TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

July 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:19:44 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (582 lines)
Jamie:

Good questions!  If you Google your name, your 2017 blog comes up  
right away -- with your book as the latest thing you've written.  I  
find that acknowledgements are often the best way to tell where  
someone is coming from, which is why I posted that instead of the  
text.  Perhaps you should take it down if you don't want people to  
read it . . . <g>

Re: my views, have you had a chance to read the links that I suggested  
(particularly the archives for this list) . . . ??

1) I was trained as a scientist, so I gathered a few details about  
reality in the process.  Exponential growth is *not* possible in  
reality.  It is 100% "imaginary."  Every one of the Internet stats you  
cite follows the logistics "S-Curve" -- which is *not* exponential  
(instead it is "second-order" growth, with the limits built right into  
the equation).  I've had a chance to discuss this personally with  
Kurzweil and he agreed with me.  Then he told me that he needed to  
promote "exponentials" anyway -- knowing it to be false -- since that  
was his "meme."  That is what I call "fraud."

2) Memes are simply another version of *television* advertising which  
have been "weaponized."  This is why the Russian "interference" in  
2016 was primarily to promote them and why Facebook &al are now trying  
to "police" them (behaving more like broadcast television).  They are  
psychological warfare and we'd all be much better off if we simply  
ignored them (which has largely been the case on this list.)  As some  
have said about the best way to deal with the *effects* of TELEVISION  
in our lives, "Just turn it off."  Memes are manipulation,  
pure-and-simple.  Just say no to memes.

3) Far too much is made of "consciousness" (which is itself a "meme.")  
  In fact, as neuroscience documents, most people have little-to-no  
awareness of what they are doing or why they are doing it.   
Overwhelmingly, our lives are dominated by psychological activities  
that are not-conscious.  In particular, our pre-conscious "perception  
system" -- where we assemble our "ground-level" understanding of the  
world, including our "intuitions" and "biases" -- is inaccessible to  
most people.  Psychoanalysis was invented to try to deal with this  
problem but, alas, *memes* only make things much worse.   
Unfortunately, most people chasing them are driven away from the  
"truth," not towards it.

Hopefully this has been helpful (although the fact that I don't talk  
in "memes" might make what I'm saying seem altogether obscure) . . . !!

Mark

P.S. This is my favorite movie clip on the topic of memes.  Perhaps  
you will also enjoy it . . . <g>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DB1ZOWwW2agQ&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LEYNjpo977qVXCmsa7hGG0ZXLBgP_IGXWP7TKe09CZM&s=63DzD3rZCet9LrNu1XkKJTgpyTkGoOHXwLrvSJtZZUs&e=

P.P.S.  I'm pretty familiar with the work of Teillard de Chardin, if  
you'd like to discuss him in his own context as a 1950s  
"end-of-the-world" Jesuit.  For what it's worth, Marshall McLuhan was  
incorrectly associated with Teillard by Tom Wolfe in public.  I once  
asked Tom about that and he smiled and said, "Well, I guess I was  
wrong then."  For a closer look at my views, I'd suggest reading  
McLuhan (btw, my Center has a "library," which might also include some  
useful references and amounts to my "acknowledgements.")

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center_index.php_research_library&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LEYNjpo977qVXCmsa7hGG0ZXLBgP_IGXWP7TKe09CZM&s=LieKOd9V79tg6MpEMy8xZxfygfA_RKjCaxSSXrtwLxU&e=

Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm curious, why did you decide to dig up my old book and pick out parts of
> it to show to the group? That material is old and no longer describes my
> views. It does partially, but not entirely. What's your point?
>
> I wish I could get a simple, straightforward description of your argument,
> or what exactly you're contesting of my initial email.
>
> Memes were not invented to describe television as-an-environment. The term
> was invented to describe the units of selection in culture.  Memes have not
> (or barely) yet begun to be spawned out of digitial technology. There's no
> reason why they can't in principle. When I talk to Cortana and ask her for
> a joke or why the sky is blue, a meme transfers from a digital technology
> to my brain! Things like this are only going to increase with time.
>
> Yes, social engineering is a big part of the web. But so is general access
> to any information you want. It's CNN, FOX, and the news stations that are
> losing credibility. They have been socially engineering society since TV
> began. Now, if you want the truth and you have the critical thinking
> abilities to discern what's true, you can find the truth on the web just
> like I found Gregg's ToK system.
>
> I read the links you sent me to get the best understanding I could of what
> you're trying to say. Here's a quote from your article on the death of
> memes.
>
> *" As computer architects know, digital systems are constructed as
> hierarchies of memories. *
> *...computers are endlessly busy storing and retrieving items from memory
> locations that were initially found inside the machine but are increasingly
> found everywhere throughout the world.*
> * .... **Digital technology is all about remembering. Thus, digital
> technology sounded the death knell for make-believe memes. This radical
> shift in our psychology towards memory was what McLuhan was reaching for as
> evidenced by his commitment to remembering the basis of Western
> civilization. With our new digital environment, this process of remembering
> has now become the ground of our daily experiences. " *
>
> Memetic theory is still controversial and not entirely worked out.
> According to wikipedia: A meme is an  "idea, behavior, or style that
> spreads from person to person within a culture"
>
> In my view, this means that memes are the stuff of consciousness as much as
> they are behaviors. And technologies are like the phenotypes of memes. I
> don't understand how it follows from the fact that digital technology is
> all about remembering, that digital technology is the death of memes. That
> would be the death of culture. Just because we're remembering more and more
> doesn't mean that memes aren't flourishing. Memories are memes. The
> technium is built out of memes.
>
> As the internet grows, it uploads more and more of our consciousness. The
> process of uploading minds has already begun. Unfortunately, this
> information about us is owned by companies like Google and Facebook.
>
> It seems to me that the technium is growing rapidly and uploading
> everything it can. Memes can live on computers as much as they can live on
> brains, or on paper for that matter.  The technium is a giant phenotype of
> the cultural memeplex. And it's growing exponentially:
>
> from  
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.livinginternet.com_i_ip-5Fgrowth.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnTV0UrAYTWwGru0&s=nkyRilW7N_W3pyf29fqqjZna4V4y_IGQE0e8nq_1ohs&e=
>
> Today, the Internet is growing exponentially in three different directions
> -- size, processing power, and software sophistication -- making it the
> fastest growing technology humankind has ever created:
>
>    - *Size*. The graphs in the *historical statistics*
>     
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.livinginternet.com_i_im-5Fstats.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnTV0UrAYTWwGru0&s=y0dNtQ46o7p-PUAemFkiKGypa3w7w49pKAidbaJDf0I&e=> section show  
> the
>    exponential rate of growth in the number of people that use the Internet.
>    Soon more than half the world's population will have access to  
> the Internet.
>
>
>    - *Power*. As first appreciated at the *Dartmouth AI Conference*
>     
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.livinginternet.com_i_ii-5Fai.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnTV0UrAYTWwGru0&s=iKpV1oPdZksK_w5c3EVTRzlpU98FsstEmMx0qYj7_g0&e=> in 1956,  
> computer
>    processors and storage continue to double in power and capacity  
> about every
>    18 months, providing steadily more powerful computers for use by  
> increasing
>    sophisticated software.
>
>
>    - *Functionality*. Software applications from routing programs to
