Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Why bother going to Mars when you could haul some tungsten rods up on your own heavy-lift rockets? https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-9.html -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 3:15 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... Marcus wrote: > Is there reason to believe that Musk is interested in a libertarian-utopian > vision? His acutely evident excess narcissistic hubris? I'm sure it is yet another example of my "imputation" tendency. I "impute" his motives to include a fiction that his vision lives in a techno-utopian fantasy land where others with his (presumed) acute technical perspective/acumen can self-select to become the successful hyper-individual exploiters of a "frontier" (like the one his presumed Dutch Afrikanner ancestors found in So. Africa a few centuries ago, and the American Frontiersman version found here in North America) without too much (any) interference from bureaucracies, etc. Musk's ability to *navigate* the existing bureaucracies (with a combination of financial leverage, popular support, and belligerent ignorance of the relevance of rules to his context) is (IMO) represents something "unique" to him. Msr. Bezos and Ssr Branson seem to want to play in the same domain, but despite Bezos significantly greater *financial* wealth (until this year), he has not even begun (by some measure) to compete. > If specialness is a rare instance of unique, it seems reasonable to take > what he's said in public at face value: That by having humans on both > planets, "humanity" can be saved from disaster. That's like a Noah's Ark > type argument that would suggest that people are more interchangeable. > There's no need to keep the copies. He makes that argument as a way of convincing others to pitch in or get out of his way... but I still suspect him of an acutely narcissistic desire to create a polyp of humanity built in his own self-image. I don't know if Noah aspired to be the captain of a post-deluvian paradise, I think he is at least characterized in the Biblical descriptions as a "loyal channeler of Yahweh's will"? This is not to say that *my* narcissistic hubristic techno-utopian fantasies don't get tweaked by most of Musk's techno-developments. Flying cars, underground ballistic transport, space-flight, colonizing mars, neural link/lace, what's NOT to like about all that (as a techno-utopian)? My alternate anarcho-primitivist pretty much finds *all* of that something NOT TO LIKE... but that is *my* inner battle. I'm happy for those of you who don't live with those loud shouting matches erupting in your head/heart. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:47 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... > > I don't know if we are converging in our acceptance/dismissal of "the > myth of individuality" or not, but for the moment I am hallucinating > convergence. > > I think the distinction we are arriving at *might* be that *every > snowflake is unique* but that this is true in the very same way that *every > stone is unique* and *every tree is unique*. I think the point you are > making is that that (intrinsic?!) uniqueness should not be conflated with > specialness? > > The pinon closest to the bedroom in my house which I sat under and climbed in > regularly for most of my elementary school years *was* quite special *to me*, > up to and including feeling guilty/uncomfortable when I let my father talk me > into trimming one of the lower branches to open up a larger canopy to sit > under. I could have "groomed the hell out of" > the tree, maybe even nailed up a platform and made a treehouse in it, but I > was (for better or worse) hyper-aware of the details that made it unique. > My imagination/memory includes (I think) many of it's details including some > of the larger roots humping up out of the ground and the places I needed to > avoid gripping whilst climbing to avoid getting pitch on my hands. > > I believe that Musk's delusion includes the ideation that by moving > himself (and ~1M other individual peoples) to the surface of Mars (and/or > distributed through the asteroid belt) will allow the "forcing culture" to > change enough to match some libertarian-utopian vision he holds. > > I *think* when you debunk the specialness of the individual you are > saying that the uniquenesses (specific construction of any given > snowflake) is mostly irrelevant in many/most contexts. > > My nephew is a buddi
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Marcus wrote: > Is there reason to believe that Musk is interested in a libertarian-utopian > vision? His acutely evident excess narcissistic hubris? I'm sure it is yet another example of my "imputation" tendency. I "impute" his motives to include a fiction that his vision lives in a techno-utopian fantasy land where others with his (presumed) acute technical perspective/acumen can self-select to become the successful hyper-individual exploiters of a "frontier" (like the one his presumed Dutch Afrikanner ancestors found in So. Africa a few centuries ago, and the American Frontiersman version found here in North America) without too much (any) interference from bureaucracies, etc. Musk's ability to *navigate* the existing bureaucracies (with a combination of financial leverage, popular support, and belligerent ignorance of the relevance of rules to his context) is (IMO) represents something "unique" to him. Msr. Bezos and Ssr Branson seem to want to play in the same domain, but despite Bezos significantly greater *financial* wealth (until this year), he has not even begun (by some measure) to compete. > If specialness is a rare instance of unique, it seems reasonable to take > what he's said in public at face value: That by having humans on both > planets, "humanity" can be saved from disaster. That's like a Noah's Ark > type argument that would suggest that people are more interchangeable. > There's no need to keep the copies. He makes that argument as a way of convincing others to pitch in or get out of his way... but I still suspect him of an acutely narcissistic desire to create a polyp of humanity built in his own self-image. I don't know if Noah aspired to be the captain of a post-deluvian paradise, I think he is at least characterized in the Biblical descriptions as a "loyal channeler of Yahweh's will"? This is not to say that *my* narcissistic hubristic techno-utopian fantasies don't get tweaked by most of Musk's techno-developments. Flying cars, underground ballistic transport, space-flight, colonizing mars, neural link/lace, what's NOT to like about all that (as a techno-utopian)? My alternate anarcho-primitivist pretty much finds *all* of that something NOT TO LIKE... but that is *my* inner battle. I'm happy for those of you who don't live with those loud shouting matches erupting in your head/heart. