|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Your wish is my command, in this and only this specific instance: This is absolutely hilarious, and has my full attention  As an academic, I start rolling my eyes when people start going on about academics not being part of the real world, or just navel-gazing, etc etc, but RA, seriously, do you actually get funded in any way for this? I find the idea mildly disturbing.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sometimes it makes me sad that people are going into debt to sit in a classroom listening to Eripsa. To be fair, it's not like they'd be any more employable with a competent philosophy teacher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:This is absolutely hilarious, and has my full attention I'm one too, and normally I'm a big advocate of inter-disciplinary exchange but it every time I start to think about maybe seeing what someone outside of history would think of my current work, Eripsa posts a new thread. I really hope he's an edge case of what goes on in philosophy grad studies. Who What Now posted:Awesome, thank you! You're a good person. My pleasure, but all credit ought go to Cefte for writing that. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I first read it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm one too, and normally I'm a big advocate of inter-disciplinary exchange but it every time I start to think about maybe seeing what someone outside of history would think of my current work, Eripsa posts a new thread. I really hope he's an edge case of what goes on in philosophy grad studies. As a sociologist working with philosophy grad students, he's an over-the-edge-falling-screaming-and-slobbering case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
There's not much sign of philosophical expertise from Eripsa beyond knowing what the 'principle of charity' is so he can use it as a shield when people treat as a pompous windbag someone who compares his consumer electronics preferences to gay rights and his half-baked bloviation to the invention of chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:As an academic, I start rolling my eyes when people start going on about academics not being part of the real world, or just navel-gazing, etc etc, but RA, seriously, do you actually get funded in any way for this? I find the idea mildly disturbing. He once posted a link to what he claimed was the first part of his dissertation. It was a bunch of word salad without citations. If he is actually in a program his advisor should face consequences for not nipping this poo poo in the bud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Your wish is my command, in this and only this specific instance: Thanks for answering my question about ADHD I've been trying to get the OP to answer. Good to know that in an attention economy I would be an outcast since I would fail at attention ethics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:He once posted a link to what he claimed was the first part of his dissertation. It was a bunch of word salad without citations. If he is actually in a program his advisor should face consequences for not nipping this poo poo in the bud. I thought we
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...not really. The system is too chaotic for one person to really grasp how it functions, we can estimate rises and falls and know how to influence them, but we have no exact control over the entire system. There are too many competing interests in the infrastructure to really re-design it right now. This is stunningly ahistorical. Tell you what, just give me a number for how long a list of examples of rigging the finance game you want and I'll crank out a list for it. From subsidies to bailouts to regulatory capture to collusion to conflicts of interest, the idea that the game isn't completely ducking rigged just does not hold up. Literally from day one, when the New York financial market was formed by the Buttonwood Agreement (which also established a cartel to control financial activities in the colonies) it has been rigged. Edit: at a minimum you have the LIBOR rate manipulation scandal. Start looking at lobbying and subsidies and we are basically just shoving money into their maw Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Edit: at a minimum you have the LIBOR rate manipulation scandal. Start looking at lobbying and subsidies and we are basically just shoving money into their maw There is a difference between internally and externally rigging the game. This is more external than internal. And yes, I am well aware there has been manipulation, but it mostly involved BREAKING the game than rigging it, or completely ignoring the rules of the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Forget strange, I prefer my money non-euclidean. Where are my mobius dollars? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is a difference between internally and externally rigging the game. This is more external than internal. How, exactly, did you construct the perfect fence that decides what is external and what is internal? The very concept of a rigged game is that it uses things such as arbitrage to profit off of a difference between internal and external value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Oh look.quote:1. Taking autonomous machines seriously  9GAG in your diss: future's so bright, gotta wear
