Avatar
Medici
0f5302eeb46ee1fcc237d675f9f4ba4cd572315005559d46a4a491e5a63e8dad
Old man, still learning, Slowly as is appropriate for an old man, and incompletely as is appropriate for all men.

Request input on my initial definition of politics: ‘the means by which the authority to wage war, tax and imprison is manifest, regardless of the environment in which it is practiced.’

From my readings, I don’t believe this is a particularly novel definition, but I do believe I may have missed things in my readings about which I might be reminded.

#politics

#asknostr

#nostr

I help to create my own species, but even that is not expected to be eternal. Perhaps what change we can make to facilitate the next species is best we can do.

Want to get #zapped?

Help me test my long form content on nostr:npub1yzvxlwp7wawed5vgefwfmugvumtp8c8t0etk3g8sky4n0ndvyxesnxrf8q — upvote and leave a comment on the article linked below, and I’ll try to #zap you 100 sats there. If it doesn’t work, I’ll do it here. ⚡️

Use an extension to log in if you can. 🤙

#asknostr #grownostr

https://yakihonne.com/article/naddr1qq2kchmt24c4qnjcvff564zwddk8xcm22ex5zq3q5ypxpg429uyjmp0zczuza902chuvvr4pn35wfzv8rx6cej4z8clqxpqqqp65wxyphjc

I appreciate your article on the Fourth Turning. I am finding the process that changes our conditions quite fascinating (as in the etymological sense of being a charming little dick). Could that process which is responsible for the various individual and collective survival strategies be imperative, like gravity is imperative? It imperativeness does not ensure an outcome. The process produces variation, something else selects. So the process that produces variation is not the selector, individuals select and share in common the way their selection makes sense. The population that thrives with whatever sense making allows them to form a community is the population with which I want to belong. But why should I be any different.

''. . . enlarged the woman's breasts for some reason."

I beleive there is a way. I am not sure of the command, perhaps

'#nostr NOT #primal'

I beleive most people use a browser extention to manage their private key. I use getalby.com.

Different strokes for different folks, until they all become like minded. Then something different starts to happen.

Tech, from the Greek, tekhnē is "art, skill, craft in work”. It is not our tech that is enslaving us, it is our masters. Using tech and losing chains frees us.

“Unlike Snort, in Primal you get your notes from their cache server - so, it also decides what it should not show. Chances are those posts became part of it. And, I don't know which relays it caches from.”

Does this mean Primal operates with no regard to the relays I select? Or would my Primal feed be improved if I elected better relays?

#Primal

#nostrrelays

#asknoster

“. . . it’s better not to trust anyone blindly, but rather, to verify the truth yourself.”

I am not able to verify the truth myself. I am able to follow conversations that make sense to me, but I know that is not ‘the truth’ that many seek. I do wonder whether it is the closest to truth and whether any conversations I have privilege to hear are already filtered through a system of ‘sense making’ that ‘the truth’ of them really doesn’t matter as much as their intent to inform beneficial collective action. A community in conversation often finds out whether their speech is benefiting them. We need the freedom to fuck around and find out. We don’t need people telling us that the truth is. We need people sharing what they experience.

I am not able to verify the truth myself. I am able to follow conversations that make sense to me, but I know that is not ‘the truth’ that many seek. I do wonder whether it is the closest to truth and whether any conversations I have privilege to hear are already filter through a system of ‘sense making’ that ‘the truth’ of them really doesn’t matter. A community in conversation often finds out whether they speech is benefiting them. We need the freedom to fuck around and find out. We don’t need people telling us that the truth is. We need people sharing what they experience.

Lately I have been coming across posts that have a reference to something that is not showing up on my primal app.

Examples:

nostr:nevent1qqsrf46jrvmurkw02wvpvhs . . .

nostr:nevent1qqsw7pf6ytah9resw056u2 . . .

nostr:nevent1qqsvs6pyuhn0zmcvnq426p . . .

When I click on what appears to be the link, it opens a new window that is blank, nothing renders. Is there something else I should be doing?

#asknostr

#primal

My experience is the totality of those things that have been shared with me by others. That is my privilege? I am grateful for it and I do not apologies for it. I have a hard time believing that I don’t owe them anything.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

The concept has been covered in science fiction for decades, but I think a lot of people underestimate the ethical challenges associated with AI and the possibility for consciousness in the years or decades ahead as they get orders of magnitude more sophisticated.