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:47 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... > > I don't know if we are converging in our acceptance/dismissal of "the myth of > individuality" or not, but for the moment I am hallucinating convergence. > > I think the distinction we are arriving at *might* be that *every snowflake > is unique* but that this is true in the very same way that *every stone is > unique* and *every tree is unique*. I think the point you are making is > that that (intrinsic?!) uniqueness should not be conflated with specialness? > > The pinon closest to the bedroom in my house which I sat under and climbed in > regularly for most of my elementary school years *was* quite special *to me*, > up to and including feeling guilty/uncomfortable when I let my father talk me > into trimming one of the lower branches to open up a larger canopy to sit > under. I could have "groomed the hell out of" > the tree, maybe even nailed up a platform and made a treehouse in it, but I > was (for better or worse) hyper-aware of the details that made it unique. > My imagination/memory includes (I think) many of it's details including some > of the larger roots humping up out of the ground and the places I needed to > avoid gripping whilst climbing to avoid getting pitch on my hands. > > I believe that Musk's delusion includes the ideation that by moving himself > (and ~1M other individual peoples) to the surface of Mars (and/or distributed > through the asteroid belt) will allow the "forcing culture" to change enough > to match some libertarian-utopian vision he holds. > > I *think* when you debunk the specialness of the individual you are saying > that the uniquenesses (specific construction of any given > snowflake) is mostly irrelevant in many/most contexts. > > My nephew is a budding materials scientist with a particular background in > crystallography (his father is a minerologist) and he recently walked me > through, in particular, some of the idiosyncrasies of quartz crystals and the > myriad uses those specifics can yield various useful properties (in > industry). I went looking for the basis of Kurt Vonnegut'
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Is there reason to believe that Musk is interested in a libertarian-utopian vision? If specialness is a rare instance of unique, it seems reasonable to take what he's said in public at face value: That by having humans on both planets, "humanity" can be saved from disaster. That's like a Noah's Ark type argument that would suggest that people are more interchangeable. There's no need to keep the copies. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:47 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... I don't know if we are converging in our acceptance/dismissal of "the myth of individuality" or not, but for the moment I am hallucinating convergence. I think the distinction we are arriving at *might* be that *every snowflake is unique* but that this is true in the very same way that *every stone is unique* and *every tree is unique*. I think the point you are making is that that (intrinsic?!) uniqueness should not be conflated with specialness? The pinon closest to the bedroom in my house which I sat under and climbed in regularly for most of my elementary school years *was* quite special *to me*, up to and including feeling guilty/uncomfortable when I let my father talk me into trimming one of the lower branches to open up a larger canopy to sit under. I could have "groomed the hell out of" the tree, maybe even nailed up a platform and made a treehouse in it, but I was (for better or worse) hyper-aware of the details that made it unique. My imagination/memory includes (I think) many of it's details including some of the larger roots humping up out of the ground and the places I needed to avoid gripping whilst climbing to avoid getting pitch on my hands. I believe that Musk's delusion includes the ideation that by moving himself (and ~1M other individual peoples) to the surface of Mars (and/or distributed through the asteroid belt) will allow the "forcing culture" to change enough to match some libertarian-utopian vision he holds. I *think* when you debunk the specialness of the individual you are saying that the uniquenesses (specific construction of any given snowflake) is mostly irrelevant in many/most contexts. My nephew is a budding materials scientist with a particular background in crystallography (his father is a minerologist) and he recently walked me through, in particular, some of the idiosyncrasies of quartz crystals and the myriad uses those specifics can yield various useful properties (in industry). I went looking for the basis of Kurt Vonnegut's Ice-9 only to find that we are up to 18 distinct crystalline forms... and of course (in the spirit of the individual/unique) those don't include the combinatorics implied by contaminants (or intentional dopants, etc.) which I assume are the basis of the plenitude (effective infinitude?) of snowflakes individuals. Individual human beings in the context of groups larger than Dunbar# pretty much get their meaning through their utility which reflects a combination of their affordances and their circumstances as much as the long-term relationships (2,...n-wise) they have with other individuals (not to mention domesticated/wild/familiar animals, edifices, plants, etc.) of On 3/29/21 3:11 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Aha! Yeah, we probably do share it. But 2 points in space can be in the same > state *without* having a common driver. I.e. inter-subjectivity does not > imply communication. En garde! So you may share the same sentiment with an > alien consciousness near Sirius. And, although it sounds like I'm just > joking, I'm actually trying to say something serious, which is that > individuali[ty|sm] carries something like a "locality arrogance" ... the > impression that one blob in the pervading field(s) is somehow special or > unique, different from all the other blobs. Maybe our modern problem of > celebrity and institutional bloat is a function of a finite and fairly small > set of possible states of being? And now that we're up to 8B people, each of > us is guaranteed to share state with some N others? And anyone who thinks > they're somehow special or unique is simply ignorant of those who share their > state? If we experience a massive die off, those of us that survive will > again be true individuals? > > Or, even if the space of states is actual infinite, perhaps there's only a > small number of forcing cultures and we'd *have* to fly out to Sirius in > order to get out of those overwhelming flows. > > On 3/29/21 12:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through >> other mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) >> boun
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
