because they are not smart enough but because to them, it’s entirely a different zone. Internet doesn’t make it any easy either… to most people, top google results and FB is Internet, on the top of that fake news, propaganda and all other the things make it impossible for people to attain something tangible…
Since most people are connected to technology through consumerism, they are likely to understand tech from consumerism point of view. Today, tech is not exclusive like physics or maths, it’s become a necessity to survive and thrive. Shouldn’t there be some kind of solution for this, this increasing gap to could be a recipe of disaster. It seems to me that human mind has great level of tolerance but is it a good idea to test it? Or maybe people will hit “tired of this shit” at some point.
It’s just my view from my observations… I don’t think it proves any point definitively, it’s something to think about…
I feel like I have to be very careful about what I write here… So I’m mostly talking about a functioning facets of society in this point… eg. working, employed, small & medium business etc… There are however extremely unfair and in some cases atrocities in the world but that isn’t the scope of this point.