>    browser applications continually build on previous technology to become
>    more sophisticated with every release, continuously evolving to  
> incorporate
>    new features and capabilities.
>
>
> Memes are still spawning out of human brains, and they're being expressed
> in the technium. Memes are flourishing more than ever now that more
> communication is taking place. And as AI develops, memes will start to
> spawn out of AI.
>
> Nothing in reality is exponential you say????
>
> Also, you said that Kurzweil is a fraud. In what way? Is this graph
> fraudulent?:
>
>
>
>
> The Singularity is more than fantasy; it's a theory. If Kurzweil is wrong
> that roughly by the year 2045, the technium will be computing billions of
> times more information than all human brains, then the theory is basically
> falsified.
>
> I don't understand your perspective. Perhaps you could provide a simple
> description. Here's mine, just to put it briefly:
>
> 1) increasing memetic flourishing and diversity
> 2) selection by justification
> = progress towards truth
>
> this doesn't mean that all sorts of bullshit won't come out of the
> flourishing of memes. Most memes are bullshit. But the truth is emerging
> just as well. Truth is the only means of consensus without disabling us.
>
> You talk a lot about weaponized memes and social engineering, but I agree
> with all that. Normal war is disappearing, and memetic warfare is the
> current era. As the truth emerges, the truth will be selected because it's
> justified, and memes are selected by justification.
>
> This very conversation is a conversation about what's true and right. The
> globe is involved in a large conversation about what's true and right, and
> I'm working on formulating why and how what' actually true and right are
> being distilled from the process of justification.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Jamie:
>>
>> No problem -- as a list member, you can access the archives and there's a
>> thread there on the "New Paradigm" that might interest you . . . !!
>>
>> As it turns out, the relationships between ourselves and these paradigms
>> is not entirely straightforward -- in part because of how our psychology
>> constantly tries to avoid the "ground," while amusing us with the "figures"
>> (as Gestalt Psychology would have it).  Most of us can only "amuse
>> ourselves to death" (as Neil Postman suggested.)  The antidote to all this
>> is McLuhan.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Amusing-2DOurselves-2DDeath-2DDiscourse-
>> 2DBusiness_dp_014303653X&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>> O2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=
>> JHzEL_REAQtv5R1Y4FiGFVeyMZ6BesbUrO-31_yLbEs&e=
>>
>> Humans have little in common with computers (which, btw, I began
>> professionally designing 40+ years ago -- followed by decades of deep
>> involvement with those who took up that task after me and then working with
>> many top companies in the industry.)  Yes -- I've also written quite a lot
>> of code.  My "godfather" was Norbert Wiener (and my father was sitting next
>> to him when "cybernetics" was invented in 1946.)  I'm pretty familiar with
>> this territory.
>>
>> I know Ray Kurzweil personally and, alas, he's a fraud (which I've
>> discussed with him).  There is *nothing* in reality that is "exponential"
>> and the idea of a Singularity (as he discusses it) is 100% fantasy.
>> Nothing of that sort can ever happen (in reality), but it's great if you
>> want to sell some books &c.
>>
>> And, unfortunately, David Brin has to be one of most annoying people on
>> earth -- with his endless attacks on whoever/whatever -- who has elevated
>> the role of a fantasy writer to what he hopes to be a "soapbox" (while
>> ensuring that no one will ever pay attention.)  Yes, I also know him
>> personally and have tried to discuss this with him (but he ran away cursing
>> at me and my mother) . . . <g>
>>
>> DIGITAL is what we call our new *paradigm* (deliberately capitalized) and
>> its effects are still at the level of the pre-conscious in most people.
>> By-and-large, those who were writing about this in the 1970s/80s/90s were
>> talking with their "imagination" and not with any fundamental grounding in
>> what was actually happening.  I know this because I was in the middle of
>> it.  Make-believe totally dominates this literature (and many are quite
>> proud of it.)
>>
>> "Freedom" depends on there being clear *rules* for you to work
>> for-or-against.  In a world, such as ours, in which these "rules" have been
>> deliberately removed -- noting that *vice* is what drives the consumer
>> economy -- our corresponding "freedom" also disappears.  If "do what thou