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Eripsa I will be real for a moment because you could maybe go somewhere with the general thrust of what you are trying to think about if you could only get over yourself: the reason people treat you like a person full of himself but empty of thought is because you, independently of the actual content of your walls of text, behave like one. You are incredibly bad at communicating and regularly betray absurdly inflated notions of your own historical significance. You appear to have almost no sense of how your writing will be received by an audience not predisposed towards you. You post in full long essays from deluded libertarian tech magnates and then act surprised when people focus on that as well your equally verbose 'response'. You compare the possible future shape of government to Twitter and then run around assuring everyone that you don't think government should be like Twitter. You invent possible future things (a cyborg rights movement, revolutionary new economics) with a family resemblance to what you are doing in the present day (confused marble essays, owning a Google Glass) and try to use the potential importance of the former to bolster the triviality of the latter. You seem to think that inserting a paragraph asking people to focus on the ideas, not your person, is an appropriate substitute for actually changing the behaviour that has made you a laughing stock. You talk about compression algorithms but everything about the way you communicate, from the disorganised walls of text to the ludicrous inflations of your own importance, is optimised to maximise the amount of noise rather than signal your threads generate. Working out how to express yourself clearly and with humility will also greatly improve the rigour and quality of your thought, because it's not coincidental that this style of presentation is associated in the popular imagination with 'crank'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
My primary specialization is in the philosophy of technology, and the impact technological systems have on human social organization. My thesis is on Turing's test and machine autonomy, and I'm defending my thesis in June. In the course of this research I put some significant effort into complexity theory and organization. It turns out that there really isn't an established theory of the dynamics of organized systems (in general, quite apart from technology), and the nature of organization as an abstract, emergent feature of a system is still a very poorly understood phenomenon. There's very little consensus on what organization is, much less the impact that technology has on human social organizations. I'll say it again: there are no consensus views in science on the nature of organization. It is as much an area of active philosophical research as it is a vexing scientific problem. As far as I can tell, the most promising approaches to the problem appeal to network/graph theory and multiagent system modeling in order to describe the relations between the components of an organized system. The emergent organization is explained in terms of the relations between components of a graph, and the model itself is described in terms of the nodes and their transitions. One notable example of this kind of research comes from Weng et al, 2012. I linked her paper earlier, but its an important influence on my work and is probably worth going over. Weng describes a memetic network on Twitter, with twitter users as nodes and retweets as transitions. Net network model is pretty simple:  Again, the model is entirely a description of nodes and transitions. Weng populates the model with data from the Twitter firehose, and generates images like this:  These are time-slices of the social organization of twitter users around particular hashtags. These images give some interesting and useful information about the organization of those users and their relations, generated simply by looking at patterns of retweets among users. Specifically, consider the #GOP network, which pretty clearly demonstrates the dramatic partisan divide in US politics. You can read off important aspects of political affiliation by looking at patterns of retweets, and these patterns allow you to predict with a high measure of confidence the political disposition of Twitter users. In other words, you have a framework that is explanatory of political behavior, but is generated by looking at Tweeting relations. Perhaps this better situates the proposal I'm offering, and what I'm expecting of it. I've described a network of nodes and relations, and although my description is in prose it was written to be precise enough to formalize straightforwardly (I identify all relevant parameters of the model explicitly in the proposal). I'm claiming that populating this model with data from the real world will provide us with a picture of the economic network that is explanatory and predictive of emergent phenomena in our economic organization. I'm also claiming that this model will give insight into certain patterns in our economic activity that is obscured by traditional economic tools. And finally, I'm claiming that giving people access to this kind of data as feedback informing their activity might help them perform better as economic agents and improve the economy as a whole. None of this discussion is predicated on people adopting strangecoin, much less organizing a massive transition to the alternative currency. I'm not sure why people in the thread as staking the relevance of the proposal on its plausibility as an alternative to money; it's like objecting to the Weng paper on the grounds that we could never transition our political discourse to Twitter: it completely misses the point. I'm not designing a coin for people to actually use as a serious candidate for an alternative currency. I'm designing a coin that describes a certain kind of economic network, and I'm claiming that model gives a picture into economic behavior that is difficult to ascertain with the economic network as traditionally described. From my perspective, the strangecoin proposal is quite firmly in lines with the methodology set out in Axelrod (1997) in modeling the dissemination of culture: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4me4PbBMBmOZWZFdk9BQ2Zhckk/edit quote:The methodology of the present study is based on three principles:
