by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 6:50 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Ifreann » Tue Jan 14, 2025 6:58 pm
by The Lazarene Republic » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:05 pm
by Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:05 pm
Xerographica wrote:how joe boo g n
we've all watched squid games already? there's the one contest where two teams engage in tug of war. even if you haven't seen it, i'm sure you can guess what happens to the losing team. seems straightforward that, when your life is on the line, you should be able to pull directly on the rope with all your force.
on inaturalist i recently created a project for ficus observations with some disagreement about their identification. i called the project "ficus identification tug-of-war". does it really count as tug of war though?
too many of you are sticklers for strict definitions. i remember my thread about omniscience and how so many of you were up in arms with my idea of partial omniscience. inaturalist is a good example of partial omniscience. a bunch of people all over the world having partial access to each other's eyeballs and brains. of course there are disagreements that would make the elephant-touching-blind-men very proud.
regardless of how certain you are about the identity of an insect, bird or tree, your direct force on the rope is limited to a tiny tug. participation is unlimited, but each participant can only directly exert the same tiny tug on the rope. it doesn't matter if you're the scientist who named the species. it doesn't matter if it's your 1st time seeing the species. everyone only gets 1 vote. it's completely and terrifyingly fair. but it's an entirely different story when it comes to indirect force on the rope. indirect force is unlimited. i can bribe or bully all my plant friends to join my side of the rope. i can spend my very last penny on recruiting people to join my team.
most people have the strong notion that tug of war would be far more effective if indirect force on the rope was severely limited or eliminated entirely. what's hard to see or understand is that organisms don't randomly exert force. exerting force obviously requires effort. in terms of evolution, all else being equal, an organism that randomly exerts effort would lose to an organism that doesn't. so if you see someone exerting considerable indirect force on a rope, chances are really good that they have their reasons. they must have some knowledge or information that compels them to personally sacrifice so much. for all we know, maybe their life is on the line.
i started off sharing the example of squid games. is this thread about squid games? not for me personally. do you want this thread to be about squid games? i dunno. but if you exert too much force in this direction, you might get this thread closed, because of derailing or hijacking or whatever.
with this in mind, i'm going to share another example... the los angeles fires. is this thread about the fires? again, not for me personally. there's already a thread dedicated to discussing the la fires. for me personally this thread is about what all my threads are about... sound economics.
i'm sure my long time "fans" can guess where i'm going with the fire example. same place i went with the traffic signal example. the supply should have been determined by demand. whoever was the 1st person to see fire and/or smell smoke, should have had the opportunity to directly pull on the rope as if their life depended on it. the same goes for all the subsequent people with some evidence of fire. a big enough initial direct tug on the rope (aka 'demand') should have quickly resulted in a proportionally large response of 1st responders and the national guard (aka 'supply').
i have no idea how many people in the pacific palisades called 911 to report the fire, but it counts as indirect force on the rope. how much direct force would they have been willing to exert on the rope? $100,000? $2,000,000? we don't know, because our system isn't based on sound economics. you all very mistakenly believe that it isn't necessary to know the true and actual demand for public goods. nothing could be further from the truth. limited resources can only be correctly distributed when everyone is free to directly pull on the rope as if their life depends on it.
in school most of us learned who carl linnaeus was..."the father of modern taxonomy". it's pretty straightforward that organizing and categorizing organisms based on shared traits is useful to understanding life. the problem is, there's never been the linnaeus equivalent for tug of war. we all know what democracy, committees, voting, markets, dictatorships are, but it's not the same thing as their formal taxonomy. here are some relevant 'traits'...
participation - who has the opportunity to exert force on the rope?
force type - direct and/or indirect
force limits - extremely limited to unlimited
transparency - who can see the contest?
all group decisions, from deciding what to name an organism, to deciding whether fruit trees should be planted in public parks, involve a certain "genus" and "species" of tug of war. once we name and correctly organize all the different species it will be easier to understand them. then we will be one step closer to sound economics.
by The Lazarene Republic » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:12 pm
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:Xerographica wrote:how joe boo g n
we've all watched squid games already? there's the one contest where two teams engage in tug of war. even if you haven't seen it, i'm sure you can guess what happens to the losing team. seems straightforward that, when your life is on the line, you should be able to pull directly on the rope with all your force.
on inaturalist i recently created a project for ficus observations with some disagreement about their identification. i called the project "ficus identification tug-of-war". does it really count as tug of war though?
