|
RealityApologist posted:I've talked about this quite explicitly many times in this thread. In particular, I quoted this essay, and elaborated further in this post. I see. That's stupid for three very simple reasons. First, you're using the word 'caste' in an extremely eccentric manner aimed for maximum confusion. When you're endorsing a 'caste system' in the context of human society, people usually think of caste systems in the context of historical human societies, not in the context of bees.. Second, this is a pretty obvious case of the 'is-ought' fallacy. Just because social networks naturally develop certain folks as being leaders doesn't mean that the leaders that naturally develop should lead. Being 'natural' has nothing to do with being correct or making a more ethical, just, or comfortable society. Finally, even buying your 'people who are natural leaders should be leaders' thing, there's also a lot of natural churn in human social networks, but Strangecoin cements power in the hands of the current leaders, therefore artificially causing permanent caste systems (in the standard human sense).
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I see. That's stupid for three very simple reasons. He's not being honest. In the past he said that he wanted inequalities and caste systems to be highlighted by strangecoin, with the goal of removing them. Now he's back to saying that strangecoin is somehow going to fix inequality, that there will be castes but those are just the groups that people have sorted themselves into! It'll be OK. Next he will return to a third position, that "this is all just a thought experiment, it's not intended to be implemented in the real world, you jackals."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I see. That's stupid for three very simple reasons. He uses it this way because he assumes that's what historical caste divisions, or race divisions for that matter, were actually trying to do. Humans were naturally self-organizing into systems for labour division, only we lacked the information and precision to create anything more than systems outlined by crude proxies like race or gender.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:He uses it this way because he assumes that's what historical caste divisions, or race divisions for that matter, were actually trying to do. Humans were naturally self-organizing into systems for labour division, only we lacked the information and precision to create anything more than systems outlined by crude proxies like race or gender. Evolutionary biology is a nasty pseudo-science much adored by cranks as a catch-all post hoc generator as to why their pet theory is and always should be the case, especially as it benefits them specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Evolutionary biology is real, but 99% of people not directly in the field have no idea what it actually is and abuse the gently caress out of the term. SedanChair posted:He's not being honest. In the past he said that he wanted inequalities and caste systems to be highlighted by strangecoin, with the goal of removing them. Now he's back to saying that strangecoin is somehow going to fix inequality, that there will be castes but those are just the groups that people have sorted themselves into! It'll be OK. Next he will return to a third position, that "this is all just a thought experiment, it's not intended to be implemented in the real world, you jackals." And after that he will go into the fourth and final stage, grovel long before us lordly goons. We impossibly perfect beings who alone are capable of compressing his disgusting idea-turds into shining reality-diamonds. Then when no one buys that load of schlock he'll start back at Stage 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
If Strangecoin means that users stand to gain power from familial networks, and if (as you have previously stated) children have their own accounts, doesn't that provide a direct incentive to have as many children as possible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:If Strangecoin means that users stand to gain power from familial networks, and if (as you have previously stated) children have their own accounts, doesn't that provide a direct incentive to have as many children as possible? Seconds after the implementation of Strangecoin the Duggars become the most powerful family on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:He's not being honest. In the past he said that he wanted inequalities and caste systems to be highlighted by strangecoin, with the goal of removing them. Now he's back to saying that strangecoin is somehow going to fix inequality, that there will be castes but those are just the groups that people have sorted themselves into! It'll be OK. Next he will return to a third position, that "this is all just a thought experiment, it's not intended to be implemented in the real world, you jackals." Whoops. Sorry, I thought this was new material. Oh, well. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:If Strangecoin means that users stand to gain power from familial networks, and if (as you have previously stated) children have their own accounts, doesn't that provide a direct incentive to have as many children as possible? Its a direct incentive to be as abusively nepotistic as possible- another term Eripsa has little if any understanding of or why its viewed negatively. edit: Who What Now posted:^^^^^^ Evolutionary psychology, rather. Its what they use when they decide to self-identify rather than chigger themselves into the flesh of the biologist's field. Gerund fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
