|
I still haven't figured out how to get the system not to terminate itself, but I promise once I find the philosopher's stone and focus the rays of noontime through it, Strangecoin will fight racism.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Because the signal it is giving is not some sort of nuanced complex reading of information, it is literally related to a few factors that are quite easy to understand. I am saying that the information transfer you posit this study as showing is not there, what our olfactory sensors detect about another person is a very simple. It communicates nothing like what you claim it does. You have taken a study, pulled few words out of it like "genetic compatibility", and used it as the basis for a reasoning that is totally at odds with what is actually talked about in the paper. Do you have even basic reading comprehension? The procedure is simple. That's different from the information being conveyed, which is very complex. It is a very simple procedure (15 steps in the last formulation) to determine my account balance after a strangecoin transaction. It is adjusting basically two values (balance and change of balance). Fairly simple to understand what is being measured. But the information it conveys, about my position and relative status in the network of users, is very complex and highlights a very subtle community structure. That structure is something people in this thread are doubting we could intuitively reason about, simply because of its complexity. My genetic compatibility (in terms of a major histocompatibility complex) can be deduced by a simple olfactory procedure, but that procedure gives the user a window into a very complex set of relations. For instance, the study says that men prefer scents from women at fertile cycle points. The procedure for detection might be simple, but the message communicated in terms of how it motivates new actions might be anything but. The person experiences this signal as a preference: something intuitive grasped which motivates action. That might be qualitatively simple, but detecting such a signal could have any number of behavioral consequences. Again, the information being conveyed about the relationship is very complex. If you don't like the smell tests, then we also have a preference for symmetry and beauty, which might also be a complex set of relations across a person's face or a sculpture. We might discern these by a relatively simple optical procedure in our retina, but the information conveyed by that signal is very subtle, and might motivate action in complex ways. This is all, again, to establish the point that complexity is not an impediment to understanding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
LGD posted:most actual humans You are being far too generous to the goons. Goodnight internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are being far too generous to the goons. On the contrary, you're being far too generous with yourself. D&D has given you a much fairer hearing than you'd receive in nearly any other venue. It gets to be slightly less polite because it isn't worried that the young man in front of them might do something violent because he isn't making sense and appears to be showing signs of disordered thinking. But you get to pick and choose your responses in a way that you wouldn't quite be able to face to face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The procedure is simple. That's different from the information being conveyed, which is very complex. No, all that we can conclude from that study is that preferences for a few traits was selected for in our evolutionary history. Your inference that the reason for this is because these traits communicate some hidden complex of information isn't supported at all. There is no indicator that the indicators communicate anything of the sort, and in fact the mechanisms at play imply that the information conveyed is actually small. If anything, the subtle part of the process is how it motivates action, since all the higher cognitive processes and social conditioning mediates the effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:One thing to speak in its favor is that Strangecoin is extremely hostile to the notion of "private property". This connects back to the discussion of corporations earlier in the thread: Strangecoin gives an effective way of piercing the corporate veil by quantifying explicitly an individual's contributions to collective action. So in some sense, there is no private property in strangecoin world: everything is collectively owned. That gives at least some incentive to not unilaterally inhibit the jews; it hurts TUA and so it hurts us too. That doesn't protect the Jews against the inhumanity of man, of course, but that's a distinct kind of incentive that other kinds of socioeconomic networks. See: the digital values. Thanks for this, RA. I'm glad I kept reading until I got to this point. Did you think maybe it would have been relevant to mention that this currency is designed for a collectivist society with no notion of private property? Then perhaps we wouldn't have wasted so much time discussing capitalist economics. Why did you do that actually?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Racism has some benefits for the majority, but even in deeply racist societies the stereotypes relationships break down in strange and interesting ways all the tim. My claim is not that racism isn't effective for social control; of course it is. My claim is only that there are more effective and more useful methods available, and ones that operate under different values and assumptions. I've read this four times and I still can't tell what you're trying to say in the first three sentences. It is indistinguishable from Thomas Friedman, and that isn't a compliment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
The next 6 strangecoins will be critical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
One other thing that I forgot to mention is that I am TUA, and that I oversee allocation of all property and resources systemwide, along with the justice system, military, emergency services, education, and basically any conceivable government function.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