too many of you are sticklers for strict definitions. i remember my thread about omniscience and how so many of you were up in arms with my idea of partial omniscience. inaturalist is a good example of partial omniscience. a bunch of people all over the world having partial access to each other's eyeballs and brains. of course there are disagreements that would make the elephant-touching-blind-men very proud.
regardless of how certain you are about the identity of an insect, bird or tree, your direct force on the rope is limited to a tiny tug. participation is unlimited, but each participant can only directly exert the same tiny tug on the rope. it doesn't matter if you're the scientist who named the species. it doesn't matter if it's your 1st time seeing the species. everyone only gets 1 vote. it's completely and terrifyingly fair. but it's an entirely different story when it comes to indirect force on the rope. indirect force is unlimited. i can bribe or bully all my plant friends to join my side of the rope. i can spend my very last penny on recruiting people to join my team.
most people have the strong notion that tug of war would be far more effective if indirect force on the rope was severely limited or eliminated entirely. what's hard to see or understand is that organisms don't randomly exert force. exerting force obviously requires effort. in terms of evolution, all else being equal, an organism that randomly exerts effort would lose to an organism that doesn't. so if you see someone exerting considerable indirect force on a rope, chances are really good that they have their reasons. they must have some knowledge or information that compels them to personally sacrifice so much. for all we know, maybe their life is on the line.
i started off sharing the example of squid games. is this thread about squid games? not for me personally. do you want this thread to be about squid games? i dunno. but if you exert too much force in this direction, you might get this thread closed, because of derailing or hijacking or whatever.
with this in mind, i'm going to share another example... the los angeles fires. is this thread about the fires? again, not for me personally. there's already a thread dedicated to discussing the la fires. for me personally this thread is about what all my threads are about... sound economics.
i'm sure my long time "fans" can guess where i'm going with the fire example. same place i went with the traffic signal example. the supply should have been determined by demand. whoever was the 1st person to see fire and/or smell smoke, should have had the opportunity to directly pull on the rope as if their life depended on it. the same goes for all the subsequent people with some evidence of fire. a big enough initial direct tug on the rope (aka 'demand') should have quickly resulted in a proportionally large response of 1st responders and the national guard (aka 'supply').
i have no idea how many people in the pacific palisades called 911 to report the fire, but it counts as indirect force on the rope. how much direct force would they have been willing to exert on the rope? $100,000? $2,000,000? we don't know, because our system isn't based on sound economics. you all very mistakenly believe that it isn't necessary to know the true and actual demand for public goods. nothing could be further from the truth. limited resources can only be correctly distributed when everyone is free to directly pull on the rope as if their life depends on it.
in school most of us learned who carl linnaeus was..."the father of modern taxonomy". it's pretty straightforward that organizing and categorizing organisms based on shared traits is useful to understanding life. the problem is, there's never been the linnaeus equivalent for tug of war. we all know what democracy, committees, voting, markets, dictatorships are, but it's not the same thing as their formal taxonomy. here are some relevant 'traits'...
participation - who has the opportunity to exert force on the rope?
force type - direct and/or indirect
force limits - extremely limited to unlimited
transparency - who can see the contest?
all group decisions, from deciding what to name an organism, to deciding whether fruit trees should be planted in public parks, involve a certain "genus" and "species" of tug of war. once we name and correctly organize all the different species it will be easier to understand them. then we will be one step closer to sound economics.
You should about gestalt science rather than get into the difficult semantics of 'partial omniscience'; it far more aptly describes what you're talking about...
by Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:20 pm
The Lazarene Republic wrote:I don’t think he really cares, it’s just a pretense to make yet another thread about “pragmatarianism”, his belief that the weights of votes should correspond to the amount of money voters are willing to spend (i.e. a “vote” of $5 is half the value of $10), basically a formalized system of plutocracy disguised as a more efficient and representative form of election. He usually demonstrates this with a fruit ranking forum anecdote.
by Nilokeras » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:24 pm
Xerographica wrote: inaturalist is a good example of partial omniscience. a bunch of people all over the world having partial access to each other's eyeballs and brains. of course there are disagreements that would make the elephant-touching-blind-men very proud.