I'm interested in what will happen with this system, but I think most of the problem lies with the way it's been framed. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch. Instead of calling it an economy, let's pretend it's just a game. Then we can find out if there's anything interesting about it without all this stupid theoretical baggage that is just a distraction without knowing how the system actually behaves. Because the gulf between the proposal itself and the theory it's supposedly connected to is wide enough to fit four or five academic departments in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I can't believe I just spent two hours on this. I have no idea how closely this matches the spec or whether it works. I hope this is useful. I don't know haskell and will need to look at your code more carefully, but for what it's worth JawnV6 put some (different) code up on git here: https://github.com/jawnv6/strangesim I have explicitly said that I have no intention on personally profiting from anything that develops from this thread, and that I'd hope anything that does develop is released as open source and in the spirit of open software development.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I have explicitly said that I have no intention on personally profiting from anything that develops from this thread, and that I'd hope anything that does develop is released as open source and in the spirit of open software development. What is that, a magic spell or something? If Elon Musk showed up at your house tomorrow like "ERIPSA YOU'RE MY VENUS, MY MUSE, INSPIRE ME" and threw money on the table you'd be like   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Od7gx3Dc-U&t=860s
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Gerund posted:
Yeah, that's some straight up biotruths bullshit. Which Eprisa seemingly subscribes to, going off the paper he linked and his expansion of it. He just dances around actually saying that people are born with certain skills and limitations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I have explicitly said that I have no intention on personally profiting from anything that develops from this thread, and that I'd hope anything that does develop is released as open source and in the spirit of open software development. Yes, RA, your ideas are going to be very popular one day. You're a noble hero who everybody will recognize as being in it purely for the betterment of humanity. Even though you refuse to make a cent from it, you'll be rich in spirit and the thanks that passerbys will give you will be more than enough to make it worthwhile. e: don't worry, I know you wont rub it in after you've proven us all wrong. You're above that, it's enough to simply know that you're right. Wanamingo fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I haven't read much of Dennet. Could you provide a citation of since sort on his instrumentalist views of identity, specifically gender or sexual orientation? Because conceiving of gender in instrumentalist sense isn't something I've encountered before. In fact, it's very at odds with most of what I read. The particular reference is Clark's commentary on Dennett's instrumentality here. The philosophical issue is with instrumentality as such; the particular debate is whether the mind can be characterized as "tools all the way down." Both thinkers agree, and elaborate on what that means and what it's consequences are for how we understand our identity. They don't talk about gender identity in particular, but the analysis obviously meant to cover those cases, at least at the general level they are talking about it. Again, they are doing philosophy (of mind), and not gender studies in particular, but their comments certainly bear on the issue. But the issue has certainly been taken up by feminists to look at issues of gender identity (for instance here). The more general story of gender-as-instrument is found explicitly in Haraway and her commentators, and in Butler's oft-cited "[t]here is only a taking up of the tools where they lie, where the very ‘taking up’ is enabled by the tool lying there” in Gender Trouble. Gerund posted:But even then, the crux still remains that tools are separate from culture even in said theories. Lol I have no idea who you think you are responding to, but I'm in no way whatsoever committed to the claims you are arguing against. Instrumentality isn't distinct from culture; our instruments embody our culture in numerous ways. You're acting like the issue of instrumentality is never taken up in gender studies, which makes it seem like you've never encountered Gender Trouble, which seems weird in the midst of accusations that I'm unfamiliar with the literature. Dennett's and Clark's views are entirely compatible with gender and identity as a social construction. I think that there's a very interesting discussion to have about the distinctions between pragmatism and social constructivism (basically, the debate between Quine and Goodman, or between Dennett and Rorty), and when it comes down to it I think Dennett is a pragmatist. But that distinction is much too subtle to cut any mustard at the level you're talking, and it'd be silly to have the conversation here since you are so confused on the basic issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, that's some straight up biotruths bullshit. Which Eprisa seemingly subscribes to, going off the paper he linked and his expansion of it. He just dances around actually saying that people are born with certain skills and limitations. Whats sad is that because of my arguments with practitioners of EP I am far more doubtful of the claims that EB makes w/r/t specific evolutionary paths and biological conclusions that are, by their nature, unfalsifiable. edit: Eripsa, you're a quote-sniping pedant pathetically editing my own words into a misunderstood stew of badly-parsed jargon. My primary thesis remains, unchallenged, that culture and tool are two wholly different concepts that you are obscuring when you term gender as, itself, a tool. Further, your attempt to mis-quote