I don't know if we are converging in our acceptance/dismissal of "the myth of individuality" or not, but for the moment I am hallucinating convergence. I think the distinction we are arriving at *might* be that *every snowflake is unique* but that this is true in the very same way that *every stone is unique* and *every tree is unique*. I think the point you are making is that that (intrinsic?!) uniqueness should not be conflated with specialness? The pinon closest to the bedroom in my house which I sat under and climbed in regularly for most of my elementary school years *was* quite special *to me*, up to and including feeling guilty/uncomfortable when I let my father talk me into trimming one of the lower branches to open up a larger canopy to sit under. I could have "groomed the hell out of" the tree, maybe even nailed up a platform and made a treehouse in it, but I was (for better or worse) hyper-aware of the details that made it unique. My imagination/memory includes (I think) many of it's details including some of the larger roots humping up out of the ground and the places I needed to avoid gripping whilst climbing to avoid getting pitch on my hands. I believe that Musk's delusion includes the ideation that by moving himself (and ~1M other individual peoples) to the surface of Mars (and/or distributed through the asteroid belt) will allow the "forcing culture" to change enough to match some libertarian-utopian vision he holds. I *think* when you debunk the specialness of the individual you are saying that the uniquenesses (specific construction of any given snowflake) is mostly irrelevant in many/most contexts. My nephew is a budding materials scientist with a particular background in crystallography (his father is a minerologist) and he recently walked me through, in particular, some of the idiosyncrasies of quartz crystals and the myriad uses those specifics can yield various useful properties (in industry). I went looking for the basis of Kurt Vonnegut's Ice-9 only to find that we are up to 18 distinct crystalline forms... and of course (in the spirit of the individual/unique) those don't include the combinatorics implied by contaminants (or intentional dopants, etc.) which I assume are the basis of the plenitude (effective infinitude?) of snowflakes individuals. Individual human beings in the context of groups larger than Dunbar# pretty much get their meaning through their utility which reflects a combination of their affordances and their circumstances as much as the long-term relationships (2,...n-wise) they have with other individuals (not to mention domesticated/wild/familiar animals, edifices, plants, etc.) of On 3/29/21 3:11 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Aha! Yeah, we probably do share it. But 2 points in space can be in the same > state *without* having a common driver. I.e. inter-subjectivity does not > imply communication. En garde! So you may share the same sentiment with an > alien consciousness near Sirius. And, although it sounds like I'm just > joking, I'm actually trying to say something serious, which is that > individuali[ty|sm] carries something like a "locality arrogance" ... the > impression that one blob in the pervading field(s) is somehow special or > unique, different from all the other blobs. Maybe our modern problem of > celebrity and institutional bloat is a function of a finite and fairly small > set of possible states of being? And now that we're up to 8B people, each of > us is guaranteed to share state with some N others? And anyone who thinks > they're somehow special or unique is simply ignorant of those who share their > state? If we experience a massive die off, those of us that survive will > again be true individuals? > > Or, even if the space of states is actual infinite, perhaps there's only a > small number of forcing cultures and we'd *have* to fly out to Sirius in > order to get out of those overwhelming flows. > > On 3/29/21 12:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through other >> mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) boundaries >> between self/other or more aptly self/whole. You are apparently >> more-better at (or at least more committed to your version of) this than >> I am which I envy/aspire. >> >> I suppose all I'm teasing at here is the apparent paradox of (for >> example) the "two" of us, trying to serialize things about our "inner >> states" to "communicate" between two "individuals". In the abstract, >> I accept the premise that what I consider to be an "individual" (e.g. >> me, you, 400+ people reading or hitting delete on this message) is more >> a locus or cluster or relative concentration in a high dimensional >> field. Maybe the only answer is to ingest a quantum of the right >> mushroom... or fast/dehydrate until I meet Joseph or Brigham across a >> campfire in an arroyo... or meditate until my spirit leaves my body and >
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
The video animated particles bouncing around to different outlets. It didn't consider the case where an isolated weirdo never even enters one of its hamster wheels. Such an isolated individual may still have "locality arrogance", but I think there's a plausible case that the agent's evolution is not just a result of the forcing culture. The weirdo may still have other developmental cognitive forcing functions acting on them that only a culture can rescue. Influencers are just missionaries with a particularly thin message. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:11 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... Aha! Yeah, we probably do share it. But 2 points in space can be in the same state *without* having a common driver. I.e. inter-subjectivity does not imply communication. En garde! So you may share the same sentiment with an alien consciousness near Sirius. And, although it sounds like I'm just joking, I'm actually trying to say something serious, which is that individuali[ty|sm] carries something like a "locality arrogance" ... the impression that one blob in the pervading field(s) is somehow special or unique, different from all the other blobs. Maybe our modern problem of celebrity and institutional bloat is a function of a finite and fairly small set of possible states of being? And now that we're up to 8B people, each of us is guaranteed to share state with some N others? And anyone who thinks they're somehow special or unique is simply ignorant of those who share their state? If we experience a massive die off, those of us that survive will again be true individuals? Or, even if the space of states is actual infinite, perhaps there's only a small number of forcing cultures and we'd *have* to fly out to Sirius in order to get out of those overwhelming flows. On 3/29/21 12:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through other > mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) boundaries > between self/other or more aptly self/whole. You are apparently > more-better at (or at least more committed to your version of) this > than I am which I envy/aspire. > > I suppose all I'm teasing at here is the apparent paradox of (for > example) the "two" of us, trying to serialize things about our "inner > states" to "communicate" between two "individuals". In the > abstract, I accept the premise that what I consider to be an "individual" > (e.g. > me, you, 400+ people reading or hitting delete on this message) is > more a locus or cluster or relative concentration in a high > dimensional field. Maybe the only answer is to ingest a quantum of > the right mushroom... or fast/dehydrate until I meet Joseph or > Brigham across a campfire in an arroyo... or meditate until my spirit > leaves my body and apprehends the cosmos directly... > > We two "illusory individuals" *appear* (from the perspective of > illusory > individuals) to be communicating (poorly or otherwise) -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Aha! Yeah, we