|
Sure, lease me a pod in the arcology I guess. I don't see how "cloud nations" will provide well-being for individuals whose bodies are, regrettably, still yoked to the physical world but let's see what happens.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm taking for granted that any system will have losers. Well don't loving do that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:This is the huge issue to me. I don't know why anyone but a 1%er would be cool with a libertarian trying to set up Galt's Gulch. You know what the final result is, (massive class cleansing and the "creative destruction" of existing society to give the few an ivory tower) so why would you do anything but try to subvert this idea? Because if you flatter our lords enough, they might show favor to you! You might be permitted to co-author a paper with them to lend them gravitas, or you might be invited to speak at TED, or more likely at TED's walled ghetto, TEDx. Putting TEDx on your C.V. would be considered gauche, of course. "Don't cleanse me! I believe in the Singularity! I'd wear a silk shirt and earpiece too, if my lord allowed it!" This is what you can plead.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:I'm always amused by how uneducated the IT sector is, the idea of a technocracy has been around for 100 years or more. In terms of organizational and management theory there is a whole host of functional approaches (i.e. everything is a problem that can be fixed by experts and expertise, don't worry too much about people's points of view), and it turns out when applied they don't actually end up in an apolitical utopia. Often they just strengthen existing power structures. Then of course, most people in IT aren't even that good at computer science. It's hilarious yet terrifying to watch these aging Randian script kiddies rediscover toy versions of every discipline. They'd be nowhere without these disciplines, but their laser-specific "educations" permitted them to grow up into wealthy manchildren while remaining totally ignorant of them. Meanwhile, their champions are people like Ellison and Jobs, psychopaths by the most charitable interpretation. It's like the Dark Ages with coffee shops and Maseratis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why isn't this the place to debate harm reduction? Well we wouldn't want an Eripsa thread to become overly broad in scope. Gantolandon posted:The most of the damage comes from the fact that heroin addict has his brain screwed up to crave heroin. That's where the overdose and needle-sharing comes from. Those actually come mostly from the prohibition of the drug, rather than from addiction itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Eripsa, I'm honestly worried that you are going to cause some damage in this world. You're just the man to put a techno-utopian shine on some capitalist's brain-chipping ambitions. You're going to find a patron eventually--tech moguls seem to have a bottomless appetite for flattering bullshit--and you'll earnestly set about convincing idealistic young people that enslavement is a new freedom. Please retire from the world of ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, like right now this is just an experiment for Amazon (Bezos apparently has said even 2015 for a commercial rollout is "optimistic"), but on the other hand this or something like it is probably inevitable in the long run. Remember when he leaked about the Segway, and was so vague about it people thought it was going to fly?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I honestly think that in a world run by software, all the NSA cameras and tracking systems are operated on a publicly accessible, open and transparent website, something like Wikipedia, except for security. Ladies and gentlemen, the National Security Advisor, "Check Out These Top 50 Teen Girls At The Mall!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Eripsa, you aren't an expert at all the aspects required to make a system like this work, so you have no business saying anything about the topic. But be expert in like, one aspect to begin with. Actually, be expert in two, these are weighty enough matters that we need a real polymath in the driver's seat, dammit. Get up to the level where you'd get done explaining your entire attention theory to Bertrand Russell or Chomsky and they would respond with something other than "OK?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, if Eripsa isn't a genius like Chomsky or Russell, he has no business whatsoever holding unpopular political opinions. I'm not saying you have to be a genius, I'm saying that you have to make sense to a genius (or to anybody).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:If you don't like that part, then run away now and try to create a career as hype-man for startups or else pretend to love My Little Pony and pander to internet nerds as a futurist blogger and sci-fi novelist. But all of those things still take a ton of work. Can't I just get credit as being "the guy who put it all together"? Like at the end of the movie where there's a montage of headlines and magazines "30-YEAR-OLD BOY GENIUS CREATES ATTENTION THEORY" but then the "MAN OF THE YEAR" Time magazine comes up...and it's the one that has a mirror and says "THE MAN OF THE YEAR...IS YOU" *cue Koyaanisqatsi music*