eXXon posted:One other thing that I forgot to mention is that I am TUA, and that I oversee allocation of all property and resources systemwide, along with the justice system, military, emergency services, education, and basically any conceivable government function. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant. For you. Hate. Hate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are being far too generous to the goons. Good night, comb. Good night, brush. Good night, nobody. Good night, mush. Good night to the old lady whispering, "Hush." Good night, stars. Good night, air. Good night, noises everywhere. Good night, goon. Good night, moon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Racism has some benefits for the majority, but even in deeply racist societies the stereotypes relationships break down in strange and interesting ways all the tim. My claim is not that racism isn't effective for social control; of course it is. My claim is only that there are more effective and more useful methods available, and ones that operate under different values and assumptions. Define "strange and interesting" because I'm sure those breakdowns tend to get readjusted for since cognitive dissonance is a thing and would likely be at play in what you might consider "strange and interesting" If you wish to figure models for human behavior, go look in some Psychology or Sociology literature. Start at Intro and work your way into specializations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
42 pages of people screaming at somebody to stop writing obfuscated drivel, to no effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
The big problem is the attempt to construct a universal model based purely on algorithms to simulate the entirety of human interaction. Give up Eripsa, there are no universals, people will not fit into your model no matter how you try, so you're trying to get humans to fit your model. Let me try saying this differently - not everything can be explained by maths, and not everything can be modelled to a degree of certainty that you seem to assume. I'm going back to a comment I made much earlier in the thread, which you ignored. Network theories are great for determining structures, and what relationships exist. It is not useful at all for telling us why, or how they exist. The ability to create a universal model based on network theory and a set of algorithms that will tell us the what, why and how of social relations is absolutely impossible. You will not find any academic working in any field relating to social sciences/economics/psychology that argues that their one theoretical approach explains all situations, is applicable to all situations, and is appropriate for asking all sorts of questions. If I want to critique a system of dominant discourses, or try to explain how one develops, then Foucault can be particularly useful. If I want to look at ways of looking at better law-making, Foucault becomes useless - Foucault's ideas and framework for analysis were not intended to be used for such a task. If I want to look at relationships between companies as lobbyists, in order to get an idea of who is working with who, then a network-based theory will be useful. If I want to look at how to regulate those companies, based on ideas of law, legitimacy and transparency, network theories become useless, and I might turn to political theory or legal philosophy. If I want to understand why I feel a particular way, or why others might react in a certain way to my actions, I would see a psychologist. I wouldn't go to a computer scientist who claims to have created a model that explains all human relationships. By trying to develop one model as a universal, you either have a broken model in the first place, which never gets off the ground, or alternatively you have a somewhat functioning yet hideously misrepresentative model where you have tweaked the data to fit it, rather than the other way around. I will say this as clearly as I can. There are no universals, and no algorithm or model that can simulate the almost infinite variance of social relationships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:One thing to speak in its favor is that Strangecoin is extremely hostile to the notion of "private property". This connects back to the discussion of corporations earlier in the thread: Strangecoin gives an effective way of piercing the corporate veil by quantifying explicitly an individual's contributions to collective action. So in some sense, there is no private property in strangecoin world: everything is collectively owned. That gives at least some incentive to not unilaterally inhibit the jews; it hurts TUA and so it hurts us too. That doesn't protect the Jews against the inhumanity of man, of course, but that's a distinct kind of incentive that other kinds of socioeconomic networks. See: the digital values. Your definition of "favor" is a lot like your definition of "scientific method". Also, that doesn't make the skull pile any smaller. Also also, I know you were searching for something, anything to throw at the wall, but coming up with "oh by the way in some sense it's also a property abolition vehicle" is genuinely dumb even on the scale of your theories. PS: no, wealth caps and basic income combined with twisting existing contracts to be dumber do not combine to form the abolition of private property PPS: in a sense, it's actually good that you're wrong about this for your proposal, because if you were right, a currency that does not support private property is beyond not even wrong and all the way around to really wrong again PPPS: I mean "sense" in the same way that you mean "favor", that is to say, the word is begging for mercy but I'm oblivious to its cries emfive posted:42 pages of people screaming at somebody to stop writing obfuscated drivel, to no effect. it's like tee ball; you use the bat to hit the ball that's been left just at the right level really far and it makes the next set of jokes just a little bit easier to reach for