regardless of how certain you are about the identity of an insect, bird or tree, your direct force on the rope is limited to a tiny tug. participation is unlimited, but each participant can only directly exert the same tiny tug on the rope. it doesn't matter if you're the scientist who named the species. it doesn't matter if it's your 1st time seeing the species. everyone only gets 1 vote. it's completely and terrifyingly fair. but it's an entirely different story when it comes to indirect force on the rope. indirect force is unlimited. i can bribe or bully all my plant friends to join my side of the rope. i can spend my very last penny on recruiting people to join my team.
by Bombadil » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:30 pm
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:50 pm
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:The Lazarene Republic wrote:I don’t think he really cares, it’s just a pretense to make yet another thread about “pragmatarianism”, his belief that the weights of votes should correspond to the amount of money voters are willing to spend (i.e. a “vote” of $5 is half the value of $10), basically a formalized system of plutocracy disguised as a more efficient and representative form of election. He usually demonstrates this with a fruit ranking forum anecdote.
Oh so like tax choice but applied to the voting process. Ah yes, that certainly won't result in the wealthiest 1% controlling 99% of the votes lmao
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:54 pm
Nilokeras wrote:Xerographica wrote: inaturalist is a good example of partial omniscience. a bunch of people all over the world having partial access to each other's eyeballs and brains. of course there are disagreements that would make the elephant-touching-blind-men very proud.
regardless of how certain you are about the identity of an insect, bird or tree, your direct force on the rope is limited to a tiny tug. participation is unlimited, but each participant can only directly exert the same tiny tug on the rope. it doesn't matter if you're the scientist who named the species. it doesn't matter if it's your 1st time seeing the species. everyone only gets 1 vote. it's completely and terrifyingly fair. but it's an entirely different story when it comes to indirect force on the rope. indirect force is unlimited. i can bribe or bully all my plant friends to join my side of the rope. i can spend my very last penny on recruiting people to join my team.
this is of course not true. experts weigh in all the time on iNaturalist, and very frequently are definitive. I should know, I've done my fair of expert IDs. not to mention that bullying/bribing people into agreeing with a particular ID is almost certainly against the Community Guidelines.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:56 pm
The Lazarene Republic wrote:What’s with this obsession of yours? How haven’t you given up already?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:08 pm
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:You should read about gestalt science rather than get into the difficult semantics of 'partial omniscience'; it far more aptly describes what you're talking about. You should also be aware of theories such as organicism and the poststructural critique of different classification systems because using Linnaeus, with limited philosophical scope, goes far beyond what 'modern taxonomy' is intended for. This scope is really narrow to classifying organisms from an anthroprocentric level; to be even partially omniscient, one must be aware of, simultaneously, all the perspectives of all subjectives of all living things from all time. How other animals would see their place may differ from views of predation, bottom feeders, etc, that we attribute to them. Given that other animals such as dogs, cats, dolphins, and primates are all capable of experiencing complex emotions, relationally they may place at least a rudimentary value on things that we simply have not yet conceptualised.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by The Lazarene Republic » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:32 pm
by Ultra Earth » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:35 pm
Xerographica wrote:very long snip
by Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:36 pm
Xerographica wrote:Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:Oh so like tax choice but applied to the voting process. Ah yes, that certainly won't result in the wealthiest 1% controlling 99% of the votes lmao
you just nonchalantly said "tax choice" like it's a common concept? do the wealthy people already know about it as well? if so, how come they aren't all pulling on the rope like their life depends on it? fun fact, in most cases, wealthy people would be on both sides of the rope, with no good guess about which side would win. pick any contentious topic and you will find wealthy people on both sides. you can't generalize preferences with wealth any more than you can with gender or race. everyone, regardless of race, age, sex, height, education, religion or wealth, should have the freedom to directly exert all their force on any rope. the results will maximize humanity's progress and well-being.
by Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:46 pm
Xerographica wrote:biological taxonomy has extremely limited participation. the fact that ficus carica and ficus cocculifolia are graft compatible does not factor into their taxonomy, which is why cocculifolia was wrongly lumped under sycomorus. a small handful of taxonomists can't correctly weigh or even know about all the possible differences and similarities between all organisms, any more than a small handful of elected representatives can correctly weigh or even know about all public goods. this is why so many public parks are devoid of fruit trees. there's a huge and tragic disparity between the supply of public goods and the demand for them. in order for the correct weight of all possible traits and all possible public goods to be determined, everybody needs the opportunity to participate in all the relevant tug of wars, by directly pulling on the rope with any amount of effort.
