Strangecoin: a calvinball economy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Strangecoin: a calvinball economy

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Your wish is my command, in this and only this specific instance:

For those of you who are having their first go-around with Eripsa's feverish lunacy, I highly recommend reading the thread that really started all this, or at least clued us in that he and reality have been seeing other people for some time now.

This is absolutely hilarious, and has my full attention :v:

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Sep 10, 2024 18:33

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

I don't know what exactly you're looking for, but there's plenty of work being done on the foundations of economics. For instance: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006

There's probably more important and relevant work being done; economics isn't my area. But I don't think its controversial to claim that there's a general acknowledgement that the foundations of economic theory are impoverished.

I've already cited John Baez's attempts at unification through network theory, which is a huge inspiration.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

How can you remotely justify discussing the topic of a fundamental shift in economics and then say 'economics isn't my area'? It's like saying 'I'm proposing a radically new way of sequencing DNA (all those previous hacks are a bunch of alchemists), but biology isn't my area'.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 16:32

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RA/Eripsa, could you please respond to my question? How can you discuss a change within the system of economics while stating that you don't consider it an area you have any particular expertise? Why should what you're saying be given any more credence than a man in a bar talking about astrophysics despite never having studied it?

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 16:55

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

I said that my tools are as important to my identity as my gender. That has theoretical relations to this proposal, but it's not some ulterior political motive for the proposal.

I'm perfectly happy to defend this claim from the perspective of queer theory. In fact I'm heading out to see a talk from Judith Butler on collective action in just a few minutes.

I'm actually starting to look at the legal and regulatory implications of human enhancement. Also, the use of technology and 'tools' in identity construction is a fairly agreeable and understandable concept - to say that San Francisco-based users of wearable tech are subject to the same type of discrimination as homosexuals, the disabled or trans people is laughable.

Edit: also, you haven't answered the question I've asked a few times in the last few pages.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 19:35

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

I think there are absolutely structural relations between the discrimination of cyborgs and the discrimination of other minority groups. From the perspective of queer theory I'd probably want to treat Glass wearers and persons with a disability.

In what way is someone with a theoretical enhancement disabled? As a category, people wearing google glass are not cyborgs. They might wish they were, but they're not. If we're talking about people with neuroprosthetics, then we might have interesting social and legal questions to ask. We do not have those questions to ask when the subject of discrimination refuses to take their sunglasses off at night/wear google glass in a bar.

Edit: my dentist's drill is part of my identity as a dentist. Why are people discriminating against me by saying I can't take it into a bar with me while it makes a nice whirring noise?

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 19:42

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Eripsa, are you going to answer any of the questions I've put to you? It can be on economics, or cyborgs, whichever you prefer.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 23:13

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

T-1000 posted:

I think of them as the high water marks of D&D each year. If I had half a clue how this particular system worked I would be writing bad sci-fi set in it.

RealityApologist, the biggest flaw in all your ideas is how you express them. Take a writing course, read a book on writing, get a friend who is good at writing to proofread your papers, whatever it takes. If all that ever comes out of these threads is that you are forced to admit you have a problem with the way you write, and address it, this will all have been totally worthwhile.

I think it's more that the ideas are inane, and the only way that they can be made to look less so is through overly-complicated and exclusionary language.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 11:00

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

All you are saying is that people have relationships, or in other words, are connected in social networks. Let's apply that to everything. We have something very similar, it's called sociology. You're deliberately obfuscatory.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 22:14

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

SedanChair posted:

But I thought we were idiots who your real academic peers saw through at a glance. Which is it? Are we idiots, or are your colleagues too dumb and solipsistic to identify salient criticisms of hot garbage?

Eripsa is performance art. We're morons for continuing to play along.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 23:47

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

SedanChair posted:

Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me?

Thank you. This is the sort of research I'm beginning to work on, namely the interaction of law and ethics with prosthetic technologies. This is both with regard to therapeutic technologies (such as replacement limbs for those injured in accidents or war) and hypothetical situations of 'enhancement' (what if prosthetics develop to the point where they have greater 'functionality' than real limbs?). A lot of the literature in this field focuses specifically on the item in question becoming part of the human body, and its physical inseparability from the body (a pacemaker, cochlear implant or prosthetic limb). To suggest that someone who is told they can't wear Google glass in a nightclub is suffering the same sort of violation of personal integrity as someone who has a limb blown off, and is treated badly by both systems and individuals afterwards demeans their suffering.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 18:47

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

I didn't do this. If this is your area of research then I'd expect you to be very sympathetic with the importance of tools for one's identity and well-being. Accessibility is a huge factor in mental health. Our tools matter.