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:You will not find any academic working in any field relating to social sciences/economics/psychology that argues that their one theoretical approach explains all situations, is applicable to all situations, and is appropriate for asking all sorts of questions. For psychology, you're right that most people are theoretically eclectic, but there is serious work in psychology to develop a theory of the mind which at least performs the same job as the theory of evolution in biology or theory of relativity in physics, notably ecological psychology and its descendants. This doesn't vindicate Eripsa's ideas, of course, because he is doing the opposite of what they are doing by starting with a big poorly understood idea and trying to refine it according to a top-down goal, instead of starting with a small well-understood idea and building up. This thread is a textbook case of "means-ends approach meets ill-defined problem, has solution babies that are not even wrong" playing out in a way that's completely predictable to everyone except Eripsa. I like his tenacity, but it's pretty tragic to see him bang his head against the wall like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:No, all that we can conclude from that study is that preferences for a few traits was selected for in our evolutionary history. Your inference that the reason for this is because these traits communicate some hidden complex of information isn't supported at all. There is no indicator that the indicators communicate anything of the sort, and in fact the mechanisms at play imply that the information conveyed is actually small. If anything, the subtle part of the process is how it motivates action, since all the higher cognitive processes and social conditioning mediates the effect. I still don't know why you insist that a simple decoding procedure implies the message being sent is simple. I can send you the completed works of Shakespeare in ROT13; the fact that the decoding process is easy doesn't mean the message being communicated is simple. The result of the sniff test is a preference, which is precisely a motivation to act (although it doesn't determine anything, and other preferences/constraints apply, of course). The motivation to act is sensitive to complex social information (like a potentially fertile reproductive partner) that conveys complex information about the social situation in a way that immediately prompts action; I'm tempted to start talking in terms of Gibsonian affordances. This is completely compatible with the decoding being a simple process. Again, this whole digression was to justify the (correct) point that complexity is not itself a barrier to understanding. Complex systems are patterns (of patterns of pattersns) of organization (of organization of organization), but some of those patterns exist at a high enough level that our human concepts are actually useful for handling them. It doesn't matter how complex the pattern is, what matters is that we have the right pattern-matcher for making the detection and interpreting the signal in a meaningful way. The sniff test produces information about genetic compatibility that the sniffer can interpret in an intuitively meaningful way that motivates action, despite the complexity of the underlying information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Adar posted:PS: no, wealth caps and basic income combined with twisting existing contracts to be dumber do not combine to form the abolition of private property I never said it abolishes private property, I said it is hostile to it. I'm putting the emphasis on the "private" part of property, and not the "property" part; in Strangecoin world there's a sense in which everything is owned communally, since even your bank account balance is subject to change when others engage in transactions of which you might not be an immediate party. So nothing is exclusively "yours" in that sense. We can still try sustaining the legal practice of nevertheless holding some property "private", but Strangecoin isn't designed to assist in that process. So it's hostile to the practice; there's no default to privacy in Strangecoinland. This isn't just some arbitrary extension, I've discussed this aspect of the view multiple times ITT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
And now we can add Property Rights to the things Eprisa knows jack poo poo about. Does anyone have a complete list?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
How does the Strangecoin model account for a black market?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Please also add biology. I don't really have the energy in me to explain everything he's getting wrong, especially by typing with my thumbs. E: also, he seems to think that property ownership is identical to capital accumulation. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I never said it abolishes private property, I said it is hostile to it. I'm putting the emphasis on the "private" part of property, and not the "property" part; in Strangecoin world there's a sense in which everything is owned communally, since even your bank account balance is subject to change when others engage in transactions of which you might not be an immediate party. So nothing is exclusively "yours" in that sense. Can you respond to my point about network theories please? Also, your conceptualisation of property is woefully inadequate, both at a general theoretical level, and the level of legal control over property.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
I like that Eprisa can't actually show a single piece of evidence that the information from the sniff test is complex, but continues to assert that it is anyway because he can't conceive of how it couldn't be. It's perhaps the most textbook example of an Argument From Ignorance possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Eripsa if private property has been abolished and everything is held in common, what is the point of using Strangecoin to "reify existing class structures"? How did existing class structures survive the abolition of private property? If you can't answer this in a few brief, concise sentences, you've been making it all up as you go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Did we ever find out why nonlinearity is important?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