>> wilt is the whole of the law," then *freedom* is impossible (which is
>> exactly what neuroscience/philosophy now thinks it can demonstrate).
>>
>> "Memes" are indeed a product of the *technium* but not the DIGITAL one.
>> The term was invented in 1976 to describe TELEVISION as-an-environment.
>> The earlier version was Ken Boulding's "Eiconics" from the 1950s and its
>> fascination with "The Image."  They are "weaponized ads," with "social
>> engineering" as their goal.
>>
>> Last year, some of my colleagues published our "The End of Memes, or
>> McLuhan 101" essay on Medium.  Perhaps you will find it interesting.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.
>> com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-
>> 2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBC
>> gmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw
>> 2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=95muvP47JW23svJHDHVZhcs7s6GG5YcC8TIAaiTjEbM&e=
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. Another reference that you might enjoy, tying "culturology" to
>> memetic manipulation of the population -- reminding us of its roots in
>> psychological warfare coming outof WW II -- is Adam Westoby's 1994 essay
>> "The Ecology of Intentions: How to make Memes and Influence People:
>> Culturology" (from Dan Dennett's website) --
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ase.tuf
>> ts.edu_cogstud_dennett_papers_ecointen.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYn
>> pnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw
>> 2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=b8M0OjKpnLkTV0VPkwIQXs0oOJseJuI5HvyfXDOBrW0&e=
>>
>> P.P.S. My direct engagement with the "memesters" goes back to 1995, when I
>> invited Doug Rushkoff to come speak at my monthly Cybersalon "party."
>> We're still friends but he cringes every time I remind him of his "Media
>> Virus!   Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture" . . . <g>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Media-2DHidden-2DAgendas-2DPopular-2DCulture_dp_
>> 0345397746&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>> _qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=df97yy6MSH6skw
>> JsyouY_2TOanHlGU3MphcO7mpuJN4&e=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>>     I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Much of what I
>>> discuss is about the digital paradigm. Ray Kurzweil, Kevin Kelly, James
>>> Hughes, David Brin, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and in the last email, Max
>>> Tegmark....artificial intelligence, the singularity. I talk a lot about
>>> memes, and for brevity I didn't mention that memes are now living on
>>> digital systems. The whole technium is a memetic nest, although memes
>>> still
>>> only spawn out of human brains, mostly anyway. They are starting to spawn
>>> out of AI.
>>>
>>> Technology is the child of memes. I don't see how any of my language fails
>>> to describe the digital age. Psychology or the human mind still dominate
>>> culture and the technium. But the Singularity might be the moment when the
>>> human mind loses dominance, and Kurzweil (and the average estimate of AI
>>> researchers) believe it will occer in the 2040's.
>>>
>>> I think we're headed towards what Marshall McLuhan calls the global
>>> village. The web allows us to integrate at a large scale so that we can
>>> converge on the most universal truth and values.
>>>
>>>     I mentioned the threat of a totalitarian surveillance society a few
>>> times in my email. It seemed that you're thinking that in digital
>>> conditions, totalitarianism is more of a threat. That might be true. But I
>>> don't think it's digitality per se, but the power of companies and the
>>> government to manipulate us through social networks and the media (which
>>> has been manipulating us for decades or more)....autocracy has been the
>>> norm throughout most of history. I would say that even a tribe or
>>> chieftain would be considered sort of totalitarian because you're being
>>> watched and kept to social norms by your peers and you can't be an
>>> independent thinker. I'm more free to be an independent thinker than ever
>>> before; although the workplace can be a tad oppressive towards people who
>>> think differently.
>>>
>>>     I don't see how we're any less free now than at any time in history.
>>> For now, the state has all sorts of limits on its authority. But it's true
>>> that the technologies emerging at the moment pose a serious threat, and I
>>> mentioned that. But I'm more optimistic. I think that it's in the best
>>> interest of the companies like Google and Facebook for us to be active,
>>> free-thinking members of society, free from state control. It's not like