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In the course of this research I put some significant effort into complexity theory and organization. No you haven't, you've made it this far in life without even knowing what real effort is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
My attempt at an Executive Summary: Strangecoin, despite the semiotics, is not a Bitcoin derivative. Rather, it is an alternative form of Twitter for use by organizations that use Big Data to measure more individual datum per unit than is normally contained in a tweet. The prefix 'Strange', therefore, can be related to the academic concept of 'Weird Twitter', the labeling of FYAD dynamics on twitter. Academics in the Big Data business enjoy talking about 'Weird Twitter' because of the self-aware nature of the dynamic: This also explains why you keep returning to SA; an attempt to document 'Weird Twitter' at the source- like an anthropologist in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
In your deluded world, who will you be giving this proposal to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is a difference between internally and externally rigging the game. This is more external than internal. No. You don't get to declare that the rules are some list in your head. The game is played in the manner you see it in the field. The fact that reality doesn't match how you think it should be done means your understanding of how the game is played is flawed. This is analogous to the kerfluffle a few months back when an economist pointed out that companies don't actually engage in the activities the theory of the firm says they should. Much harumphing later it was decided that the practical companies are wrong and clearly the theoretical model is right. The financial sector operates in dissembling, graft, and collusion on a daily basis. This isn't "internal vs external rigging" or "breaking the rules" this is standard business practices
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Peel posted:Eripsa I will be real for a moment 1. Writing is hard. It's among the most challenging things a person can do. 2. I'm trying really hard. That doesn't mean it always works, but its my goal to make it work. 3. The framework of the attention economy is a big idea, in the architectonic sense. In scope it's analogous to something like dialectical materialism or transendental idealism, in the sense that it is a fundamental and comprehensive explanatory framework, and draws ideas from (and has application to) virtually all domains of knowledge and human practice. I think that it's unreasonable to expect that explaining a big idea like this should be easy or straightforward. 4. There's probably some hubris in attempting to work on any sort of big idea like this, but I would hope we can separate the idea from myself personally. I'm a semicompetent, eminently fallible human being and historical nobody with an esoteric academic training and no practical skills to speak of apart from teaching. I'm not the first person to have these ideas, nor is my discussion particularly competitive with other more lucid discussions. I'm in no way capable of fully explaining, describing, and working through the implications of an idea like this on my own. 5. But the idea of a political system that develops from these early networking tools of Facebook and reddit and twitter and so on, this idea has monumental historical significance, and for the last 30 years we've witnessed its fundamental reworking of our political and social organizations at all scales. From the historical perspective, these events demand and architectonic discussion, at the level of comprehensive abstraction at which I'm trying to have it. 6. My training and interests make me want to participate in that discussion in forums like these. 7. Despite my lovely writing and half-baked ideas, working through these ideas on this forum has been a productive and illuminating process. Even if my writing sucks, I think the core of the idea has made enough of an impact in this community (and in the general public consciousness) that the discussion on the topic here can be surprisingly sophisticated. 8. Insulting and attacking me as a forum personality is part of the kernel around which this discussion has developed. I'm okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Your writing is perfectly clear, which reveals the emptiness and circularity of your ideas all the more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In your deluded world, who will you be giving this proposal to? I've already given it to the internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Edit: ignore
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
quote != edit
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Yo Eripsa, do you desperately wish to be the Dian Fossey of Weird Twitter, c/d?