probably do share it. But 2 points in space can be in the same state *without* having a common driver. I.e. inter-subjectivity does not imply communication. En garde! So you may share the same sentiment with an alien consciousness near Sirius. And, although it sounds like I'm just joking, I'm actually trying to say something serious, which is that individuali[ty|sm] carries something like a "locality arrogance" ... the impression that one blob in the pervading field(s) is somehow special or unique, different from all the other blobs. Maybe our modern problem of celebrity and institutional bloat is a function of a finite and fairly small set of possible states of being? And now that we're up to 8B people, each of us is guaranteed to share state with some N others? And anyone who thinks they're somehow special or unique is simply ignorant of those who share their state? If we experience a massive die off, those of us that survive will again be true individuals? Or, even if the space of states is actual infinite, perhaps there's only a small number of forcing cultures and we'd *have* to fly out to Sirius in order to get out of those overwhelming flows. On 3/29/21 12:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through other > mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) boundaries > between self/other or more aptly self/whole. You are apparently > more-better at (or at least more committed to your version of) this than > I am which I envy/aspire. > > I suppose all I'm teasing at here is the apparent paradox of (for > example) the "two" of us, trying to serialize things about our "inner > states" to "communicate" between two "individuals". In the abstract, > I accept the premise that what I consider to be an "individual" (e.g. > me, you, 400+ people reading or hitting delete on this message) is more > a locus or cluster or relative concentration in a high dimensional > field. Maybe the only answer is to ingest a quantum of the right > mushroom... or fast/dehydrate until I meet Joseph or Brigham across a > campfire in an arroyo... or meditate until my spirit leaves my body and > apprehends the cosmos directly... > > We two "illusory individuals" *appear* (from the perspective of illusory > individuals) to be communicating (poorly or otherwise) -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Glen - I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through other mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) boundaries between self/other or more aptly self/whole. You are apparently more-better at (or at least more committed to your version of) this than I am which I envy/aspire. I suppose all I'm teasing at here is the apparent paradox of (for example) the "two" of us, trying to serialize things about our "inner states" to "communicate" between two "individuals". In the abstract, I accept the premise that what I consider to be an "individual" (e.g. me, you, 400+ people reading or hitting delete on this message) is more a locus or cluster or relative concentration in a high dimensional field. Maybe the only answer is to ingest a quantum of the right mushroom... or fast/dehydrate until I meet Joseph or Brigham across a campfire in an arroyo... or meditate until my spirit leaves my body and apprehends the cosmos directly... We two "illusory individuals" *appear* (from the perspective of illusory individuals) to be communicating (poorly or otherwise) mumble, - Steve On 3/29/21 1:05 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Well, if psychedelics were fully legal, I'd use them openly ... if that's > what you're asking. But my argument that individuals are an approximating > simplification threads almost every thought I have that's even slightly > related to plectics. > > E.g. In about an hour, I'll be on a call discussing the utility of DAGs as > models of probability distributions in interventional clinical trials. The > video Jon posted talked ominously about reducing humans to variables. But the > ominous tone is pure theater, adopted to brew fear (or hook to extant fear). > We *are* variables. To whatever extent we can find clusters of variables that > are more coherent than other clusters of variables, that's FANTASTIC. But > it's harder than it might seem. The starting assumption should be that we are > variables and the work is to derive the individual. It isn't be the other way > around. > > On 3/29/21 11:55 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Is your own refutation of "the individual" the personal experience you >> have, or an intellectual abstraction to which you perhaps aspire to >> experience? - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Well, if psychedelics were fully legal, I'd use them openly ... if that's what you're asking. But my argument that individuals are an approximating simplification threads almost every thought I have that's even slightly related to plectics. E.g. In about an hour, I'll be on a call discussing the utility of DAGs as models of probability distributions in interventional clinical trials. The video Jon posted talked ominously about reducing humans to variables. But the ominous tone is pure theater, adopted to brew fear (or hook to extant fear). We *are* variables. To whatever extent we can find clusters of variables that are more coherent than other clusters of variables, that's FANTASTIC. But it's harder than it might seem. The starting assumption should be that we are variables and the work is to derive the individual. It isn't be the other way around. On 3/29/21 11:55 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Is your own refutation of "the individual" the personal experience you > have, or an intellectual abstraction to which you perhaps aspire to > experience? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Absolutely. I couldn't call myself contrarian with a straight face if I didn't enact my belief that adversarial systems can find solutions others can't. Even in the case where we Adversaries don't *need* the niches we create, there are most likely others, who aren't adversarial, just congenitally 6σ. The work done by those of us who don't *need* these weird niches can improve the lives of those who do. On 3/29/21 11:47 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > It may be necessary or even Good that these machines aim to control, but it > can also be good to find ways to beat them. They are dealing with the > common cases. Being a common case may in fact make one happy as you say. > Conservatives are said to be happier than liberals, right? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