>>> we're living in 1940's Germany and I don't think we'll ever return to that
>>> state.
>>>
>>>      Are you familiar with David Brin's vision of the Transparent Society?
>>> It's much more likely that individuals will be able to watch each other,
>>> just as much as they watch us. Because of this new capacity for us all to
>>> watch each other and participate in a large-scale conversation, so to
>>> speak, we're essentially working on creating a large-scale justification
>>> system in our most universal best interests.
>>>
>>> I do think Facebook, Twitter, and Google should share their demographic
>>> data to the world though. I'm a web developer and I've been spending a lot
>>> of time working on how to make a version of twitter that shares
>>> psychological and demographic data with its users. I should know what
>>> Google and Facebook know about me.
>>>
>>>     In my response to Chance, I made this statement: " Consider how
>>> self-driving cars have to decide who to hit if they have to drive through
>>> a
>>> group of people. Ultimately we have to build absolute values into the
>>> technium."
>>>
>>>  ...that's an example of one thing I envision in the digital age. The
>>> technium is a manifestation of social norms and values and it has no room
>>> for ambiguity. Everything has to be spelled out exactly in the digital age
>>> because that's the nature of code.
>>>
>>> In summary:
>>>
>>> 1) I've been spending a lot of time working on how to make a version of
>>> twitter that shares psychological and demographic data with its users. I
>>> should know what Google and Facebook know about me.
>>> 2) the fact that we're all attending to each other in a large-scale
>>> conversation because of the web indicates that we're working on a large
>>> scale justification system, which could turn out totalitarian, but more
>>> likely not through state control, but the dominance of social norms like
>>> any village. The norms we'll converge on will be in the most universal
>>> best
>>> interests of life on earth. My opinion is that the only values we can
>>> converge on are those most compatible with the truth because the truth is
>>> the only epistemic system we can converge on. We're going to have a
>>> society
>>> absolutely dominated by the truth. I don't know entirely what the truth
>>> is,
>>> and I don't think anyone does, but that's where we're headed.
>>> 3) We're building social norms into our digital web systems, which don't
>>> have much if any wiggle room for ambiguity, so we essentially have to
>>> discover precise values, pursuits, and beliefs into our society.
>>> 4) The web gives a voice to the people like never before. Big Brother
>>> might
>>> be able to watch us, but the people are empowered more than ever as well.
>>> We're more likely to have a transparent society with precise values,
>>> pursuits, and beliefs. We're all going to have to act in the most
>>> universal
>>> best interests of the whole. The threat of totalitarianism comes from
>>> large-scale stupidity, but there's no single stupid value system that can
>>> take over because there are all sorts of different stupidities. The only
>>> thing that we all can possibly converge on is the truth, especially since
>>> our science and technology have to rub up against the truth entirely. I
>>> think that we're converging on "out of many, one" and "all for one and one
>>> for all".
>>>
>>> And humans have been pondering the question of free will since ancient
>>> Greece. We might not have genuine, metaphysical free will (that we're free
>>> from the forces of causality), but we do have volition. We make choices.
>>> And we're always under the illusion of free will. Nothing new has changed
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamie:
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the list -- so let me mention a few things that we've recently
>>>> been discussing that you might find interesting.
>>>>
>>>> One of them is the shift from an ELECTRIC "paradigm" to a DIGITAL one (c.
>>>> 2000) -- which aligns with Gregg's vision that we are on some sort of a
>>>> "precipice" and that it is this change that will allow his "unified
>>>> theory"
>>>> to gain wider acceptance.
>>>>
>>>> These *paradigms* come from the "technium" (a Kevin Kelly term) and they
>>>> "shape our behavior and and attitudes."  Kelly made Marshall McLuhan the
>>>> "Patron Saint" of Wired Magazine, and my Center is based on McLuhan's
>>>> work,
>>>> so I wonder if you've had a chance to look at any of what he said?
>>>>
>>>> The problem of "authority" (or, if you will, "totalizing systems") is one
>>>> that we are going to face -- big time.  Throughout our lives, we have
>>>> been
>>>> told that we are "free" (i.e. anti-authority) but, as many suspect, that