No joke, my autistic boyfriend is actually way better about understanding human interaction than RA is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:No joke, my autistic boyfriend is actually way better about understanding human interaction than RA is. Now, now, this isn't a contest over which autistic person is better at understanding human interactions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Now, now, this isn't a contest over which autistic person is better at understanding human interactions. That's the thing, as far as I can see RA's only problem is that he's just that sheltered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I like that Eprisa can't actually show a single piece of evidence that the information from the sniff test is complex, but continues to assert that it is anyway because he can't conceive of how it couldn't be. It's perhaps the most textbook example of an Argument From Ignorance possible. I know, I don't feel like I've been anything other than simple and straightforward in my explanations. However, I am going to give it one last try, because even though he's only using this as an analogy for the human ability to process complex information from our environment, I feel that the errors RA is making are more broadly revelatory of his faulty thinking when it comes to the human ability to naturally intuit social worth in a community structure. Errors are as follows: 1) There is no such thing as genetic compatibility in the way you are using the term.MHCs do not provdie any information on the viability of offspring, and a couple can have children whether or not their MHCs are similar or different. The only thing that is communicated by MHC detection is the fact that I probably won't get transmissible tumours from you if we were making out and accidentally touch open wounds. It is not some sort of genetic screening. The detection literally just has to do with a few protein markers on the top of the cell membrane. Similarly, the only information that is transferred for fertility is the fact that the woman is secreting a certain hormone. It is not some sort of indicator of whether or not she's capable of having children otherwise, or whether or not she would be a good mother.The data provided is in fact very simple, and consist purely of the presence of certain hormones, and the presence of protein differentials on cell membranes, which in effect is what we used to determine the presence of any foreign body, and operates along a self and not self determination system. Literally the only thing to communicate is "like me" and "not like me". You seem to assume that some sort of complex computation to interpret chemical data is taking place, but that is not the case. The chemical signals, adn the information they confer are actually quite simple. Which brings me to my next point. 2) There is no computation in the mind about what this information means. In essence, even if you could see these chemical signals as being encoded information, there is no decoding of this information on the part of the receptor. All that happens is that certain pathways in our brain fire off in response to chemical stimulus. This occurs because at some point in our evolutionary history, a preference for these traits was selected for due to some sort of selective pressure, environmental or otherwise. The subconscious is not calculating out the probability of genetically fit offspring when it smells another person's sweat. It's akin to chemotaxis, only much more complex, but there is no cognition of what these signals actually mean. Humans are not interpreting a complex and nuanced set of data to determine the fitness of a partner when they smell that person's sweat. And finally, 3) We have no idea why these traits were selected for. At some point in history, and for MHCs it may well have been around the time we started developing spinal cords, preference for certain traits provided an advantage. This does not necessarily mean that they still provide an advantage or won't be eliminated from the gene pool in 10,000 years. It's essentially a fallacious appeal the nature, one that he also commits when he posits that humans will naturally be able to intuit community structures like the ones he proposes. We know that something like the cities that we live in today are unprecedented in our evolutionary history, we have no reason to believe that humanitiy's natural tendency towards communal organization will translate into being able to effectively navigate a social network many millions of times bigger than anything we used to face when our brains were evolving their neural pathways for social interactions. In fact the ability of sociopaths and psychopaths to play off of people's natural inclinations towards trusting people who show certain external signifiers, such as openness in facial expressions, demonstrates how easy it is to game a system based on human social interactions. RA seems to assume that this sort of gaming simply would not occur in a perfect system. Why this should be the case he hasn't given us an answer to. RA, you don't understand evolutionary biology or social psychology, and your system relies on a highly reductive, and frankly bizarre, understanding of human nature. Even if your model is internally coherent, and I think you've proven by now that isn't because you continuously move the goalposts on any number of different criticisms, it serves no useful purpose because it doesn't model reality accurately. Now you may say that this is purely a thought exercise, but given the fact that you started this thread by talking about the social policy implications of your magic e-money, such a statement is just as disingenuous as your continued insistence that you are being bullied when people demand that you answer pertinent questions about your system. There was that clear enough? Political Whores fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
