|
RealityApologist posted:I'm getting bitched at because it's not in 5 paragraph composition format. No, it's because you're as succinct and direct as an Ayn Rand novel. If you want people interested, don't make their eyes glaze over before you've even gotten to the meat of your point. If you just want to jack off to your own ideas, start a blog.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 10, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've done some math; the write up is translated from equations I have written down, which can be recovered entirely from the write up. Original drafts had explicit equations, but since I'm concerned about presentation and clarity I described the equations in prose. Except, as stated over and over by people whose job it is to present things like this, you're utterly inept at using prose to explain anything. Try and be succinct. Being able to clarify and clearly and concisely explain complex and technical terms shows a high level of understanding. You, however, are neither clear nor concise which sheds doubt on your competence. Your field may be Philosophy, but that's still no excuse to be as verbose and obfuscating as you are. Being a student of Philosophy is no excuse for this in the real world. If you want to be verbose and jack off over your own ideas, go into law. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's my point, really. He writes like a terrible, terrible grad student whose advisor never beat the poo poo out of his early work in the interests of making him even vaguely coherent. The fact he's a philosophy grad just explains his propensity for using obscure BIG WORDS in weird contexts. I do wonder what learning institution is allowing his perpetuation of ineptitude to continue. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You linked to obdicut's post, which has such insightful criticisms as Well linking to the wrong post doesn't help. He was referring to this one. As for points that should be addressed in the posts you link to: quote:No, your framework of your attention economy is not analogous to either of those....You hand-wave in all sorts of explanations for how, once attention is achieved, something will actually be done with it. quote:No, a political system that develops from social networks doesn't have historical significance. It's [an]...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. Part of arguing in good faith is being able to reference your claims (which you have actually failed to do here) and to read the entirety of the opposing side's argument and parse out any actual points from anything that might be insulting without getting offended. RealityApologist posted:I've provided sources to legitimate studies, I've not dismissed any expert analysis or any facts of the matter. I'm not pushing any pseudoscience bullshit, I'm not selling anything, I'm not appealing to any claim about "the experts are wrong" or "this is what science wont tell you" or anything like that. I'm responding to criticism as it arises as best I can, I'm admitting where I'm not competent, and I'm trying my best to correct and clarify misunderstandings. And fwiw, the ideas you're trying to present require more requisite knowledge than you currently have, yet you seem to be doubling down on them as the thread goes on. If you know you are out of your depth, why not shelve the whole mess and come back to it when you've actually got the head for it? Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Nonlinear doesn't mean random. It can be. Nonlinear means not linear. That's it. It could be parabolic, sinusoidal, random, exponential. All of those are nonlinear. If you're modeling transactions, what pattern does it follow (nonlinear is a nonanswer btw). ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Why the gently caress is it irrelevant? If Stangecoin doesn't actually have a hope of working in anything resembling a real-world situation, what's the point? Presumably a thought experiment, like so much other things in Philosophy. It does still need to bring something to the table as a measure of practicality however. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Fellowship extensions would be my guess. That also requires some modicum of ability to function in society, at least at the start.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yeah, I'm not even arguing that it would be viable. In the end my point is that weird, katamari solutions to all the world's ills don't really work. The more complex changes you make to a critical system, the more it goes horribly wrong in unexpected ways. There is a reason the phrase "keep it simple, stupid" exists. Also why engineers don't reinvent the wheel every time they design a new tire.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. I suggest reading a formalization of our current financial system at both macro and micro levels first.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. If it hasn't been formalized by any reputable economist, then it's probably a system not worth looking over that critically, likely due to glaring flaws or gaps in application which renders analysis moot. But look real hard in both of those books. You'll find it. Don't just skim or look for headings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Not in my experience. But I guess I went to some sorta psycho elite school. For simple math, the solution is use a calculator to do it and answer it that way. No need to actually know how to do it, particularly when there's not much in the field demanding it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
