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=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4 uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1I XYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj O2gOz4-A&m=zyQDAfdyvE6LLSL20y- 9SjAqQiVGVi7YE8OVV2Lnt5g&s=WVK UfdnEXpcvZmDB9Q5Nbz9bnezEVs03f UsVdNPZOd8&e=
It seems plausible to me.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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