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Didn't you just link to a (nominally) academic paper you wrote? If somebody came in here and posted a "paper" about homeopathy being totally interesting, do you think that would get a pass?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:But I'm not arguing for homeopathy. Apparently the mere fact that I'm speaking about a subject on which I'm a nonexpert is grounds to totally dismiss anything I have to say without regard for what I'm actually saying. No that's not why, it's because what you are saying is nonsense. quote:Making comments on a field as a nonexpert doesn't immediately make my claims pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is appeal to theories and evidence that is inconsistent with and unrecognized by the scientific consensus. Aaaa-men brother, you took the words right out of my mouth quote:I've been repeatedly deferring to scientific papers and theories in the course of this thread, and I've been at pains to show how my ideas here are consistent with and follow directly from the scientific practice as it currently exists. You are doing pseudoscience with those materials and techniques. I can make a stained glass window out of bottles, that doesn't make me a brewer of beer. quote:But none of this earns me any credit or conversational charity with the goons, I'm just immediately drowned out in a chorus of contempt. Hey, enjoy your time in the wilderness. When DARPA implements your grand ideas through your backchannel contacts there, won't their be egg on our faces!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm arguing that attending to those persons is the only way we'll be able to create a genuinely self-organized system. Otherwise, we'll never remain adaptively successful. Why not? Ignoring and oppressing them has worked pretty well so far. In fact you could say that the present system has organized itself out of all of the structures of existing power. Why won't humans be "adaptively successful" unless the underrepresented gain representation? Most societies throughout history have prospered for centuries or millenia while continuing to have subject populations. In fact, what do you mean "adaptively successful"? Do you mean our ability to keep relevant as a class, or a nation, or as individuals with skills and marketability? Do you mean our ability to avoid the effects of climate change? Do you mean our ability to sustain life and technology until we escape Earth and colonize the stars? And please tell me what you meant, don't just trivially agree with one of the things I just said.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I mean by successful "resilience under changing conditions", which include things like climate change, but more immediately in keeping the social order stable and predictable and within certain constraints. Perhaps its worth mentioning here that we aren't doing so hot in these categories, with our persistent political instability and economic imbalance. The U.S. is a marvel of political stability. Don't confuse brinkmanship in Congress or libertarian rhetoric approaching the mainstream for instability. For all the polarizing rhetoric that gets thrown around elections have remarkably little impact on the functioning of government and society. What could be more stable than that? quote:Now a stable system might not be providing well for the least of its members, sure. Traditional hierarchies historically gain stability through exclusion and restricting political power to a very few. But a digital systems are user-generated, and requires levels of feedback from the user base that is unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Uh it's happening faster, and there are more of us, but what exactly is unprecedented about digital systems of communication? It's certainly not the conceptual leap that the telegraph was. For that matter, what is it about a digital system that makes it user-generated by definition? How are those systems any different from the "user-creation" of landowners getting drunk in a tavern, formulating demands and tromping off to their elected representative? quote:For facebook to operate, you need vastly more people cooperating than have ever been members of any political structure. For facebook to operate, you need more people than the entire government?? Last time I checked there were not millions of people working for facebook. Wait, do you mean the users? How is what users do organization? quote:These systems don't work like traditional organizations, because they get better with use. Its a logic that is utterly unlike those historical structures, and completely undermines conventional wisdom on the "tragedy of the commons". They get better with use? Why, because you say so? Besides, political systems get better with use too; they gain strength with increasing user participation. Political systems are created by their users. The question is who showed up to be a user. And the tragedy of the commons was bullshit to begin with, it's propaganda to make us forget a time when the land was held in common. quote:So I'm arguing that in these systems in particular, exclusion doesn't have the same advantages that it had for traditional hierarchies, and that there is a countervailing incentive for inclusion and participation. Google doesn't care who you are, it wants you online. If you are from a niche community all the better, because your presence here will help attract other members of your community, and maintaining that use means cultivating and respecting your community to at least some minor degree. Yes, that works very well for Google because they are a company that sells advertising. Google arose from a motive of profit. Where is the motive for the creation of a political model that "doesn't care who you are"? Politics is literally about who you are. What environmental pressures will lead to the introduction and success of such a political model? quote:Again, that doesn't mean all suffering will end, or that all human rights problems are solved. But it is a strong reason to think that the systemic abuses of power are different in a digital world. They're always different. They're different every time. It ends up not mattering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:They are the ones actually forming the links that make the service have any value. If FB had no active members it would be utterly useless. Yes and without serfs, feudalism wouldn't have much value either. The connections users form give them an incentive to continue participating, and they provide value to the company, but how are they "organization"? How are they power? Facebook could delete the account of every political activist on Facebook tomorrow and their stock price would probably go up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Which argument was that, then? You really don't