I've said explicitly that Glass is basically an irrelevant novelty that doesn't add much to a person's identity, but that other tools can be so important for one's health and well-being that to take them away would be a violation of their personhood. These are clearly compatible claims that are deeply sympathetic to the sort of work you do.

If you're angry at me it's only because of the bandwagon hatred of this thread. I wouldn't dream of demeaning people who are suffering due to discrimination. Saying that our tools constitute our identity is not a demeaning claim, and doesn't at all imply that Glass is as important as a prosthetic limb. Seriously, we're on the same side here, but we're being pulled apart by people who are insisting that our tools don't matter. They are wrong, not us.

In that case, you need to be much more specific about the interrelation between tools and identity, and what by making a distinction between different types of tools. Because I agree, tools can form part of identity construction, but that is because pretty much anything can be used to construct identity. But such an argument requires a hierarchy of identity construction, ranging from the essential or internal (such as sexuality, gender, race), the mutable (nationality, tribal, professional) and the 'surface level' for want of a better word (identification with certain types of hobby, social activity, choice of consumer electronics). Prosthetics could fit either into the essential if we are talking about the mental association with the body, once a prosthetic has become 'internalised' and is identified with that person's body. In the case of a detachable limb, it is possible it could be identified more with the mutable, if that personal connection is not as strong (for example, upgrading a prosthetic). This also means while all might be part of identity construction, the real impact of discrimination, hate and denial of personhood/worth appears in the first two categories, such as ill treatment of homosexuals or national discrimination. In that 'surface level' social cues and etiquette should, and are likely to override, the sense of identity. Turn off your mobile phone in a cinema. Don't smoke inside. Don't wear recording devices in social settings. Yes, it is part of identity construction, but no, to argue for the restriction of the use of a 'surface level' device is unlikely to constitute discrimination.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 19:09

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Dogstoyevsky posted:

I feel like that means we don't have to worry about cyborg discrimination so much since if Google Glass ends up being as mind-bogglingly useful as shoes, pretty much everyone will be down. Also, at the risk of sounding super glib, shoes aren't a part of my identity (and I think most other peoples') so this is perhaps not the best metaphor you could have chosen.

I think shoes can ultimately form an aspect of someone's identity, albeit not an immutable or essential part of it. If this weren't the case, branding wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. Certain brands become associated with a level of quality, or perception of success, which becomes internalised by the individual concerned. Think 'I only drink Coke, not Pepsi', or 'I only drive BMWs'. They're not fundamental to that person's identity, but they do become part of it at a superficial level.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 19:33

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

Good. I think we're mostly on the same page re: identity and tools, but we differ over our metaphysics. This is why network theory is important for my view, and probably represents a good example of where network theory is actually preferrable to the alternative.

Because you're also appealing to a kind of network when you're talking about a "hierarchy of construction", but you bring a lot of metaphsyical baggage with that picture that I'd want to sort through carefully. For starters, the relationships here aren't necessarily hierarchical, one entirely contained within the scope of the next, in a top-down fashion with the bottom being the "most essential". This is, instead, a densely interconnected web of relations with no clear "top" or "bottom". What you are calling "essential" is not a matter of essences in the Aristotlean sense, of what it truly is in itself in some mysterious metaphysical sense. The virtue of network theory is that it allows for a precise way of saying exactly how essential something is to the network, in terms of its centrality and connectivity across the network.

Because look, maybe my gender is a huge part of who I am and how I understand myself, but for you gender is an entirely uninteresting part of your life that bears almost no weight on your activity; lots of people identify as asexual or without gender identity at all. Same with nationalism, or ethnicity, or my cell phone, or the rest of it. These things don't necessarily play some essential role in our lives; the role they play just is the product of how they interacts with the rest of the tools constituting my identity. And it's an open question what those tools are and what role they play.

So I agree with you that there is a difference between tools that are more or less central to our lives, but I don't have any deep commitments to what those tools are and what their precedence is. And I think this is a virtue of the network paradigm over the traditional sorts of hierarchical or essentialist views you're elaborating here.

My major issue is that I think the metaphysical baggage, as you put it, cannot be disassociated from the rest of it. One of the problems with a network theory approach to all aspects of life is it assumes that everything can be quantified, based on an indeterminate number of variables, in which all human behaviour, psychology and emotion can be modelled and analysed. Our unconscious biases impact the model, meaning that any model that seeks to understand or quantify human emotion and response is flawed. I'm much more of the belief that some things are more useful to be analysed from a qualitative perspective. In this respect, the rough classifications while lacking somewhat in nuance are nevertheless necessary for regulation and lawmaking.