I think you characterize this well: glen> Yes, therein lies the rub, the ever-present dissonance between objectives at one scale and objectives at another scale. I (like to believe that I) live in a multi-scale multi-verse, meaning that when I "try real hard" or "meditate very effectively" I can pull back from the specifics of the *apparent* problem at hand (navigating paid family leave rules as a small business) and consider that my willingness (acquiescence) to engage in some sub-bureaucracy that seems to be nothing more than a "pain in my @ss" is truly in my best interest in the sense of being in the best interest of my "larger self", compared to the "smaller self" who is just trying to "clear some paperwork from my desk". I don't know how to tease apart your language about "there is no individual" in a way to slide clearly up and down the registers *I* experience as my "smallest or lowest" self to a "largest or highest" self. If I might achieve Satori/Enlightment then the distinction (duality?) of alone/all-one presumably collapses to an (at most) interesting delusion. I'm just not there. Is your own refutation of "the individual" the personal experience you have, or an intellectual abstraction to which you perhaps aspire to experience? - Steve - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
It may be necessary or even Good that these machines aim to control, but it can also be good to find ways to beat them. They are dealing with the common cases. Being a common case may in fact make one happy as you say. Conservatives are said to be happier than liberals, right? -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 11:37 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... Yes, therein lies the rub, the ever-present dissonance between objectives at one scale and objectives at another scale. As a small business owner, my experience with governments is nothing but pain, much like trying to get my old, fat body out into the freezing air to lift plates of literally cold iron ... or go jogging in the pouring, near-freezing, rain ... or take drugs that make me feel like I want to die in order to eliminate some "neoplasms" I can't even segment, myself, from the CT scan. But I do it, and support it, because I recognize the large-scale objectives. E.g. WA's paid family leave is a pain in my @ss. And, presumably, I can opt out of it since all our employees are owners. But, can I actually opt out? Hm. It seems LLCs can but S-Corps can't? WTF? But do I *want* to opt out? No, not really. In principle, newly minted breeders (or those who care for family members, etc.) need support. And who will support them if there's no bureaucratic machine to do so? Philanthropy of people like Musk? I doubt it. On 3/29/21 11:27 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I mostly notice this when *I* > try to navigate these systems and get something done within their > "alternate reality".. I'm much more patient/accepting of all that > than I was when I was more busy "trying to get things done". -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Yes, therein lies the rub, the ever-present dissonance between objectives at one scale and objectives at another scale. As a small business owner, my experience with governments is nothing but pain, much like trying to get my old, fat body out into the freezing air to lift plates of literally cold iron ... or go jogging in the pouring, near-freezing, rain ... or take drugs that make me feel like I want to die in order to eliminate some "neoplasms" I can't even segment, myself, from the CT scan. But I do it, and support it, because I recognize the large-scale objectives. E.g. WA's paid family leave is a pain in my @ss. And, presumably, I can opt out of it since all our employees are owners. But, can I actually opt out? Hm. It seems LLCs can but S-Corps can't? WTF? But do I *want* to opt out? No, not really. In principle, newly minted breeders (or those who care for family members, etc.) need support. And who will support them if there's no bureaucratic machine to do so? Philanthropy of people like Musk? I doubt it. On 3/29/21 11:27 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I mostly notice this when *I* > try to navigate these systems and get something done within their > "alternate reality".. I'm much more patient/accepting of all that than > I was when I was more busy "trying to get things done". -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
One thing that strikes me about the three stages of society outlined in the thesis (sovereign, disciplinary, control) is that they exist as a chain of generalizations. A prototype of each preceding term is included in the latter, paralleling what an algebraist might call exact, each earlier stage appearing as the kernel for each later stage. Perhaps this exactness quality is most clearly shown when we look at the effect each societal type has on its subjects (administering death is a type of discipline, administering discipline is a type of control). It is this quality of expanding generalization which gives the appearance of *always existing*. To some extent, I do think it is fair to say that while the idea of a ring took until the 19th century to be *uncovered*, they existed from the time the ancient Arabs produced the integers. OTOH, the relation here can be misunderstood as being one of determination. It was not the case that humans inevitably would uncover the idea of a ring. Instead, once the integers were invented it became the case that humans *ought* to arrive at the idea of a ring, that is, the invention of the integers *anticipates* the idea of a ring, not necessarily determining its arrival. Some kinds of complexity, à la the Noetherians, arise simply as a matter of degree. We on this list, seem most familiar with this kind of complexity, emergence far from equilibrium, parameterized changes in the stability of phase spaces, etc... If it were at all clear, as the Noetherians have hoped for going back to Laplace, that we simply need to know the starting configuration of the universe and then to calculate, then all would be solved and our gum flapping would simply be just that. But until the day that such a model was proved to be the reality, it appears to me that demanding such a conclusion is an anxiety-driven compulsion to reduce the richness of one's own experience to automata, a perverse longing for a religion rooted in a Kantian notion of space-time. One can make the assertion that there are no utopias nor dystopias. Fine, but this move to identify opposites has always been a problematic rhetorical move, one that has been analyzed to death by individuals more motivated than I. The take-home for me is that once utopia and dystopia are abstracted, to a logical domain of pure presences and pure absences, we can substitute any opposites what-so-ever and immediately forget that a problem was ever presented. My bold claim is that nowhere in a theory of least action will we recover what ought to be, nowhere will we find morality, ethics, or a satisfying theory of emergence. Having nothing to say about a problem is not the absence of a problem. For others, others that imagine things can be that rather than this, it may be non-trivial to speak of the human spirit, to speak of desire, and to find their way to the creation (even if only in one's self) of authentically new kinds. It is for these individuals that the question of eschatology is interesting, and why not, death is interesting. One can certainly ask, what in the thesis is it the death of? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
