Mark, While I appreciate that you're reading my material, I would add that it's not an epistemic virtue to form an opinion about a person's present argument from what they've written in the past. You seem to be looking for justifications to discredit me without tackling my arguments head-on. You've said that Kurzweil is a fraud, but much of his material is very insightful and useful. His graphs are certainly not fraudulent. One should not ignore kurzweil because someone says he's a fraud. I've met Kurzweil myself and he simply believes that his Law of Accelerating Returns will continue. It remains to be seen. It's been the trend so far. You said David Brin is annoying. So what if he is to you? His concept of the transparent society is something worth considering. You say that Teilhard De Chardin wasn't ignored by the church nor science. Well, I'm sure some scientists (like Julian Huxley) and Church members didn't ignore him. But then you seem to be ignoring my real point that his observations weren't as disseminated as they should have been, because people ignored the obvious truth in what he said and instead looked for reasons to avoid believing him. His views were problematic to both evolutionary biology and the church, and that's why his general observations weren't disseminated. Here's the justification for my claim that he was ignored by the church and science: *In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Father-5FGeneral&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=7b32BWpioQuxe7eCWKgClGjSRHaMAy_EDUIeZmF0ug4&e=> Wlodimir Ledóchowski <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Wlodimir-5FLed-25C3-25B3chowski&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=MmT2dYnSrIhS2aGdVm4elm6Hdw0qgTLs3Glxd0-5s_g&e=> to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Original-5FSin&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=Dyc3fFZ7l4n2J0QlCshfQXVSOs6RyOqL02JNU9dHD7o&e=>. Rather than leave the Society of Jesus, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.* *This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain ecclesiastical <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ecclesiastical&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=xo7owgCsElpMVhxBQFVMmr-0zNrvd2H-R-JcmXVDB4k&e=> officials that would continue until after Teilhard's death. * *"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success. Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers. * *.......* *Teilhard is revered as a mystic of genius by some, but amongst most biologists is seen as little more than a charlatan. "* I just wonder how such an obvious trend could have been ignored by both the church and scientists. I understand the peculiarity of smuggling jesus into his theories. But the trend of increasing complexity and integration on the surface of the planet is obvious to a child! Moore's Law might be dead, but there's no reason to think that the trend towards increasing complexity and computation would stop. And in the past, we've seen transitions from vacuum tubes to transistors before the integrated circuit. With 3D or quantum computing we might see the trend continue. But maybe we won't. But even if we won't, we should still expect that the internet will continue to grow exponentially in others ways. Maybe not forever. But when would it stop? Moore's law isn't dead yet. Moore just stated that it can't continue forever. It's predicted to max out between 2025-2029. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.techworld.com_news_tech-2Dinnovation_moores-2Dlaw-2Dis-2Ddead-2Dsays-2Dgordon-2Dmoore-2D3576581_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=wVCy26gnq7JJchvJgB5xetbziWTC-Tta8dErt3pKV2g&e= By then, surely we'll have made progress in a new type of computation. And even if we don't the Singularity could still occur......maybe not the universe 'waking up' as Kurzweil imagines, but an intelligence explosion for sure. If it's going to be an S curve, the taper is a long ways away. One should keep in mind this very simple concept: There are only 3 general directions: down, straight, or up. So far the trend has been constantly up. It may go up and down in local times and places, but globally, it's always been up. from https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nickbostrom.com_papers_future.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GbURxcl35LJOiXqcUN41kdl6zocEXjW2i8aFQkC4rhc&s=UnQppLM8Ly62CdQDyh8025AidpPRynQOkIY3oI_u0Os&e= On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Jamie: > > Rather than post it, I'd strongly recommend that those who are interested > in your views read your latest essay, "The Culmination of History" . . . !! > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__moralap > ex.wordpress.com_2018_06_13_the-2Dculmination-2Dof-2Dhisto > ry_&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0& > r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 1lsThQ7BL6LYY1kWrVIlZOfSgkO39BZncOvlr3qd_5Y&s=V9qVN7o2s67Qz9 > XU3TjIYHF_dKo6H6Ocp8q3FTMPA5w&e= > > Mark > > P.S. For what it's worth, neither the Church or "science" ignored Teilhard > de Chardin. He moved to NYC and was supported by the Wenner Gren > Foundation (an anthropological Rockefeller "side-fund") and had plenty of > supporters, including many Jesuits (particularly at Fordham, where a > society devoted to his works was launched.) Alas, to understand him, > requires understanding the Jesuits and their role in the 1950s/60s. Glad > to help if I can . . . <g> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wenn > ergren.org_&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ > 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 1lsThQ7BL6LYY1kWrVIlZOfSgkO39BZncOvlr3qd_5Y&s=gD_YRLO5MfoGvS > rZ9iU2veCC7RxeplIIEF1QM1MRsTA&e= > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama > zon.com_Religion-2DTeilhard-2DChardin-2DHenri-2DLubac_dp_ > 0002157578&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ > 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 1lsThQ7BL6LYY1kWrVIlZOfSgkO39BZncOvlr3qd_5Y&s=3F2aDQk3kAL1XI > qt6nqH0pnPuHbXI0HhAW62EFSdalU&e= > > P.P.S. Since I used to follow Intel &al on Wall Street, I am *intimately* > familiar with "Moore's Law" and the details of why it ceased to apply over > a decade ago -- as has been widely documented (particularly by IBM.) It > hit-the-wall, as, indeed, *all* natural processes must. Not "exponential" > at all. I'd be happy to help you to understand why this happened, if you'd > like. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tec > hnologyreview.com_s_601441_moores-2Dlaw-2Dis-2Ddead-2Dnow- > 2Dwhat_&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ > 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 1lsThQ7BL6LYY1kWrVIlZOfSgkO39BZncOvlr3qd_5Y&s=nhY3UpgjGsMWKZ > 60m-MTIbb2vrRqqWKC6dEQmNkj2RQ&e= > > Quoting Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>: > > 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.you >> tube.com_watch-3Fv-3DB1ZOWwW2agQ&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb >> 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j >> IYBgjO2gOz4-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.digi >> tallife.center_index.php_research_library&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnp >> nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- >> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LEYNjpo977qVXCmsa7hGG0ZXLBgP_I >> GXWP7TKe09CZM&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.liv >>> inginternet.com_i_ip-5Fgrowth.htm&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm >>> b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- >>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT >>> V0UrAYTWwGru0&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=eLbWYnp >>> nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- >>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT >>> V0UrAYTWwGru0&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=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm >>> b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- >>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eN_Uy3kNbHcmkJklHaZuZpkWxHUDnT >>> V0UrAYTWwGru0&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 >> > > ############################ > > 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