With regard to the shifting and inconstant nature of identity that you mention, that's specifically why I believe that modelling based on network theory is not likely to tell us much, particularly when dealing with issues where there is a strong element of human psychology, belief or emotion involved. The realisation that relationships are networked rather than purely hierarchical is important - but equating this as all needs and desires functioning in networks goes too far. The need for water is more important than the need for a particular brand of water. A prosthetic hand for an injured worker is more important than a pair of sunglasses that can tell the time. And particularly when it comes to designing laws and systems of social governance, there is a need to form hierarchies and prioritise.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 19:43

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

That all models are flawed does not imply that we should reject all models. I think network theory allows for a discussion of emergence that supports qualitative considerations; the notion of centrality or community is a qualitative notion for which there are many quantitative formulations, which may be compared against each others for their usefulness in dealing with particular issues. If we leave it as simply qualitative and reject the quantitative models, then there are no means for assessing what will be useful where. In other words, I think it's a cop out; you've just left the phenomena mysterious.

The realization that networks change and differences matter is precisely the reason for thinking that network theory is the right way of describing these phenomena, because it's precisely a way of accounting for the change over time that all the differences make. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that network theory is the only way you'll get a satisfying explanation of these phenomena. It sounds to me like you're arguing that we can't model these things, or you're objecting to the possibility of scientific unification at the level I'm talking about. That's not to say that you're simply wrong; there are obviously considerations in your favor. But I don't think the impacts of network theory have trickled out far enough for people in your field to recognize their fundamental significance in addressing precisely the issues you're interested in. I feel that part of my writing on the topic is designed to fill that gap and reach people like you, so I hope at least some of this is coming through.

This is an argument where our theoretical backgrounds are going to butt heads. Network theories are great for assessing structures, but are only useful for asking certain types of question. Network theories are not useful for questioning intentions, motives, socio-cultural norms or emotional responses. Network theory can give you the 'what', what is happening, who are the actors, how are they related to each-other. It cannot answer the 'why' question, which relies on qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. It just isn't designed to ask that sort of question. It's why I don't think social network theory can be used for the purpose of universal theory building. But then, I also do not believe it is possible to develop any sort of universal theory.

Pesmerga fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 3, 2014

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 20:09

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

The big problem is the attempt to construct a universal model based purely on algorithms to simulate the entirety of human interaction. Give up Eripsa, there are no universals, people will not fit into your model no matter how you try, so you're trying to get humans to fit your model.

Let me try saying this differently - not everything can be explained by maths, and not everything can be modelled to a degree of certainty that you seem to assume. I'm going back to a comment I made much earlier in the thread, which you ignored. Network theories are great for determining structures, and what relationships exist. It is not useful at all for telling us why, or how they exist. The ability to create a universal model based on network theory and a set of algorithms that will tell us the what, why and how of social relations is absolutely impossible. You will not find any academic working in any field relating to social sciences/economics/psychology that argues that their one theoretical approach explains all situations, is applicable to all situations, and is appropriate for asking all sorts of questions. If I want to critique a system of dominant discourses, or try to explain how one develops, then Foucault can be particularly useful. If I want to look at ways of looking at better law-making, Foucault becomes useless - Foucault's ideas and framework for analysis were not intended to be used for such a task. If I want to look at relationships between companies as lobbyists, in order to get an idea of who is working with who, then a network-based theory will be useful. If I want to look at how to regulate those companies, based on ideas of law, legitimacy and transparency, network theories become useless, and I might turn to political theory or legal philosophy.

If I want to understand why I feel a particular way, or why others might react in a certain way to my actions, I would see a psychologist. I wouldn't go to a computer scientist who claims to have created a model that explains all human relationships. By trying to develop one model as a universal, you either have a broken model in the first place, which never gets off the ground, or alternatively you have a somewhat functioning yet hideously misrepresentative model where you have tweaked the data to fit it, rather than the other way around.

I will say this as clearly as I can. There are no universals, and no algorithm or model that can simulate the almost infinite variance of social relationships.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2014 08:37

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

I never said it abolishes private property, I said it is hostile to it. I'm putting the emphasis on the "private" part of property, and not the "property" part; in Strangecoin world there's a sense in which everything is owned communally, since even your bank account balance is subject to change when others engage in transactions of which you might not be an immediate party. So nothing is exclusively "yours" in that sense.

We can still try sustaining the legal practice of nevertheless holding some property "private", but Strangecoin isn't designed to assist in that process. So it's hostile to the practice; there's no default to privacy in Strangecoinland. This isn't just some arbitrary extension, I've discussed this aspect of the view multiple times ITT.

