On 29/04/16 06:51 PM, erik zepka wrote: > > And when the questions, as both Ruth > and Alan have effectively talked about, get to a realm of inhuman > problematics, ecological, species-threatening, who should advise then?
Deodands: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/392/deodands-dacs-for-natural-systems ;-) > We could at least say that for every categorical norm (a type of person, > a type of organism, a type of biosphere) there's an exception and that > considering that exception can help expand the norm. Or create new separate or superseding norms. The revision of norms over time, and avoiding local contradictions between them, is a key part of the sources of epistemic accelerationism - Sellars, Brandom, etc. . The current work on the "Casper" algorithm for Ethereum may end up as a realisation in code of this kind of local-within-the-global consensus. > If we imagined an > accelerationist advisory committee (maybe this is one), whatever our > question, it might choose to attempt to make accountable whatever > accelerationism then meant or did - the advisory committee then itself > might be considered normative, but it doesn't subtract from the fact > that it might have been a sober move within a given context. The Manifesto is against *fetishising* democratic proceduralism. As Ordinaryism points out, sometimes to increase our knowledge we do have to listen to other people. But as Big Data point outs, what people *do* is a better indicator than what they *say*. We are increasingly able to reason about both using computing machinery. Epistemic accelerationism may ultimately lead to the automation of philosophy, although this is not a sufficient or necessary destiny for it. It would be difficult to regard this as impossible at the same time as (for example) criticising algorithms for being racist. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