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:So, we are presented with a dilemma--the same dilemma, in fact, that was present in the Attention Economy thread(s): We can't criticize the technical aspects, because they are not sufficiently well-defined to make informed critiques. If someone decides to make a bunch of wild suppositions and say "Well, I guess if we assume A, B, and C then maybe you could squint your eyes and assume that D is plausible", Eripsa will latch on and declare that someone finally "gets it". He will do this multiple times, with multiple sets of irreconcilable assumptions. The only conclusion is that he is a technical evangelist who is incapable of technical work, and is desperate for others to fill in the blanks of his idea. The same dilemma affects the "why?" side of this---the question is irrelevant to him, because his idea is Good and it is Smart. He is looking for us to tell him why is idea is good instead of calling it poo poo-stupid. Compared to the marble economy, the Strangecoin network is rather technically sophisticated. It was written in such a way as to be straightforwardly translatable into the math necessary to implement the model; I explicitly highlight all the parameters involved. Someone shitted on my definition of a user as a node in detail, but I was giving the technical description of the graph so that the details aren't just handwaving gestures. Which is not to say it is perfect, or that it can't be made more precise. I'm just saying that I recognize the dilemma you're pointing out, and I'm trying to address it by actually doing the technical work. It's meant to demonstrate that I'm trying to be technically precise so that I can avoid this dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Wait, did this guy also post as UglyCat or was that a different insane tech fetishist surviving as a parasite on academia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My primary specialization is in the philosophy of technology, and the impact technological systems have on human social organizations Of course it is. My primary specialization is the identification of areas where technology can have a distinct impact, develop, tailor, and deploy it, and manage its rollout to minimize harm on the social organization from the sometimes radical change. So let me assure you, you are 100% completely full of poo poo. You aren't using proper methodology to document existing practices You aren't doing proper analysis to identify the fault points for correction You aren't doing a solution breakdown for proper multi variable testing You have nothing on the cost benefit analysis of the systems You have nothing on the infrastructure needed (or changes needed) You have nothing on the systems that will be impacted by the ripple effects You have nothing on the direct or indirect human impact or how to mitigate it You have nothing on the new areas for improvement that will be highlighted by the new systems. You are a philosophy grad trying to do an OMIS grad's job and failing spectacularly at it. Your pretty little graphs here are cute, they are covered in the first few weeks of a 300 level OMIS course. Apply clique theory to them and they will actually be more than ink blots and will be useful! It's like when a physicist tries lecturing other disciplines by applying a physics level of rigor and abstraction to them. Except those attempts can provide a useful way to explain things to novices, whereas your crap is intentionally indecipherable
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
karthun posted:RealityApologist/Estrada is a philosophy grad student.  President Ark posted:Forget strange, I prefer my money non-euclidean. Where are my mobius dollars? No no no! What we need are Complex Dollars! By adding an additional axis to the dollar value number line we can capture completely different dimensions of value. Each unit of Complex Dollar will be a vector; to figure out your net worth all you need to do is calculate the intercept. My account currently has 1500-457i Complex Dollars(CD) in it putting me in the top left economic wealth quadrant. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
What is "OMIS"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1. Writing is hard. It's among the most challenging things a person can do. It's really not. Or rather, the mistakes you're making are easy to avoid. You're incredibly verbose, you use technical terms in your own private way, you use non-technical terms as though they're technical ones. You basically talk to yourself and expect everyone else to figure out what the gently caress you mean. quote:2. I'm trying really hard. That doesn't mean it always works, but its my goal to make it work. You don't seem like you're trying at all, viz: quote:3. The framework of the attention economy is a big idea, in the architectonic sense. "In the architectonic sense" is a useless, stupid, pretentious phrase to throw in. It adds nothing: the concept of 'big idea' is one that people get, it doesn't need to be qualified, and your qualification doesn't even make sense. quote:In scope it's analogous to something like dialectical materialism or transendental idealism, in the sense that it is a fundamental and comprehensive explanatory framework, and draws ideas from (and has application to) virtually all domains of knowledge and human practice. I think that it's unreasonable to expect that explaining a big idea like this should be easy or straightforward. No, your framework of your attention economy is not analogous to either of those. It's a rather small idea, actually, not a big one, and that's part of why it really sucks. You hand-wave in all sorts of explanations for how, once attention is achieved, something will actually be done with it. quote:4. There's probably some hubris in attempting to work on any sort of big idea like this, but I would hope we can separate the idea from myself personally. I'm a semicompetent, eminently fallible human being and historical nobody with an esoteric academic training and no practical skills to speak of apart from teaching. I'm not the first person to have these ideas, nor is my discussion particularly competitive with other more lucid discussions. I'm in no way capable of fully explaining, describing, and working through the implications of an idea like this on my own. That's an understatement. quote:5. But the idea of a political system that develops from these early networking tools of Facebook and reddit and twitter and so on, this idea has monumental historical significance, and for the last 30 years