Can you respond to my point about network theories please? Also, your conceptualisation of property is woefully inadequate, both at a general theoretical level, and the level of legal control over property.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2014 12:59

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Eripsa, all I can say is that if you find this thread to be unfair and bullying, I don't think academia is for you. If you presented these ideas, in this format, at any of the big politics/philosophy/law conferences, you would be absolutely torn apart. On methodology, theoretical framework and ability to effectively engage with criticism.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2014 19:03

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

Explicitly identifying the rhetorical situation is not evidence that I can't handle it.

It's like we're playing streetball and I'm playing 30 against one and getting fouled left and right. I mean it's good practice and it's fun, but playing on a real court with refs and rules is a completely different game. Like, this is part of my montage training sequence; this isn't the big game. Getting beat up here is part of how that training works.

Still, a foul is a foul, and it's completely reasonable to identify it as such. As street ball goes, I've made some good plays considering the is stacked against me. It's unfortunate that this gets lost in the rhetoric, but that's not the limiting factor in this discussion.

If we're going to go for analogies, this isn't a training montage, this is little league. Big academic conferences are absolutely vicious. Particularly the younger scholars, bouncing from post-doc to post-doc, hoping for either tenure (US) or a permanent lectureship (most other places) will seize upon the tiniest flaw or methodological weakness and run with it. And they will make it personal. I've seen people have their paper dismissed, their entire thesis brought into question, sometimes even personal attacks made on the integrity of the speaker. Chairs of panels don't step in, because they see it as part of the 'free flow of information and healthy debate', and it's up to the speaker to defend both themselves and their position. I'm just warning you, this may feel unfair, but academics are even worse. In this respect, you're really going to have to develop a thick skin.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2014 19:47

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

I think this thread has run it's course, to be honest.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2014 07:11

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Starcraft. loving online Starcraft as an example of how a society could function. And now a proposal for a new thread.

:negative:

# ¿ Apr 13, 2014 10:02

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

RealityApologist posted:

Oh sure, metagame and mindtricks and all that stuff is fair game (as it is in politics and economics as well), and I'm not trying to prevent any of that. I've said many times that Strangecoin isn't meant to limit the accumulation of power; it only constrains how that power develops, and the consequences that development has on the other economic agents. My goal isn't to fix the problems in one utopian swoop, but only to provide a tool for analyzing these relations, in the hopes that another tool might help.

We need help. I'm trying to help. I spend a few weeks of the year writing and thinking about this poo poo in detail, and I think it helps (me, if no one else). It's not all I do. But I'm doing it now. Wheeeee.

You know, you never actually came back saying why network theories, which are supposed to be applied to assess relations from a structural perspective, but are categorically not supposed to be used to determine why or how those relationships form. You also said that it was going to be a universal, why would you then need another tool?

# ¿ Apr 13, 2014 10:07

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

CheesyDog posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q

loving hell. This is uncanny!

Edit: economists will try to tell you this is impossible. I've already thought of that. Feasibility deals with implementation, I'm not involved in that.

Can we change the thread title to 'Strangecoin: Economists will try to tell you this is impossible'?

# ¿ Apr 13, 2014 21:29

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

CheesyDog posted:

As illustrated by Ants Marching (Matthews et al, 1994), a jam-band-based human model of ant behavior leads to natural self-organization into a ranked hierarchy. Individual nodes can facilitate movement between tiers through the exchange of hemp-fiber totebags, bootlegs, or grilled cheese sandwiches.

Now this at least demonstrates academic rigour.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 17:19

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

I don't know why everyone is continuing to engage with someone who is being so disingenuous.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 20:50

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Numerical Anxiety posted:

From my experience, you'll probably still be able to pass your defense and get your PhD, but you might not be able to publish from your diss, which is going to make it much harder to get a decent job.

It also depends - you may be studying the same phenomenon/subject, but with a radically different take, theoretical perspective or (in natural sciences) different results. If so, you can still publish, taking into account the previously defended/published work, stating what original additional contribution your work makes, and why it is distinct from that other work. Situations where somebody does exactly what you've done, in exactly the same way, are pretty rare.

# ¿ May 6, 2014 15:01

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

jre posted:

Can anyone spot the slight flaw in this example?

Hahahahaha :pusheen:

That is brilliant!

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 23:33

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

jre posted:

Watch our google hangout on why google is terrible and you should fight the power !

If I get bored im going to develop a random Eripsa generator, harnessing the power of the ~~cloud~~ marble.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 15:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Sep 10, 2024 18:33

Pesmerga: Aug 1, 2005; So nice to eat you

Obdicut posted:

No Eripsa is at like 44:52 and will make you sad and feel bad for him, but when you do, remember that he thinks he's like 1000x smarter than you. That he's a chemist and you're an alchemist.

Jesus. I've said it before Eripsa, but you need to a see a medical professional.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2015 17:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Strangecoin: a calvinball economy