>>>> was largely an "engineered" fantasy (underpinning the Cold War &c.)
>>>>
>>>> In 1941, Gregory Bateson commented on a presentation by his then-wife,
>>>> Margaret Mead, about what was needed in "psychological warfare" terms.
>>>> He
>>>> suggested a "maze in which the anthropomorphic rats have the illusion of
>>>> free-will" and, right on schedule, much of cognitive psychology (and
>>>> philosophy) came to the conclusion that we really don't have anything of
>>>> that sort (but we'll pretend that we do anyway, leading to
>>>> "compatibilism"
>>>> &c.)
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be trying to figure out what happens under DIGITAL conditions
>>>> (which is indeed what we all need to do), while using the same language
>>>> that was current under ELECTRIC conditions (i.e. where most of your
>>>> references come from.)
>>>>
>>>> Have you considered that those folks you've been reading were trying to
>>>> "solve" a different *paradigm* (which is now obsolete) and that we need a
>>>> new "language game" for our new circumstances . . . ??
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chance,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A Singleton doesn't have to be an autocrat. The single decision-making
>>>>> agency could emerge out of the shared intentions of the world, such as a
>>>>> collective intelligence manifesting on the technium. The Moral Apex is
>>>>> the
>>>>> unified body of knowledge, norms, and purpose or intention, along with
>>>>> the
>>>>> unification of humanity. This could go along with a centralized
>>>>> intelligence mediating everything, but I'm more inclined to think it
>>>>> will
>>>>> simply be the evolution of the technium/web.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure seems that divisive tribalism is the norm right now, but I
>>>>> suspect
>>>>> that it's merely a resistance to a larger trend towards cosmopolitanism
>>>>> and
>>>>> globalization. We aren't fighting any major wars and there aren't any
>>>>> serious conflicts between groups. I suspect that the Technium is slowly
>>>>> gathering us all together to participate in global decision-making.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider how self-driving cars have to decide who to hit if they have to
>>>>> drive through a group of people. Ultimately we have to build absolute
>>>>> values into the technium. This might seem terrible and could be, but I
>>>>> think it's forcing us to think very hard to figure out what constitutes
>>>>> a
>>>>> just society. Moral relativism has nowhere to go. So because we are
>>>>> building this techno-social system that's gradually reprogramming
>>>>> society,
>>>>> I think we're more likely to program a techno-social system that works
>>>>> in
>>>>> the most universal interests. As long as a totalitarian surveillance
>>>>> system
>>>>> doesn't threaten people who resist the system, the system will evolve
>>>>> along
>>>>> the path of least resistance. But in the process, we have to build in
>>>>> absolute values and our collective intentions (the meaning of life).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we'll ever become totalitarian in a way that loses free
>>>>> speech. That would be the cause of a downfall. Every trend shows
>>>>> exponential growth towards complexity and integration. I think that the
>>>>> technium, and the moral apex, will be made out of shared intentions.
>>>>> There
>>>>> will be a great deal of social engineering by people at the top, and
>>>>> it's
>>>>> a
>>>>> shock to see how fast people can be socially engineered when you think
>>>>> about how so many Republicans like Putin now. I'm just inclined to
>>>>> believe
>>>>> that things will continue to get better as they have so far. At the same
>>>>> time, I am worried about hyper-Orwellianism, but I don't think it will
>>>>> turn
>>>>> out that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Max Tegmark has a great essay on how a company will likely end up taking
>>>>> over the world with an AGI, by controlling the media, in his new book
>>>>> Like
>>>>> 3.0. You can read it here:
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nautil.u
>>>>> s_issue_53_monsters_the-2Dlast-2Dinvention-2Dof-2Dman&d=
>>>>> DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1I
>>>>> XYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zyQDAfdyvE6LLSL20y-
>>>>> 9SjAqQiVGVi7YE8OVV2Lnt5g&s=WVKUfdnEXpcvZmDB9Q5Nbz9bnezEVs03f
>>>>> UsVdNPZOd8&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems plausible to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> or click the following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> or click the following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2