/glen sed: > Well, again, if you claim the NIH "didn't work", then the burden's on you to > say what "work" means. It would be reasonable to claim that the NIH's purpose > is to save US lives. (I don't think that's true. But it would be reasonable > to say such a thing.) And since so many died from COVID-19, the NIH failed. I > think the bureaucracy to saddle with that purpose is the CDC, not the NIH. > > And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the > bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, which > bureaucracy failed? And why? If so, have we delineated its purpose well > enough to say it failed? And maybe more to the point, to the extent the T-CDC was *mostly* the same as the O-CDC (moreso on day 1 than by year 3), it was definitely under a significantly different "forcing function". We also find proving a negative problematic... can we say we know how many other (potential) pandemics have been averted by such a (mal?)functioning bureacracy. That said, I am sympathetic with Marcus' judgements of the natural "thickening" (in a bad way) of institutional structures (not precisely the same as a bureacracy, but related?). I mostly notice this when *I* try to navigate these systems and get something done within their "alternate reality".. I'm much more patient/accepting of all that than I was when I was more busy "trying to get things done". - Steve - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
I posit that after decades of being in the system, their real skill is absorbing insane asks with a salute and a serious demeanor. They aren't really good at anything else. They know this at some level, and this is why they don't leave "public service". -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 11:20 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... I agree. I haven't had a chance to look into the work Chris cited. But my guess is that institutions require churn, up and down the orders, from dying cells in the body to redaction of no-longer-appropriate (living document unconstitutional) laws. I'd expect a surviving bureaucracy to restructure sporadically. Bureaucracy is an inertial memory, stored procedures. While it's true that sometimes that memory is worthless (or even detrimental, teaching old dogs new tricks), it's also true that memory is sometimes helpful. One could make a decent argument that, like everything else, we're seeing some sort of exponential growth in some core variables. So that, 100 years ago, institutional memory was more useful than it is today. But I'd like to see that whole argument made, not mere sturm and drang about bureaucrats. On 3/29/21 11:14 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the > bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, > which bureaucracy failed? And why? > > > Someone like Redfield that has risen to a position of national significance > ought to be employable. And especially employable if they present their > defection just right. > For this reason I am skeptical about the officials that quivered over what > Trump might do to them. People should have been repeatedly leaving. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
I agree. I haven't had a chance to look into the work Chris cited. But my guess is that institutions require churn, up and down the orders, from dying cells in the body to redaction of no-longer-appropriate (living document unconstitutional) laws. I'd expect a surviving bureaucracy to restructure sporadically. Bureaucracy is an inertial memory, stored procedures. While it's true that sometimes that memory is worthless (or even detrimental, teaching old dogs new tricks), it's also true that memory is sometimes helpful. One could make a decent argument that, like everything else, we're seeing some sort of exponential growth in some core variables. So that, 100 years ago, institutional memory was more useful than it is today. But I'd like to see that whole argument made, not mere sturm and drang about bureaucrats. On 3/29/21 11:14 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the > bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, which > bureaucracy failed? And why? > > > Someone like Redfield that has risen to a position of national significance > ought to be employable. And especially employable if they present their > defection just right. > For this reason I am skeptical about the officials that quivered over what > Trump might do to them. People should have been repeatedly leaving. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Glen writes: < And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, which bureaucracy failed? And why? > Someone like Redfield that has risen to a position of national significance ought to be employable. And especially employable if they present their defection just right. For this reason I am skeptical about the officials that quivered over what Trump might do to them. People should have been repeatedly leaving. Marcus - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
uǝlƃ wrote: I'd argue that any surviving bureaucracy works *most* of the time, almost by definition. One scholar who has taken a serious look<https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202> at Parkinson’s Law is Stefan Thurner, a professor in Science of Complex Systems at the Medical University of Vienna. Thurner says he became interested in the concept when the faculty of medicine at the University of Vienna split into its own independent university in 2004. Within a couple years, he says, the Medical University of Vienna went from being run by 15 people to 100, while the number of scientists stayed about the same. “I wanted to understand what was going on there, and why my bureaucratic burden did not diminish – on the contrary it increased,” he says. He happened to read Parkinson’s book around the same time and was inspired to turn it into a mathematical model that could be manipulated and tested, along with co-authors Peter Klimek and Rudolf Hanel. “Parkinson argued that if you have 6% growth rate of any administrative body, then sooner or later any company will die. They will have all their workforce in bureaucracy and none in production. Parkinson pointed to two critical elements that lead to bureaucratisation – what he called the law of multiplication of subordinates, the tendency of managers to hire two or more subordinates to report to them so that neither is in direct competition with the manager themself; and the fact that bureaucrats create work for other bureaucrats. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191107-the-law-that-explains-why-you-cant-get-anything-done Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: uǝlƃ ↙↙↙<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 12:09 PM To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... That's a bold assertion. I'd argue that any surviving bureaucracy works *most* of the time, almost by definition. Of course, *new* bureaucracies probably fail most of the time. Then it would be important to be able to talk about bureaucratic novelty. E.g. the ACA (ObamaCare) was not a *new* bureacracy. And it didn't really fail. There were various stalls and hiccups. Now that that bureaucracy is up and running, it's "working" ... maybe not optimally. But optimality is persnickety. In any case, only data would resolve the disagreement. And in order to gather data, you'd have to be explicit about measuring "work", as well as novelty and bureaucracy. On 3/29/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Bureaucracies barely work most of the time. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