we've witnessed its fundamental reworking of our political and social organizations at all scales. From the historical perspective, these events demand and architectonic discussion, at the level of comprehensive abstraction at which I'm trying to have it. You really love that dumb word. No, a political system that develops from social networks doesn't have historical significance. It's a dumb libertarian dudebro idea with obvious massive flaws that would simply reify existince structural problems; you just ignore all this, and pretend everyone is or is going to be using social networks or using them in the same way. quote:6. My training and interests make me want to participate in that discussion in forums like these. But you're terrible at it. quote:7. Despite my lovely writing and half-baked ideas, working through these ideas on this forum has been a productive and illuminating process. Even if my writing sucks, I think the core of the idea has made enough of an impact in this community (and in the general public consciousness) that the discussion on the topic here can be surprisingly sophisticated. THis is the part that makes me sad, if you really believe this. Every one of your ideas has been vilified as stupid, incomplete, incompatible with reality, pretentious, elitist, disconnected from human nature, and otherwise stupid as poo poo. The core of the idea here has made the impact of people believing, correctly, that you talk a lot of poo poo you don't even really fully understand. That's the impact you've had here: To discredit any idea that you associate yourself with. quote:8. Insulting and attacking me as a forum personality is part of the kernel around which this discussion has developed. I'm okay with that. Okay this is even sadder. It's not as a forum personality, it's as someone who writes these actual ideas. Every time you've written, you've had your actual writing and ideas given far, far more diligent attention than they actually deserve. It's not about you personally, it's about what you do every single time. If you wrote an actual coherent thread next time, people wouldn't attack you, they'd say "Wow, look likes Eripsa sorted his issues out" and even be proud of you. But you never will write that thread, I don't think. You're going to keep on telling yourself you're having an impact, that your failure at communication, your inability to handle any criticism, the fact that your ideas aren't even self-compatible, much less compatible with human beings or physical reality, are trivial issues and you just need other people to solve all these problems because you're a visionary idea man. It is sad as gently caress that you're using your university education, a spot that could have gone to someone who would have actually done something with it, to do this self-aggrandizing mastubatory poo poo. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So let me assure you, you are 100% completely full of poo poo. I've not said anything about the philosophy of technology in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're critiquing. My particular work involves the theory of autonomy or automation, so I'm interested in when components of technical systems can be considered as independent functions or as components of larger systems. That work bears on lots of the issues you discuss, especially ripple effects across shared infrastructure. I realize network theory is a fairly basic issue in these discussions. I also know that clique theory is only one of a variety of techniques for finding community structure in graphs, and that there are plenty of organizations for which cliques aren't the best method for understanding organization or functional decomposition. These are technical issues which I'm perfectly happy to talk about, but really don't have much to do with the discussion we are having here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
karthun posted:RealityApologist/Estrada is a philosophy grad student. No wonder he's so unintelligible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My particular work involves the theory of autonomy or automation You should perform a thorough analysis and testing of the autoban system
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:No wonder he's so unintelligible. Now that's just unfair to philosophy grads. Eripsa's never actually shown that he has a grasp on the introductory literature (besides saying "I've actually spent a lot of time learning this stuff" and moving on to the next fugue).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Compared to the marble economy, the Strangecoin network is rather technically sophisticated. It was written in such a way as to be straightforwardly translatable into the math necessary to implement the model; I explicitly highlight all the parameters involved. Someone shitted on my definition of a user as a node in detail, but I was giving the technical description of the graph so that the details aren't just handwaving gestures. Have you done that math? Made the 1st order network diagrams and models? I can't think you have, otherwise basic problems would be apparent. For one, there is no *strangecoin protocol*--you've described some handwavey interactions that don't describe the technical aspects of any sort of protocol. It seems instead more like a centralized process, which is okay, but don't call it a protocol. Let's go with one example--balance limits. You can't just say that income/expenses disappear to avoid hitting a limit, without acknowledging what's happening to them. If I hit the upper limit, is my income being redirected to UniBank1? Or the ether? If it's 0, who is paying the people I owe? If the digital Fed is paying, then this means free currency creation! It's trivially obvious to see how this could be manipulated for directed