by Bombadil » Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:48 pm
by Bombadil » Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:04 pm
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:19 pm
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:The wealthy don't need to concern themselves with tax choice when they spend far less money lobbying and infiltrating the neoliberal power structures so the whole rotten system turns into a kleptocracy lmao. I'm also not generalising wealthy people, I'm mapping the reality of what your system would become based on the failings of plutocratic governments from the past, bereft with rotten boroughs and an era where the average age was 20. I'm talking about Europe during the Industrial Revolution, because that's what life was like for society where the power of money bought power directly, which then convened incredibly regressive ideologies. It took whole generations to pushback against the repugnant levels of exploitation from business owners who were largely educated in classical liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism, of which only liberated them. It was modern liberal moralists, conservatives and the rise of marxists that banded together to strip away such a system that perpetuated that inequality in the first place. All your vision would achieve is the repeat of that history lol, and it's only now that we live in a society of universal, equal suffrage, as well as all the other political freedoms taken for granted, where the public intelligentsia can hold the elites to account. Of which, many have sided with the poor (as some elites did back then too) because of the expansion of people's voices being listened to which has influenced the expanse of academia, literature, and so on...
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:Tax choice would be the reality if your pragmatarianism was the system in place, I guarantee.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:35 pm
Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:Xerographica wrote:biological taxonomy has extremely limited participation. the fact that ficus carica and ficus cocculifolia are graft compatible does not factor into their taxonomy, which is why cocculifolia was wrongly lumped under sycomorus. a small handful of taxonomists can't correctly weigh or even know about all the possible differences and similarities between all organisms, any more than a small handful of elected representatives can correctly weigh or even know about all public goods. this is why so many public parks are devoid of fruit trees. there's a huge and tragic disparity between the supply of public goods and the demand for them. in order for the correct weight of all possible traits and all possible public goods to be determined, everybody needs the opportunity to participate in all the relevant tug of wars, by directly pulling on the rope with any amount of effort.
This perfectionism won't work under humans who cannot organise collectively and properly, which again is why you need to read about gestaltism and not try and palm people off with something that doesn't really have a foundationalist or coherentist epistemic justification. The actual solution for this is a gestalt AI conscious that has singularity. You're also revealing a poor conceptuality of governance, as though you can equate an online site to a national government without considering the hyperobjectivities of all the interpolation that goes into it: administration, local councils, devolved governmnents, etc. It's still bad that we have all these issues, but without being able to increase that rate of which things get done (your view will literally result in the reverse when you implement some artificial structure on top of the bulk of the constructivism that comes through the social practice of discourse) and by forcing more tug-pulling, less will get done.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Dogmeat » Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:58 pm
by Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State » Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:37 pm
Xerographica wrote:Evolutionary Syncretic Cybercratic State wrote:
This perfectionism won't work under humans who cannot organise collectively and properly, which again is why you need to read about gestaltism and not try and palm people off with something that doesn't really have a foundationalist or coherentist epistemic justification. The actual solution for this is a gestalt AI conscious that has singularity. You're also revealing a poor conceptuality of governance, as though you can equate an online site to a national government without considering the hyperobjectivities of all the interpolation that goes into it: administration, local councils, devolved governmnents, etc. It's still bad that we have all these issues, but without being able to increase that rate of which things get done (your view will literally result in the reverse when you implement some artificial structure on top of the bulk of the constructivism that comes through the social practice of discourse) and by forcing more tug-pulling, less will get done.
my hoa just planted 12 large crape myrtle trees in our small park, and removed the one fruit tree that i donated and planted... instead of clearing all the dead and dry tinder bushes from around our community, while huge swaths of los angeles literally burned. my hoa fiddled while rome burned. sure, with the current system lots of stuff will be supplied, but it really isn't what's actually demanded. this is true at the smallest level of government, like how back in august i told the hoa board that creating a defensible space should be our #1 priority. and it's even truer at the largest level of government where reasonable voices are even harder to hear. the most important thing to understand is that this can be proven on the smallest scale... with forums and with inaturalist and any other websites where people supply the content.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cerespasia, Diarcesia, Eahland, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Ineva, Kasdados, Luminesa, New Halo, New haven america, Russian Collation, Sardinia-Sicily, Shrillland, The Lazarene Republic, The Lone Alliance, The Opossum, Total Drama 2, Washington Resistance Army, Zherid
Advertisement