My mistake I should have said HHS. "The mission of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services." -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:38 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... Well, again, if you claim the NIH "didn't work", then the burden's on you to say what "work" means. It would be reasonable to claim that the NIH's purpose is to save US lives. (I don't think that's true. But it would be reasonable to say such a thing.) And since so many died from COVID-19, the NIH failed. I think the bureaucracy to saddle with that purpose is the CDC, not the NIH. And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, which bureaucracy failed? And why? If so, have we delineated its purpose well enough to say it failed? This anti-government rhetoric is literally everywhere and so confused as to be nonsense. On 3/29/21 10:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > For example, in spite of the billions spent on the NIH we had the fantastic > public health failure of COVID-19. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
Well, again, if you claim the NIH "didn't work", then the burden's on you to say what "work" means. It would be reasonable to claim that the NIH's purpose is to save US lives. (I don't think that's true. But it would be reasonable to say such a thing.) And since so many died from COVID-19, the NIH failed. I think the bureaucracy to saddle with that purpose is the CDC, not the NIH. And it's important to recognize the Executive branch's role in the bureaucracy. Was the Obama CDC the same as the Trump CDC? If not, which bureaucracy failed? And why? If so, have we delineated its purpose well enough to say it failed? This anti-government rhetoric is literally everywhere and so confused as to be nonsense. On 3/29/21 10:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > For example, in spite of the billions spent on the NIH we had the fantastic > public health failure of COVID-19. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
I don't like to be the person to pick on government as other large organizations also have a problem with losing signal. There are just too many people involved, and too many people that want to "move up" and tell others what to do. It leads to a tolerance for stupidity and incompetence. People become skilled in "internal dynamics" and "chain of command" instead things that are operationally required of their organization. The routing of people to roles is sloppy and based on crude information and crude models. https://www.brookings.edu/book/thickening-government/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:23 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... For example, in spite of the billions spent on the NIH we had the fantastic public health failure of COVID-19. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:09 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... That's a bold assertion. I'd argue that any surviving bureaucracy works *most* of the time, almost by definition. Of course, *new* bureaucracies probably fail most of the time. Then it would be important to be able to talk about bureaucratic novelty. E.g. the ACA (ObamaCare) was not a *new* bureacracy. And it didn't really fail. There were various stalls and hiccups. Now that that bureaucracy is up and running, it's "working" ... maybe not optimally. But optimality is persnickety. In any case, only data would resolve the disagreement. And in order to gather data, you'd have to be explicit about measuring "work", as well as novelty and bureaucracy. On 3/29/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Bureaucracies barely work most of the time. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
For example, in spite of the billions spent on the NIH we had the fantastic public health failure of COVID-19. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:09 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... That's a bold assertion. I'd argue that any surviving bureaucracy works *most* of the time, almost by definition. Of course, *new* bureaucracies probably fail most of the time. Then it would be important to be able to talk about bureaucratic novelty. E.g. the ACA (ObamaCare) was not a *new* bureacracy. And it didn't really fail. There were various stalls and hiccups. Now that that bureaucracy is up and running, it's "working" ... maybe not optimally. But optimality is persnickety. In any case, only data would resolve the disagreement. And in order to gather data, you'd have to be explicit about measuring "work", as well as novelty and bureaucracy. On 3/29/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Bureaucracies barely work most of the time. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
That's a bold assertion. I'd argue that any surviving bureaucracy works *most* of the time, almost by definition. Of course, *new* bureaucracies probably fail most of the time. Then it would be important to be able to talk about bureaucratic novelty. E.g. the ACA (ObamaCare) was not a *new* bureacracy. And it didn't really fail. There were various stalls and hiccups. Now that that bureaucracy is up and running, it's "working" ... maybe not optimally. But optimality is persnickety. In any case, only data would resolve the disagreement. And in order to gather data, you'd have to be explicit about measuring "work", as well as novelty and bureaucracy. On 3/29/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Bureaucracies barely work most of the time. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
The controlled world is more of an influenced world; the routing is not as strong as he suggests. So long as it can be gamed and hacked I'm not too worried. Bureaucracies barely work most of the time. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:49 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... My first thought was: Who thinks this is dystopian? And why? It looks to me like one of a) what's been happening for the entire history of the universe and/or b) progress (!) what must happen in order for biological life to survive. If this is dystopian, good riddance to those who find it so. >8^D But then my 2nd thought went a tiny bit more to the high road. I can see that our tendency to anthropomorphize and personalize (e.g. gods, Jung, naming our computers, etc.) machines might play a little trick on the minds of those who believe the story ... the Great Man trick, again ... the tendency to falsely gather and unify processes that *lack* agency and ascribe/impute agency to them. That sort of language permeates that video, giving the machine(s) agency, intent, purpose. But that's blatantly false. To promote a false equivalence between, say, YouTube's greedy and largely coherent agency with an imputed *appearance* of coherent agency in the education system is not even wrong. It's nonsense made to seem like sense. This rhetoric is custom designed to frighten those of us who might already be predisposed to fear. But taken objectively, if we removed the fear-based rhetoric, the *way* of thinking, would help us understand complex patterns that arise in the composition of sub-machines (machinelets?). All an objectification would take would be to cast prior epochs in the same Control terms, which they most certainly *were* ... to recast the always, and forever has been, false "individual" into its proper terms as an illusory collection of sub-machines. Once that's done, the rhetoric in the video shows itself to be Yet Another Eschatological dopamine rush. "Be afraid! Be very afraid." Pffft. I say go with it. The Controlled world we live in is as beautiful and complex as a flower or an ant bed. Enjoy being routed. Don't fight the flow. Enjoy it. You'll die happier. On 3/28/21 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." > > Amen to that. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 12:16 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... > > A Sunday scratch for your dystopian itch. > > Plastic Pills on Deleuze - Control Societies & Cybernetic Posthumanism. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY&ab_channel=PlasticPills -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
way, or that the milieu itself is an *emergent property* that includes the effect of my own presence/behaviour/willfulness? I will acknowledge that the "illusion of the individual" (in particular, "my" own illusion of independent "self") is central to all this, under that awareness, maybe this all dissolves into something acutely self-evident (but to what self?). Mumble, - Steve On 3/29/21 8:49 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > My first thought was: Who thinks this is dystopian? And why? It looks to me > like one of a) what's been happening for the entire history of the universe > and/or b) progress (!) what must happen in order for biological life to > survive. If this is dystopian, good riddance to those who find it so. >8^D > > But then my 2nd thought went a tiny bit more to the high road. I can see that > our tendency to anthropomorphize and personalize (e.g. gods, Jung, naming our > computers, etc.) machines might play a little trick on the minds of those who > believe the story ... the Great Man trick, again ... the tendency to falsely > gather and unify processes that *lack* agency and ascribe/impute agency to > them. > > That sort of language permeates that video, giving the machine(s) agency, > intent, purpose. But that's blatantly false. To promote a false equivalence > between, say, YouTube's greedy and largely coherent agency with an imputed > *appearance* of coherent agency in the education system is not even wrong. > It's nonsense made to seem like sense. This rhetoric is custom designed to > frighten those of us who might already be predisposed to fear. > > But taken objectively, if we removed the fear-based rhetoric, the *way* of > thinking, would help us understand complex patterns that arise in the > composition of sub-machines (machinelets?). All an objectification would take > would be to cast prior epochs in the same Control terms, which they most > certainly *were* ... to recast the always, and forever has been, false > "individual" into its proper terms as an illusory collection of sub-machines. > Once that's done, the rhetoric in the video shows itself to be Yet Another > Eschatological dopamine rush. "Be afraid! Be very afraid." > > Pffft. I say go with it. The Controlled world we live in is as beautiful and > complex as a flower or an ant bed. Enjoy being routed. Don't fight the flow. > Enjoy it. You'll die happier. > > > On 3/28/21 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." >> >> Amen to that. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale >> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 12:16 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... >> >> A Sunday scratch for your dystopian itch. >> >> Plastic Pills on Deleuze - Control Societies & Cybernetic Posthumanism. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY&ab_channel=PlasticPills > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
So, it didn't scratch your Sunday dystopian itch. How about that. Monday! -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
My first thought was: Who thinks this is dystopian? And why? It looks to me like one of a) what's been happening for the entire history of the universe and/or b) progress (!) what must happen in order for biological life to survive. If this is dystopian, good riddance to those who find it so. >8^D But then my 2nd thought went a tiny bit more to the high road. I can see that our tendency to anthropomorphize and personalize (e.g. gods, Jung, naming our computers, etc.) machines might play a little trick on the minds of those who believe the story ... the Great Man trick, again ... the tendency to falsely gather and unify processes that *lack* agency and ascribe/impute agency to them. That sort of language permeates that video, giving the machine(s) agency, intent, purpose. But that's blatantly false. To promote a false equivalence between, say, YouTube's greedy and largely coherent agency with an imputed *appearance* of coherent agency in the education system is not even wrong. It's nonsense made to seem like sense. This rhetoric is custom designed to frighten those of us who might already be predisposed to fear. But taken objectively, if we removed the fear-based rhetoric, the *way* of thinking, would help us understand complex patterns that arise in the composition of sub-machines (machinelets?). All an objectification would take would be to cast prior epochs in the same Control terms, which they most certainly *were* ... to recast the always, and forever has been, false "individual" into its proper terms as an illusory collection of sub-machines. Once that's done, the rhetoric in the video shows itself to be Yet Another Eschatological dopamine rush. "Be afraid! Be very afraid." Pffft. I say go with it. The Controlled world we live in is as beautiful and complex as a flower or an ant bed. Enjoy being routed. Don't fight the flow. Enjoy it. You'll die happier. On 3/28/21 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." > > Amen to that. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 12:16 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... > > A Sunday scratch for your dystopian itch. > > Plastic Pills on Deleuze - Control Societies & Cybernetic Posthumanism. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY&ab_channel=PlasticPills -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
"There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." Amen to that. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 12:16 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines... A Sunday scratch for your dystopian itch. Plastic Pills on Deleuze - Control Societies & Cybernetic Posthumanism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY&ab_channel=PlasticPills -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
[FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...
A Sunday scratch for your dystopian itch. Plastic Pills on Deleuze - Control Societies & Cybernetic Posthumanism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY&ab_channel=PlasticPills -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