His verbose writing style may very well get him a lot more positive feedback in places where minds are less critical or more aligned with his ideas (like Hacker News). However, beyond that into areas or more critical analysis, his poo poo gets torn apart like so much tissue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:^^ Thanks. I don't have archive/search (can't afford it) or I would have done it myself. Anyone can be ambitious. The difference between being a fool being ambitious and a wise person being ambitious is that a fool sees no limits and no faults in their ambitions and will pursue them with reckless disregard. A wise person sees and acknowledges the limits and faults in their ambitions and will pursue it with prudence and caution. You've admitted to overstepping your own scope of knowledge, but your ideas and how you present them don't show that self-awareness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that aspects of chemistry and aspects of sociology are both explained by the same unifying framework, network theory. This unification of the sciences (like all attempts at unifying the sciences) raises a number of philosophical and conceptual challenges. Digital philosophy takes up those philosophical challenges. What? No. Connected, yes. Explained? No. The outputs from different fields may resemble each other, but the principles behind them come from completely different directions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
One thing I've always wondered about "Post-Scarcity" scenarios: Isn't time still a limiting factor in production of goods, and can therefore be considered scarce?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
LGD posted:And to the degree that the thread has focused on your psychological character, it's because it is something like the only constant available in this discussion. Everything else is so amorphous that it's difficult to discuss extensively, except pointing out where things you've written don't jive with knowledge and theory scattered across several fields. When this is done it turns out that either we misinterpreted what you meant or it is a problem (that we need to address for you) and then that issue will be subsequently ignored. And "conversational charity" only stretches so far- a number of things that have happened in this thread make it extremely difficult not to bring up issues of your personal character- i.e. the linearity discussion, the fact that you thought you won the linearity discussion, direct comparison of yourself to revolutionary figures of science followed by immediate claims that you clearly didn't mean to imply the obvious inference, inability to use common definitions of terms, etc. Of note, the misinterpreting of what Eripsa is talking about may be less on everyone else and more on him as he shows a tenuous or even wholly incorrect understanding or certain thoughts or ideas and uses them where they don't belong. Something akin to knowing that baseball uses a small white ball and concluding a golf ball is a perfectly acceptable substitute.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There's a sense of "economics" that deals with the nature of human social transactions in the most general possible sense, of which this article and Strangecoin and traditional economics all belong. How do you know you wont find some insight into your work without looking into it beyond the barest skim of the surface that you seem to have done? And if economics has nothing to do with social networks, why not study sociology since that, at its loosest definition, is the study of groups and their interactions? If not sociology, then maybe a sub field of psychology like Social Psychology which is the study of individuals as they interact within groups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The biology of a cell is immensely complex and delicate and far beyond my comprehension or understanding; our best biologists only yet have a glimpse of its enormous complexity. But the behavior of a human being is something more tractable, at least for some purposes given what I know about human beings. I can predict, for instance, what my family will likely be doing for the holidays or whatever. I can make these predictions and have a good sense of the behavior of that human organism, even though it is entirely composed of cells displaying patterns of patterns of emergent activity, and I am completely oblivious to many of those patterns at many different scales. Your example is a false parallel. Your family's vacation plans is not analogous to the biology of a cell With any given cell, using a mass spectrometer and an electron microscope, we can tease out the details and generally predict the outcomes with a high level of certainty since many of those processes can work independent of the other steps. On the other hand, with any given human, you'd need their dietary habits, financial status and potentially a whole slew of other things to ascertain as to what they want for dinner with a high level of certainty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've been very explicit that Strangecoin isn't meant to screen out these biases, but only to give different tools for making those explicit and detecting patterns about them. Did you post any psych or behavioral science lit? The t-shirt sniffing thing is more molecular biology than psych. And frankly, if you think this is too critical, I wonder how you'd react to a thesis defense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Imagine having a fooey-like idea burrow in your brain so deep that you feel compelled to work it out, despite your technical incompetence. If it's in that deep, I'd see a professional about it. Either that or actually doing something about that technical incompetence before showing it off to a bunch of complete strangers. You don't prepare a feast for a bunch of strangers with a bunch of dishes you've never cooked before and serve everything without tasting while calling it great.