seem to have much in the way of definite positions for anything. Guys this would be so much easier to explain in a Google Hangout. It would be like, dynamically self-organizing and adaptive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post. Do you give a poo poo about anything enough to understand it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:And yet there was a time when there were no governments and all people lived in self-organized non-hierarchical societies. Now most people live under hierarchical governments. So clearly self-organized systems aren't always more resilient (the only property you mentioned) than hierarchical ones, in fact the evidence seems to indicate that the opposite is true. It's OK because hierarchical societies are self-organized as well, because everything is true at once. "There's room in the model for good and bad." Precursors to the model include "it's all good" and "everything is everything."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
You know, all of this makes sense if you substitute "bloody human carnage" for "dynamic." Like, traffic accidents in India are certainly dynamic. Of all the things you could call them, dynamic is definitely one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Mentioning Bertrand Russell is massively triggering to Eripsa, probably because studying that man's life lets you know just how much detail work is involved in coming up with an entirely new system for observing the world. But Eripsa, Russell would have assessed your communication skills and your intellectual depth, and he would have advised you to get on board with humanism and egalitarianism, systems for observing and indeed changing the world that have already been developed and work really well. You don't need to waste time pretending to come up with new systems, you don't have the depth for it. I don't either. We're not saying that we are smarter than you. I mean there are people posting in this thread who are way smarter than you or I, I feel comfortable saying that. I am not any smarter than you. But when I took mushrooms to the point of breaking with consensus reality, I rolled with my impressions of amazement at the interconnectedness of all humans, then I sobered up and realized that I didn't have anything too new or profound to communicate. Astonished, I continued to preach ideals of fairness, justice, representation and equality, because those are ideas people understand and I have come to terms with the fact that I do not have any new ideas. You don't have any either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Eripsa just stop with the pity party. You're quite insane enough without obsessing about how persecuted you are. By your standards you don't appear to have a single sympathetic reader in this thread (though I would argue that continuing to listen and engage with your "ideas," however insultingly, is an almost superhuman act of toleration and sympathy), so why keep bitching to us about how we're treating you? We're just "jackals" after all, why would we stop because you're complaining? You mentioned your academic work in the field of philosophy, and how it's worlds apart from the gargle you keep vomiting into your own thread. Well let's see it! It sounds so good that a jackal's teeth would slide right off of it. I suspect, however, that you are garbling your way through the academic world no more capably than anywhere else for the simple reason that it's more awkward to call a person crazy to their face than it is to do so over the internet. Main Paineframe posted:I haven't gotten to mocking you about the science fiction you mentioned yet, but I wasn't going to mock you just for mentioning science fiction, I was going to mock you for basing your vision of the future on a writing that predicts that in the post-apocalyptic future, men will be unable to function in any sort of society until they are made to fight over power tools in order to restore their respect and honor in order to restore any sort of drive to their meaningless lives while women busily work the fields in exchange for an aura of glory, which is used as currency. Are you just so desperate for examples that you're willing to ignore the author's sheer insanity, or do you honestly not see how ridiculous that passage is? Sterling is awesome, not least because he doesn't pretend that any of this poo poo is ideal or desirable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:For the individual, attention is the result of the brain's immediate judgement about where its cognitive resources should be allocated. The relationship to utility is between the reallocation of resources and the utility gained from that reallocation; attention is the mechanism for determining the reallocation. Are you about ready to admit that there is no point to the entire system you've created? Or should I say, the as-yet-unexplored-and-undeveloped system that you have alluded to, are too stupid to create yourself and feel that it's important for someone else to create?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Still waiting on that heavy-rear end philosophy writing you've totally done and received academic recognition for, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:VV It has no relevance with anything, but here's the first quarter of one of the chapters from my diss: You're the one who brought it up because you thought we weren't taking you seriously. But don't worry about the fact that you're contradicting yourself, I'm used to it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