loving BUTLER, the loving godhead of gender-queer, when she speaks of the tools as signifiers of gender as if they were, themselves, the identity of gender... It is not only insulting, but shows a severe lack of academic ethics on your part. Gerund fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Philosophy of Science is in danger of delving into cargo-cult pseudoscience when their writers make heterodox claims counter to decades of surrounding literature as a peninsula of monolithic obscurantist self-reference. I'll credit the published writers by assuming that it is your decision to stretch the definition of 'instrumental function' in such a way that sublimates three decades of Queer Theory in order to support your own privileged 'cyborg identity' world-view: This is what I wrote. The bold is what Eripsa quoted. It is pathetic to watch an academic on the cusp of defending their PhD thesis be brought so low as to disregard the entirety of the text in order to quibble over the phrasing the last half of a footnote. Your leisure time could be used so much better, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:First, you're using the word 'caste' in an extremely eccentric manner aimed for maximum confusion. When you're endorsing a 'caste system' in the context of human society, people usually think of caste systems in the context of historical human societies, not in the context of bees.. It would be stupid if I hadn't tried to be very clear about what I mean and why the term is appropriate. If people are confused it's because they aren't paying attention. quote:Second, this is a pretty obvious case of the 'is-ought' fallacy. Just because social networks naturally develop certain folks as being leaders doesn't mean that the leaders that naturally develop should lead. Being 'natural' has nothing to do with being correct or making a more ethical, just, or comfortable society. First, I'm a naturalist. I don't think the "is-ought" fallacy is a fallacy. Basically every philosopher I've cited (Quine, Dennett, Rorty, Clark) would argue the same. Second, I'm not a libertarian. I'm not arguing that the free hand of self-organization will find the perfect balance of social virtues. I'm describing a system for making explicit our social ties so that we might control or otherwise account for them. I'm saying that human social organizations develop by preferential attachment, and that we can build a economic game that accounts for this structure of human organizations in a way that modifies the decision making process to naturally account for this bias. That doesn't mean it fixes all the problems. It's just another way to think about economic relations. quote:Finally, even buying your 'people who are natural leaders should be leaders' thing, there's also a lot of natural churn in human social networks, but Strangecoin cements power in the hands of the current leaders, therefore artificially causing permanent caste systems (in the standard human sense). I'm not saying anything about "natural leaders", and I basically agree with you entirely on this point. In fact, I'd argue that Strangecoin is meant to assist in the natural "churn" of human social networks, by providing a framework in which those changes can be managed explicitly. I'd argue that a significant amount of the problem with our existing systems is the frictions caused by institutions that aren't well-suited to the changes that naturally take place within human communities, and this is often because the dynamics of power aren't well represented by the institutional tools designed to manage that power. Hence representative governments fail to represent their constituents, etc. Now you're right that nothing about this discussion requires that we throw all the bums out and start from scratch, so that any existing inequalities would just get carried over into a system like this. That would be a problem if I were planning a revolution, but I'm just talking about how a system like this might work even in cases of inequality. I'm taking this as an attempt at realism; I'm not just assuming utopian conditions. I don't think that's a criticism of my proposal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know haskell and will need to look at your code more carefully, but for what it's worth JawnV6 put some (different) code up on git here: https://github.com/jawnv6/strangesim His isn't Haskell but Python: I just hacked out a Haskell version though. It's not very well-tested and doesn't include the simulation component, but if you want it here you go. The simulation component shouldn't be that hard to implement, but I'm totally burnt out. It's lacking some usability features (its network generation system is extremely basic) but it typechecks and as far as I know it's correct. You can find it here: http://pastebin.com/RgJx0gwE. EDIT: That version has a minor bug that might cause a lot of grief -- try this one. http://pastebin.com/ycNKKwLh Krotera fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Gerund posted:This is what I wrote. Jesus christ I wasn't quibbling with the last line, I was avoiding quoting a huge post for the sake of the readability of the thread. You are saying that culture and tools are different, and I agreed. Tools are instrumental functions. Culture functions instrumentally as a tool in lots of different contexts. Gender functions as a tool in lots of different contexts. These are not incompatible claims. You seem to think that I've somehow committed myself to the denial of these claims, but I haven't. I quoted Butler correctly, and more generally gave multiple references where issues of gender and instrumentality are taken up explicitly. These were all given in response to your and Little Blackfly's concerns, which were on the same topic. My response was appropriate and well-sourced, and addresses your thesis directly. You missed because you are instead