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Eprisa, if you feel like your audience consistently has a hard time understanding you, then it should be obvious that you need to "dumb it down." However, if you feel that we're willfully ignoring you or misunderstanding you on purpose, then there's nothing that can be helped about that other than doing the first thing and hoping that those who are interested but can't understand you can finally do so. Whenever you need to make a proposal, you need to tailor it to the audience. For a group of laypeople, this means huge simplification and possibly explaining things that you feel should be obvious (when in fact it isn't). The statements about your character are levied because you continue to make the same fundamental errors in your reasoning and explanation over and over again without any effort to amend those errors. The most general counter to your flaws in reasoning or explanation can't be levied toward the argument since it's fundamentally flawed in its reasoning or assumptions and thus become levied at you because it is an error that you made and not one of the subject itself. I hope that this is as simple as I can make it so that you don't ignore it like you seem to do with so many other valid or invalid criticisms.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are all engaging in collective bullying behavior designed to attack my character and sanity. You've escalated the exaggerated outrage in an effort to one-up each other in the extremity of your caricature, to the point that none of my posts receive even an attempt at charitable interpretation or understanding before half a dozen of your fall over yourselves to make the same dumb joke. The effort to top each other in your mockery is sometimes constructive for the discussion (ie, Adar), but has also resulted in inquiry into my personal life, demands that I be fired and that my adviser and institution be called into question, and harassment of my professional acquaintances. To that, every other point that was made about this the first time should be reiterated. Xelkelvos posted:The statements about your character are levied because you continue to make the same fundamental errors in your reasoning and explanation over and over again without any effort to amend those errors. The most general counter to your flaws in reasoning or explanation can't be levied toward the argument since it's fundamentally flawed in its reasoning or assumptions and thus become levied at you because it is an error that you made and not one of the subject itself. To add: You are akin to a teenager who is nagged and lectured at length about the mistakes that they make, but just rolls their eyes and ignores everything that is said in response without any conscious consideration over the possibility that the action that spurred the nagging was actually bad or wrong. There is also the additional victim complex (which may be somewhat justified, but no necessarily undeserved) you've put upon yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Sorry, but if I get 2-3 readers to be a tad more critical towards the herd-behaviour in this thread I feel it is time well spent. I'm sorry about all the time you wasted that could be better spent curing cancer or playing dungeon crawl. If multiple people independently come to the same or similar conclusion, would that be considered herd behavior?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Isn't that the purpose of the aura colors? To presumably make interpreting influence intuitive. A lot of strangecoin is an attempt to force people to internalize things like corporate influence in a way that is notionally accessible: reading someone's aura would presumably be a quicker and more immediate things that digging through financial statements. I think, contrary to what the poster above said, that RA has given more thought than your average libertarian on why the idea of a decentralized economic system doesn't work in reality. All of the weird byzantine structures in strangecoin are attempts to work around problems like the fact that people would never put in the effort required to review the sourcing of every purchase. He's just unwilling to admit that his solution isn't workable, so instead he pulls up tangentially related science articles to defend why people would be able to use his system. One problem would be the limited practical color space available. While it is technically true that there are a nearly infinite set of colors, there has to be a finite number determined to codify them and each color would have to be easily distinct at a glance so as to serve its purpose. Frankly, just cutting it off at the codified values would be more practical than by any sort of color based system. Everyone would likely need some kind of program to help them differentiate the different entities (it would likely be immensely difficult without it and there has to be some sort of interface presenting these auras), so that program would just sort and filter values that are relevant or irrelevant to you. The simplest version I can concoct for this would be an arbitrary value as an identifier, a Letter or some other sequential identifier as to the degree of connection, and a determined numerical value for the strength. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if you ignore all the reasons why this idea 1. isn't necessary and 2. wouldn't be reasonably possible to implement, there's still another key problem: most people don't have the time, will, or capacity to analyze a massive amount of data about each purchase they make. This is a problem that also exists with ideal "Libertopia" societies; even if there's perfect transparency and everyone has access to all information, people aren't able or willing to do some complex analysis for every purchase they make. That's what the Aura thing is for. Color is visually apparent and obvious, but it's saddled with its own slew of problems that are addressed above.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