It's managing attention, but what does that have to do with an "attention economy"? Everything we do has fallen into place (or we've deliberately chosen it) as a way to move forward in a balanced fashion and achieve personal goals. The bra is just a tool, it doesn't care what you're paying attention to, it cares about how stressed out you are. We can get data about people's habits, which is really useful, and use it to design new products and live healthier lives, sure; to which I would say, welcome to scientific and engineering progress, I guess? That's not an attention economy, that's just society and it's iterative, not revolutionary. There's no reason to frame it in terms of who is paying attention to what; that's a simple metaphor at best, maybe a good speech to give at the beginning of a high school multimedia class or something, but it doesn't bear too much digging into. e: and I certainly reject any society that wants to plug me into a live feed of my friends' emotional state, thank you! If I want to know their emotional state I will go ahead and ask them about it. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal? Should her bra call me first, or a mental health professional? If it's the latter, then that has some interesting implications. "Now Samantha, why aren't you wearing your Anti-Suicide Harness?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So I'm not sure what to say here, unless you just want me to speculate wildly about what might happen with the various interested communities as they interact. If the groups of pornographers are small, then perhaps the communities tasked with safety and humanitarian causes would put some of their efforts towards shutting down CP networks. If the problems started to get out of hand or become a more high-profile case, maybe other communities would be enlisted in the cause, in order to organize more resources for the effort. The system I'm offering doesn't have tailor-fit solutions to every problem that might arise; I'm making methodological claims about how to generate solutions. You're one of the few people I've read who can make the statement "I am ignorant of what you're talking about and have no desire to educate myself" sound like a sort of wounded accusation. See also: RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Seriously dude you post like you've spent years and years generating bullshit markov verbage to fill out thirty page papers and now you're unable to stop. What makes this funny is that you somehow think that this won't be noticed on a forum predominantly frequented by other academic knuckledraggers who have also drunkenly cranked out last minute deconstructive essays about nothing. But how can my knowledge be pretend? The debt I incurred to acquire it is all too real.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Which is a pity, because the contents of that thread completely exonerate Eripsa from the most recent, pretty loving awful personal attacks (Is Eripsa A Pedophile?! No, get the gently caress back to the Daily Mail.) That story was fuckin' weird dude.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
quote:I play an unwavering ideologue Oh wowwwwww. RealityApologist posted:Darwin explained how the evolution of species was compatible with an entirely mechanistic world. It's a unifying theory. I'm not sure what else to say. What's your voyage of The Beagle, Eripsa? When Darwin did tons of detailed field work, followed up by decades of research?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:You are attempting to control the debate so much that you don't realize your talking to people with different backgrounds and experiences. His point is that this conversation is flawed because your arguments are flawed. Just look at your list of "acceptable things you can debate me with" and "gross simplifications of the critiques I don't like". The fact that you argue you're being substantive by producing walls of text on the internet leads people to believe you aren't thinking things out critically of your own bias. In fairness, he doesn't really know what constitutes a real background or real experience.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
e: ^^^  RealityApologist posted:I have done no work whatsoever Since you've endorsed me as your official condenser: you could have just said this part.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Substantive Eripsa post Figure a. Substantive Eripsa post in its natural habitat 
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Hey Eripsa there are wikipedia links in your list of sources.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No one gives a gently caress about your fanfics about how Ron Paul and Isaac Asimov had a gay-baby that brought upon the glorious cyborg utopia. Posts like these are why you have worn out your welcome and no longer deserve any charity is discussions. You're just a hater though. His stories are usually the most readable of his posts.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Whatever blend of pills and liquor you're taking that let you post this with a straight face, I want some of it too. No really, look at it. He still doesn't know how to talk like people, but when he voices a character you can tell he's trying at least.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:That's good advice, yes, but he's just going to repeat that he doesn't know how to do that. You're asking him to learn something, and he's too busy roleplaying someone who already knows things to do that. Your request for me to do work puts me in the position of someone who hasn't done any work, or a ridiculous dilettante who doesn't even understand the discipline he claims to be a part of. Anybody who would try to call me a ridiculous dilettante isn't really engaging with what I have said.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Eripsa I thought you were going to make a new thread. Alien Arcana posted:You're not going to answer my questions... because the answers already exist... in a thread that nobody has access to any more. Oh, but you'd like to answer my questions, it's just that you can't. Somehow. Because you answered them once already. Shouldn't that make it easier to answer them a second time? Remember, it's Eripsa. His proofs, his rigor, his answers, everything always happened in the past tense. He's under the impression that if you say "I did this" that's like a magic spell instead of a concrete reference. It's like that joke Putin tells about the defector--go to the next room. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbinNj5cZSg
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:31
|
|