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.amazon.com_Amusing-2DOurselves-2DDeath-2DDiscourse-2DBusiness_dp_014303653X&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-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=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-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.tufts.edu_cogstud_dennett_papers_ecointen.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-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.amazon.com_Media-2DHidden-2DAgendas-2DPopular-2DCulture_dp_0345397746&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_qoLd7c7XmwCTDTTzGVrdXaiek-LBw2mLRhS-ZYfXZ8&s=df97yy6MSH6skwJsyouY_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=WVKUfdnEXpcvZmDB9Q5Nbz9bnezEVs03fUsVdNPZOd8&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
|