This is a problem five steps beyond the current difficulties in the system. This is like the dry wall of the building. And concocting this while the foundations haven't even been fully set is what's going on here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My working example in the real world where gaming outperforms cheating are gaming communities like StarCraft. It's possible to cheat in particular games, and to artificially raise one's bnet rank. That's a kind of cheating that will always happen and needs to be dealt with. But that cheating doesn't really impact the community's ability to assess performance and skill within the community, or prevent its ability to run fair tournaments at the highest levels. What matters more than cheating is balance within the game. If the game is balanced, then you can let players seek any competitive advantage they can find, and you'll still have a fair and honest game. If a game is balanced, the you can encourage ruthlessly competitive gaming without compromising fairness and justice. Balancing a game isn't just about finding and catching the cheaters, but about making sure the rules keep the game fair and interesting. Balancing a game isn't trivial, but balanced games do exist and it's a reasonable design goal to have. You didn't really show which forms of cheating parallels to "cheating" within the economy. Just that it's bad and there's no incentive to do so because it's not important and has no actual effect on the metagame and that balance is more important than cheating with no more words on cheating. One problem is that cheating, by definition, creates imbalance as any form of equivalency between individuals or competitors is upset by the removal of barriers or the setting up of assistance for or lone individual. You have no words on how you would ensure that there would be no cheating, other than by starting a system initially without it. The other problem is that you argue about rank and status and how cheating to gain rank and status is futile. However, the parallel to rank and status to a real economy is rank and status which has real and quantifiable benefits and can be perpetually maintained by cheating with some of the penalties of being caught also mitigated by those benefits. This is also not addressed given that your examples only use such things as mere titles with no other benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced. This. It helps to determine what is "fair" and what is "balanced" and if they are interchangeable or if they are distinct. Fwiw, Chess is not necessarily fair since while all players have the same pieces in positions that are in positions that are equivalent, one player has one more turn of information than the other which makes it unfair for the player without that turn of information. Thus, it is unfair for the first player in terms of availability of information. There is a trade off in that they have a better position for that term in exchange for giving up that information, but they are not equal resources. RealityApologist posted:I'm having trouble parsing this. My argument is that in any balanced system, rank and status are genuine, trustworthy signifiers, given that you've taken adequate measures to prevent cheaters. That's not true in an imba system. Trouble parsing it? Now you know how we feel at times. Snide comments aside, what quality of a balanced system makes it so that gaming and cheating does not upset this balance? Based on your comments, it seems that it is tautological such that, by definition, a balanced game is immune to being upset by gaming and cheating and if it is upset, then it wasn't balanced to begin with. This is what I can gather. You do admit that Strangecoin has no guarantees of balance, however, I don't believe you've shown that it is more balanced (or fair) compared to the current system. RealityApologist posted:You are absolutely correct. Much of this thread has been my attempts to explain that I'm a philosopher and don't know enough about agent-based modeling to bring the idea to a point where I can conduct simulations. I'm posting these threads to ask for help with the concept and fill in the places I'm struggling with. I've repeatedly asked for help with the coupling relationship, for instance. I've gotten relatively little help in the thread, and a lot of waiting on me to produce answers to questions and very little attempts by others to work out potential answers independent of me, even though it's clear I don't have all the answers or the technical competence to provide it. You asked for assistance, and most of us gave it to you in terms of pointing out flaws and holes in what is currently developed. We've also pointed you in the direction of places where you can develop the foundation in which you are lacking. However, you've not done a great job of enticing anyone into helping you develop it wholesale as the current theories behind it and the argument you put forward for it aren't quite convincing enough for the most part. There are some charitable individuals who are helping, but are at standstills due to the lack of development in other parts. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The intended result of such a network are stable subnet cliques or castes that have various pull within the overall network, such that their transactions have a significantly larger impact on the network than other nodes. If everyone is trying to balance their load, and I'm engaged in dozens of transactions with various people, then any new transaction I make in the network is going to have consequences for the balances of lots of other nodes, and they'll have to adjust to take my activity into account. There's nothing intrinsically desireable about a higher throughput, except that the stakes are that much higher for the network. For one, the caste criticism still stands as self-organization predisposes itself to xenophobic attitudes towards any individuals in the out-groups. Human nature, as adversarial as it is, will desire the domination of the in-group over any in the out-groups with varying levels of self degradation. Even if those groups were aware of the numerical ramifications of those actions, there is not any guarantee that they will act optimally in terms of greatest benefit for gain. This is why Mutually Assured Destruction is a thing. Similarly, these groups may align and unite to the point of two or three super blocs creating multiple levels of xenophobic competition. If you observe massively multi-player games with high level of social organization like CyberNations or EVE, groups will self-organize (as you assert), however demonization of opponents will emerge and self-destructive action may be taken in order to hamstring the opponent in some way, even if this might damage future alliances. Things like fear and coercion are not accounted for in this "game" of Strangecoin which can artificially inflate social blocs and destabilize the entire system. This willful destruction of the system for personal gain is not represented in your system it seems and that is necessary to emulate to accurately portray socioeconomic relations in any realistic form. If you have any philosophical presumptions of human behavior and social interaction, that might be informative in terms of what assumptions of human behavior you have in your game. All games have rules and assumptions in terms of what actions the players can or will take. Knowing these assumptions is important. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:No, I'm not. I explicitly said that I was giving up the economic and political rhetoric to concentrate on modeling the multiagent network. I've explicitly adjusted my presentation and rhetoric on the basis of the criticisms raised in this thread. I'm being responsive to criticism. And y'all call me a flipflopper for doing so. You changed it without actually saying that you changed it. You just suddenly said it was a game with no preface as to why it suddenly became a game. Do you understand how that might be misinterpreted?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It is at best a completely meaning semantic framework. "It's not meant to alter human behavior in REAL economies, it's just a game that alters human behavior within its own faux-economic confines, because" There was a comment applying it as a game as an example. However, his sudden change to that frame had no reference to this until after he was called out on it and he becomes defensive because people apparently misunderstood him (which is at least 40% of our arguments against him). Part of academics is the ability to express ideas clearly. This is a significant flaw in how Eprisa communicates. And while he acknowledges this criticism and has presumably applied some of it, we're essentially providing a trial by fire in terms of criticism which may be a bit too much for him. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. So to summarize your answer to the most basic question of any proposal ever which is "Why should anyone care?" or "Why is this relevant?" quote:This is relevant because of my other idea whose relevance I have not necessarily explained or defended adequately. You should care because I'm putting it out there and I think it's a good idea. Is this a succinct answer?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:OP's kind of a self-important idiot who has no idea what he's doing but he's drat sure it's the best thing ever, ever. He did double back on those remarks though if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I feel your questions represent a misunderstanding of my post. My project Swarm! is intended to simulate ant organization in a game, and I describe there fairly clearly how trails are laid down and how they can be engaged both actively and passively. The simulation isn't meant to be rigorous or economically interesting in the traditional sense; it's just supposed to be a game (like Ingress) with an ant/nature theme instead of a space/future theme. In the documentation I link to I answer all the questions you pose, although it's just a game so the questions are less challenging and the answers less interesting. I'm happy to talk more about the details of Swarm if you like, but that doesn't seem to be your target. Have you done any significant research on ants? I understand that they're just a vehicle to try an explain whatever concept you're pushing so these ants do not accurately reflect the actual actions and motivations of any actual species of ant or ant colony (or any other hive based organism). However, to scale this up to humans is a fantastic leap because most humans give 0 fucks, even when it's paraded in front of them, to efficiency or net benefit/loss or how it largely affects others.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh my god please don't compare him to Freud. Seriously. He came back on another account to have another go with a different idea. I doubt that he'll ever leave for good any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Eripsa, please read and focus on this post. It very clearly communicates many of the problems posters in this thread have had with you. It is a Good Post. Reposting this forthe new page.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In any case, I hope the above starts to clarify the theoretical/methodological background from which I'm operating, and why I'd be interested to look for patterns of organization in ants in order to help me think about human social communities. I'm not assuming that humans are eusocial or anywhere as straightforward as ants, I'm just looking for clues as to how they organize themselves because we could use the help. Ants have been around nearly 50 times longer than the hominids, and have had lots of time to figure out cool tricks that we're in no position to pull off, but provide an existence proof that such things could work. For instance, there's a species of ant that reproduces entirely asexually. Asexuality is surprising in any eukaryote species, and we might have doubted such a thing was possible in a species as complex as an ant. That doesn't (necessarily) mean that humans should slaughter our males, but it's suggestive of the kind of organizational flexibility nature allows. Biology Sidenote A: Asexual reproduction by eukaryotes is not uncommon and occurs frequently in plants which DO fall under the category of Eukaryote. Please do not use terms you do not understand without first looking them up. Asexual reproduction by way of parthenogenesis, which is what the ants your reference likely do, is rare given the vast multitude of animal species. You copy from the article that asexual