ranting about how I didn't quote your whole post in full. In other words, you aren't paying attention. I'll keep trying to respond to your increasingly exasperated posts as patiently as I can, but your exasperation is not evidence that I'm losing the argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:It would be stupid if I hadn't tried to be very clear about what I mean and why the term is appropriate. If people are confused it's because they aren't paying attention. You say this, but what you're proposing (if I understand correctly, which is far from certain) is libertarianism in fact if not in word. Even if the information existed and I could see what my social ties were, that information in and of itself doesn't carry any moral weight--and would be so voluminous as to be totally overwhelming. It smacks of ~rational actors~. Moreover, as many, many people ITT have pointed out, Strangecoin would do nothing but reify existing power structures. It's grotesque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Sure, but I did nothing of the sort. My claim was that my tools constitute my identity, and that my gender is among my tools. Only in the perverse echo chamber of this thread does this come off as singularity apologia. So we're still on the whole Gender Is A Tool supposition as the crux of your 'cyborg identity', right? Because there is not one case found of any of your sources where Gender is reduced to being solely a tool. Even when you mention Merritt, to quote specifically, "gender is a social institution". Even your own quotes are an antithesis to your moral system. Are we passing over that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Badera posted:It smacks of ~rational actors~. "People treat their friends and family different than other economic agents" is basically the exact opposite of ~rational actors~.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In other words, you aren't paying attention. Attention paid me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Attention paid me. I neglect the law, and the law won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"People treat their friends and family different than other economic agents" is basically the exact opposite of ~rational actors~. Ok, granted, but that still doesn't address anything else I said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In other words, you aren't paying attention. I'll keep trying to respond to your increasingly exasperated posts as patiently as I can, but your exasperation is not evidence that I'm losing the argument. The fact that you're repeating the same nonsense over and over again is evidence that this isn't an argument at all, only people playing with you like a cat with a mouse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Gender is reduced to being solely a tool. Why do you think I'm committed to this claim? I've denied it three times explicitly in the last three responses to you. You think I am saying something that I'm not saying, and then arguing against that. It's a strawman. I've now denied three times holding those strawmen beliefs, and you are still using it as an argument against me. Michele Merritt is a friend of mine. We've talked a lot about technology and gender and identity. I'm referring to her work to elaborate on my views. Gender is a tool, but it is also a lot of other things. The extended mind thesis (ie, Clark's cyborgs) is a useful way of understanding the construction of gender identity in terms of the tools we take up and deploy in our various social contexts. My gender is both composed of these tools, and is itself a tool that serves any number of instrumental functions for my identity. None of this is controversial in the gender studies/queer theory literature, even remotely. You've just come into the thread assuming that I'm wrong and stupid, and the only way to keep those beliefs consistent is by attributing to me exactly the opposite views that I've been defending in this thread. I mean, you're free to keep obstinately misinterpreting me, but it's really not demonstrating anything wrong with my views. edit: nothing I've said committed me to any evo psych nonsense either. I'm not even sure why people are talking about evo psych itt. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I have explicitly said that I have no intention on personally profiting from anything that develops from this thread, and that I'd hope anything that does develop is released as open source and in the spirit of open software development. I guess what I meant is I want it to be open source too but I don't want to be the one that releases it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I guess what I meant is I want it to be open source too but I don't want to be the one that releases it. I might just create a github repo for these: I can't imagine we'll be the only two toy implementors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The fact that you're repeating the same nonsense over and over again is evidence that this isn't an argument at all, only people playing with you like a cat with a mouse. Well you see the 'cat' is a social institution that, through the magic of instrumentality and a flock of other obscurantist buzzwords, is also a tool. The 'mouse' adheres to a biologically naturalist form where it places itself into the role of being chased round and round by its family and friends forming a coincidental and fair caste system. You should spend more time reading the literature, friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Naturalism as an epistemology doesn't touch on the morality of a social institution. Claiming that you are a naturalist isn't a defense of claiming that human social interactions and tribalism serve the evolutionary purpose you claim they do. And even if they did, supposing from this that we should then use them as the basis for an