inflation/deflation. Or maybe we can consider the technical details of a transaction. Let's say, for instance, that I have 4 users: A, B, C, and D. A couples with B, B couples with C, C couples with A. All coupling is 100%. D transfers to any one of them, and it is reflected in the other two...and then to the ones they are coupled to...and it keeps going. Now you have an infinitely expanding number of transactions created that create an infinite amount of money. If you say that the coupling is capped at a certain proportion, then it may or may not converge on a value (i don't want to do the math on that), but in any case, then A, B, C decouple, transfer some amount back to D, couple, and start again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:"In the architectonic sense" is a useless, stupid, pretentious phrase to throw in. It adds nothing: the concept of 'big idea' is one that people get, it doesn't need to be qualified, and your qualification doesn't even make sense. "Architectonic" means "systematically rigorous", which isn't always part of big ideas. I can have a big idea for world peace without being committed to any systematic implementation of it. "Architectonic" is a standard description of philosophical positions like Kant's and Hegel's that I mention, and I'm using the term in a standard way. quote:No, your framework of your attention economy is not analogous to either of those. It's a rather small idea, actually, not a big one, and that's part of why it really sucks. You hand-wave in all sorts of explanations for how, once attention is achieved, something will actually be done with it. Is this an argument? This is just making GBS threads on me with no content. Am I supposed to be hurt by this? What is your motive in yelling "no it isn't!" after everything I say? quote:You really love that dumb word. No, a political system that develops from social networks doesn't have historical significance. It's a dumb libertarian dudebro idea with obvious massive flaws that would simply reify existince structural problems; you just ignore all this, and pretend everyone is or is going to be using social networks or using them in the same way. "Reifying structural problems" by making them concrete and explicit is method of attempting to resolve them. Should we prefer that our structural problems remain abstract and nebulous?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Wait, did this guy also post as UglyCat or was that a different insane tech fetishist surviving as a parasite on academia? IIRC from the previous "marble economy" thread, UglyCat is another poster, but he was the only other person who thought that the Eripsa had a good idea. And I'm pretty sure UC was found to be a different sort of crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not said anything about the philosophy of technology in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're critiquing. My particular work involves the theory of autonomy or automation, so I'm interested in when components of technical systems can be considered as independent functions or as components of larger systems. That work bears on lots of the issues you discuss, especially ripple effects across shared infrastructure. Your particular work is bullshit because you are declaring "I know about using automation and information technology to solve problems" and then demonstrating you know sweet gently caress all about using automation and information technology to solve problems. How to identify, prioritize, measure, analyze, propose, deploy, and transition those solutions is the core of it, and your proposals so far and complete lack of coherent communication skills make it clear those are alien concepts. You are pontificating because you claim you know about these topics, but your blather is missing the very fundamentals of the topic
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"Architectonic" means "systematically rigorous", which isn't always part of big ideas. I can have a big idea for world peace without being committed to any systematic implementation of it. "Architectonic" is a standard description of philosophical positions like Kant's and Hegel's that I mention, and I'm using the term in a standard way. I have never heard Kant or Hegel described as 'architectonic', and you are not at all rigorous. You're like the opposite of rigour, you could lift yourself off the ground with the amount of handwaving you do. And again, your system is not a big idea, it is a small one. quote:Is this an argument? This is just making GBS threads on me with no content. Am I supposed to be hurt by this? What is your motive in yelling "no it isn't!" after everything I say? I'm not just saying no it isn't, though. In this case, I'm pointing out that your attention economy, even if it succeeded in accurately reporting attention (which it wouldn't) then has to have an entire interpretation layer to determine if that attention is meaningful, and if it is meaningful, what that meaning is--which would require, basically, true AI to work. In this case, you're handwaving in some sort of math to make your dumbcoin system work. You always simply handwave at problems or ask others to solve them, you never deal with them. quote:"Reifying structural problems" by making them concrete and explicit is method of attempting to resolve them. Should we prefer that our structural problems remain abstract and nebulous? I'm saying you'd take problems that are now just a byproduct of structure and you'd actually make them the structure. You would base your system on inequality that is now an accidental byproduct. Making problems concrete is not attempting to solve them. So loving weird that of all that I said to you those were the few things you chose to respond to, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:22
|
|