reproduction is rare but you've extrapolated outwards in an erroneous fashion as scientists are well aware of other species that do the same thing. The highest level of organism that can reproduce asexually are seen in certain species of reptiles. More closer to your ants, numerous other species of ants, bees and wasps engage in similar practices with varying forms of asexuality. Generally speaking, asexual reproduction is more often a liability than an asset given a highly competitive or hostile genetic environment. Thus, why its so rare. In the cases where it is adopted, it's usually done so as an adaptation to perpetuate the species in the event of major population loss or lack of mates, or as a way to more efficiently produce workers in hives. Edit: A cursory glance at the article on Asexual Reproduction on Wikipedia disproves how "rare" it is. Parthenogenesis yields even more examples. Biology Sidenote B: The organization "tricks" ants can accomplish is mainly due to pheromones and instinct. Ants are likely closer to computers or machines given their relatively simple modes of operation. Merely existing is no proof that it or any components of it are useful for analyzing human behavior or organization beyond portions in which we are similar. Those being: We live in communities. That's it! The caste structure in ants is genetic and morphologically based. As soon as that ant is born, it is part of the machine and must serve its function in whatever role it was born in. Humans don't follow that caste structure and do not organize by similar methods. Thus those parallels made are false parallels, similar in appearance only. Even in terms of communities, ants organize as one large family sans any emotional factors involved. There is no love, only duty. Ants are born to live and die for the sake of the colony as that role forever. Thus, it is possible to draw more accurate parallels to a military, but not any sort of large community where the motivations of individuals interfere with the goals of the community as a whole. Of all things that humans could learn from ants, social organization is not one of them unless it's for a dictatorial model of society. It would be a decent start for social dynamics analysis if you were aware of why it should only be used as a start and where it diverges. However, while you do indicate that you are aware of it, you've not shown much evidence beyond that awareness. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 11:37 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
jre posted:I'd given up posting in this thread because it was utterly pointless trying to debate with someone who can't answer even the most basic questions about their 'model' , but holy poo poo I can't believe you have the front to actually write that. It's not that he can't sometimes answer the most basic questions. He can. It's just that he takes two paragraphs and three examples to explain something that can be answered in one sentence. Any relevant points that are made are lost in the mire of useless academic language. It would be a good refresher for Eprisa to post a simplified and clean version of Strangecoin's current design. And by cleaned up and simplified I mean something that is both relatively brief, easy for a layperson to understand, and easy to follow with no unnecessary comments. Essentially something that doesn't make the eyes of avid followers of this conversation slide of the page.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
SickZip posted:I don't get why he doesn't just discard the whole thing about being able to essentially break the system by not giving a poo poo and spending negative and draining the TUA. I get the technological utopian-ism he's attracted to, but its some serious post-scarcity nonsense and I would have thought that anyone can recognize we aren't there yet (we wont ever be). The cool thing about people not being ants is that they can figure out the system and how to exploit it to their benefit since they aren't stuck playing by the rules or driven by genetic programming that makes them selfless. From what I can gather (the actual reasoning may be neck deep in an explanation of something else that seemed entirely irrelevant), the reason to not crash the system is because other people won't trade with you if you're at a low throughput or an unbalanced account. Why those individuals don't just band together and trade amongst themselves to retain a desirable amount while also antagonistically trading with others isn't clear yet. Also, I don't think it's been explained as to how individuals can achieve a higher velocity or a balanced account without engaging with people of similar status. Another note on transaction velocity: Wouldn't the incentive for transaction velocity provide a disincentive for bulk transactions? i.e. 100 transactions of 1 object to the same person is better than 1 transaction of 100 objects. RealityApologist posted:You both underestimate how "stuck by the rules" we actually are (ie, how much our genetic programming and social structures constrain our possibilities for free action), and overestimate how much the ants are limited by genetics. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 10, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:The TUA cannot be drained, it is limitless. The coins aren't what is important, what is important is how much "influence" you have over the system. How you get this influence and what you do with it are as of yet undefined. But whatever it is, you want it apparently. The way I understand it: More influence -> More incentive for others to trade with you -> More trades -> More influence the incentive for others to trade with that high influence person is that they receive more money from those transactions from the TUA or something and that being connected to the High Influence Individual will provide similar but smaller benefits when trading. I may be wrong. If I am not, then that structure is basically akin to a pyramid scheme.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:04
|
|