economic system doesn't hold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and suggest people who are trying to engage Eripsa also seek help, or perhaps better hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Krotera posted:I might just create a github repo for these: I can't imagine we'll be the only two toy implementors. I'd give RA the opportunity to do it first, but otherwise I'll push to whoever would like to collect them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you think I'm committed to this claim? I've denied it three times explicitly in the last three responses to you. You are conflating the use of tools that make up gender identity and gender itself being a tool, rather than a social institution- as established in your own source. At no time do you show the work that results in gender being reduced to the same pack of tools, betraying the same is-ought problem of gender itself- Butler would be ashamed of you. This amazing black-box conflation of identity as inseparable from tools, or even worse of the biological truths such as a penis, is what makes your personal moral system- a moral system that is not ever actually touched on by any published source- a perverted back-door to absolve the possession of first world objects such as Nikes as a necessary act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Naturalism as an epistemology doesn't touch on the morality of a social institution. I think there are interesting relations between science and morality, and that might better be taken up in a discussion of digital philosophy more generally. I say more about the relationship between science and moral knowledge here. tl;dr: I think there are some general aspects of human well-being in which it's appropriate for our best science to inform our public policy. For instance, I think it's appropriate for scientists to be informing public officials about the importance of vaccinations in the service of the public health. That's an ought being derived from an is. I'm okay with that. So again, I disagree that naturalism is silent on the issue of morality in a social institution. quote:Claiming that you are a naturalist isn't a defense of claiming that human social interactions and tribalism serve the evolutionary purpose you claim they do. And even if they did, supposing from this that we should then use them as the basis for an economic system doesn't hold. But you're right about these two claims. Naturalism as an epistemology is silent on particulars like this. These are empirical claims, and can only be decided on the basis of experimental science. Hence, the need to model and test a system like this. This hasn't been done yet. All that's been done is the proposal and some beginnings of code; anything else is elaboration to explain and justify the nature of the proposal (so we know what the goals are), and to give others some compelling reasons to care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've talked about this quite explicitly many times in this thread. In particular, I quoted this essay, and elaborated further in this post. Isn't this just bastardized fascism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You are conflating the use of tools that make up gender identity and gender itself being a tool me posted:My gender is both composed of these tools, and is itself a tool that serves any number of instrumental functions for my identity. I make this distinction in the post you are quoting. Explicitly. You're battling with strawmen dude. You're not reading anything I'm saying. You are literally blind with rage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I'm going to go ahead and suggest people who are trying to engage Eripsa also seek help, or perhaps better hobbies. Meh, it's procastination for me. Also I'm a dynamicist so I was intrigued by it from a modeling perspective. The idea that this has anything to with an economy, even in the abstract, is ridiculous though. I'm thinking of it as spreading activation through a network and I'm curious what happens. A network that can reconfigure various connections between nodes. It will be interesting to see what would happen assuming various strategies for changes in the network. As of now the only strategy that has been proposed is randomness. The thin financial analogy makes coming up with such a strategy difficult (because of all the baggage of interpretation such as the idea that payments are in exchange for goods and services). For my work/research, I'm the guy people come to and say "Hey, here's this phenomenon, come up with a model for it" and I look for mathematical regularities with other disparate phenomena. Then the model generates new predictions. Here the model was presented first and it's completely lacking of phenomenon. I see it as a game--take this completely ad hoc model, poke it a few times, and see if anything happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:For my work/research, I'm the guy people come to and say "Hey, here's this phenomenon, come up with a model for it" and I look for mathematical regularities with other disparate phenomena. Then the model generates new predictions. Here the model was presented first and it's completely lacking of phenomenon. I see it as a game--take this completely ad hoc model, poke it a few times, and see if anything happens. That sounds like a really cool field of research and I really wish I could say I'd done anything as interesting as that. About all I found looking at Eripsa's model is that I could generalize the transaction types a little bit (I could actually do it more than I did in the code) into variations on the same basic form of a transaction (which you can see in the types), but that's not really interesting and it seems pretty trivial to me. What kind of things were you expecting to find?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:15
|
|