1) these are all of the things i would like a system to do 2) these are all the mechanics i would like a system to use, just, well, because 3) let us discuss how those mechanics lead to the system. they do, and you're wrong to say they don't, i just don't know how they do yet 4) replace each word in 3 with a paragraph of word salad 5) throw hissy fit when people point out the mechanics in 2 don't lead to 1 6) replace each word in 5 with a paragraph of word salad
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:1) these are all of the things i would like a system to do 7) Insist if a programmer would just make a model of what was described in 1 it would prove it works 8) Ignore when programmer does make a model and explains how it fails because it's fundamentally flawed 9) Beg programmer for more help while continuing to ignore literally all attempts to explain how the model is flawed
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:7) Insist if a programmer would just make a model of what was described in 1 it would prove it works 10) Use an example from an unrelated field, make a glaring error about said example and/or field while doing so, handwave furiously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I never said it abolishes private property, I said it is hostile to it. I'm putting the emphasis on the "private" part of property, and not the "property" part; in Strangecoin world there's a sense in which everything is owned communally, since even your bank account balance is subject to change when others engage in transactions of which you might not be an immediate party. So nothing is exclusively "yours" in that sense. Yesterday, I was rich. Today, my goatfucking uncle hosed a goat. Tomorrow, I am bankrupt. Strangecoin: literally worse than a 10th century BC hunter gatherer clan. quote:We can still try sustaining the legal practice of nevertheless holding some property "private", but Strangecoin isn't designed to assist in that process. So it's hostile to the practice; there's no default to privacy in Strangecoinland. This isn't just some arbitrary extension, I've discussed this aspect of the view multiple times ITT. "I want a currency that puts my entire life history on public display and also changes the amount of itself in my bank account based specifically on how other people view that history" the difference between this proposal and Creepy Toothpaste Uncle from the last time you spectacularly failed at proposing something is that the creepy uncle couldn't reach into your bank account and confiscate an arbitrary amount of your money based on how much he liked your toothpaste purchase never fear, the toothpaste council is on the case and will review your purchasing history for suitability shortly
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Eripsa in the middle of your incoherent raving about the multitude of things you don't understand have you ever actually tried to sit down and think of a single one of the real world implications I don't mean "in strangecoinland there is no sense of private property and everything is communally owned because people have been replaced by robots" but something more along the lines of "I am a human being from the planet Earth and I got paid in strangecoin today; when I spend it, do I really want every single person on the planet to know exactly what kind of porn I bought and change the amount of money I get through clicking Like on Facebook (knowing that if they Like the wrong thing the amount of money they make will also be affected)" like, have you -ever- done this exercise in your entire life for any reason
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Please also add biology. I don't really have the energy in me to explain everything he's getting wrong, especially by typing with my thumbs. Psychology as well. Would it be more practical to write a list of subject he's shown to clearly not understand or a list of what he does?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:About as you'd expect ie: spectacularly awful. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. 30 servings would be wasted. why e: doesn't his example actually demonstrate inefficiency of self-organization? Did he just refute himself with his own argument? crime weed fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Kjoery posted:Wait what, I'm not even sure what the "problem" was, but the solution (after 5 paragraphs of salad) was to apparently to present 20 people with 50 servings of food. Why indeed, Kjoery. Why indeed. quote:e: doesn't his example actually demonstrate inefficiency of self-organization? Did he just refute himself with his own argument? Probably, who can tell!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
I think a while ago I asked why you couldn't do most of whatever Strangecoin is supposed to do by having a single electronic currency with a balance cap (effectively a 100% wealth tax), where any excesses are disbursed to fund a GMI. Any of the privacy-invading network bullshit is already possible just through tracking payments between users and there's no obvious reason why any of the other transaction types have to exist. Of course it probably wouldn't work and TUA would be drained immediately but hey that's not my problem. For that matter I also have no idea why anyone would willingly contribute to TUA except for this nebulous epeen that may or may not get you shuffled to the front of the line at the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Has anyone said wordsaladcoin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
eXXon posted:For that matter I also have no idea why anyone would willingly contribute to TUA except for this nebulous epeen that may or may not get you shuffled to the front of the line at the grocery store. Nobody actively initiates trades with TUA. They're all automatic. Of course people aren't stupid and will go check their rule sheet and initiate allowed trades with others that will kick off TUA activity. But afaik we're still pretending that doesn't happen for Reasons and our Rational Users slap their blinders on before transacting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 22:40
|
|