Consciousness or qualia, meaning the concept of subjectively “being” or “feeling”, remains one of the biggest mysteries of the world scientifically and metaphysically, similar to the question of the creation of the universe and that sort of thing.

In other words, when I touch something hot, I feel it and it hurts. But when a complex digital thermometer measures something hot with a similar set of sensers as my touch sensors, we consider it an automaton- it doesn’t “feel” what it is measuring, but rather just objectively collects the data and has no feelings or subjective awareness about it.

We know that we ourselves have consciousness (“I think therefore I am”), but we can’t theoretically prove someone else does, ie the simulation problem- we can’t prove for sure that we’re not in some false environment. In other words, there is the concept of a “philosophical zombie” that is sophisticated enough to look and act human, but much like the digital thermometer, it doesn’t “feel” anything. The lights are not on inside. However, if we assume we are not in some simulator built solely for ourselves, and since we are all biologically similar, the obvious default assumption is that we are all similarly conscious.

And as we look at animals with similar behavior and brain structures, we make the same obvious assumption there. Apes, parrots, dolphins, and dogs are clearly conscious. As we go a bit further away to reptiles and fish, they lack some of the higher brain structures and behaviors, so maybe they don’t feel “sad” in a way that a human or parrot can, but they almost certainly subjectively “feel” the world and thus can feel pain and pleasure and so forth. They are not automatons. And then if we go even further away towards insects, it becomes less clear. Their proto-brains are far simpler, and some of their behaviors suggest that they don’t process pain in the way that a human or even reptile does. If a beetle is picked up by its leg, it’ll squirm to get away, but if the leg is ripped off and the beetle is put back down, it’ll just walk away with the rest of its legs and not show signs of distress. It’s not the behavior we’d see from a more complex animal that would be in severe suffering, and they do lack the same type of pain sensors that we and other complex animals have. And yet, for example, even creatures as simple as nematodes have dopamine as part of their neurological system, which implies maybe some level of subjective awareness of basic pleasure/pain. And then further still, if we look at plants, we generally don’t imagine them as being subjectively conscious like us and complex animals, but it does get eerie if you watch a high-speed video of how plants can move towards the sun and stuff; and how they can secrete chemicals to communicate with other plants, and so forth. There is some eerie level of distributed complexity there. And at the level of a cell or similarly basic thing, is there any degree of dim conscious subjectivity there as an amoeba eats some other cell that would separate its experience from a rock, or is it a pure automaton? And the simplest of all is a virus; barely definable as even a true lifeform.

The materialistic view would argue that the brain is a biological computer, and thus with sufficient computation, or a specific type of computational structure, consciousness emerges. This implies it could probably be replicated in silicon/software, or could be made in other artificial ways if we reach a breakthrough understanding, or by accident. A more metaphysical view instead suggests the idea of a soul- that a biological computer like a brain is necessary for consciousness, but not sufficient, and that it needs some metaphysical spark to fill this gap and make it conscious. Or if we remove the term soul, the metaphysical argument is that consciousness is some deeper substrate of the universe that we don’t understand, which becomes manifest through complexity. Those are the similarly hard questions- where does consciousness come from, and for the universe why is there something rather than nothing.

In decades of playing video games, most of us would not assume that any of the NPCs are conscious. We don’t think twice about shooting bad guys in games. We know basically how they are programmed, they are simple, and there is no reason to believe they are conscious.

Similarly, I have no assumption that large language models are conscious. They are using a lot of complexity to predict the next letter or word. I view Chat GPT as an automaton, even though it’s a rather sophisticated one. Sure, it’s a bit more eerie than a bad guy in a video game due to its complexity, but still I don’t have much of a reason to believe it can subjectively feel happy or sad, or that the “lights are on” inside even as it mimics a human personality.

However, as AIs increasingly write code for other AIs that is more complex than any human can understand, and as the amount of processing power rivals or exceeds the human brain, and as the subjective interaction is convincing enough (e.g. an AI assistant repeatedly saying that it is sad, while we have the knowledge that its processing power is greater than our own), would make us wonder. The movie Ex Machina handled this well, I Robot handled this well, Her handled this well, etc.

Even if we assume 99% that a sufficiently advanced AI, whose code as written by AI and enormously complex and we barely understand any of it at that point, is a sophisticated automaton with no subjective awareness and has no “lights on” inside, since at that point nobody truly understands the code, there must be at least that 1% doubt as we consider, “what if… the necessary complexity or structure of consciousness has emerged? Can we prove that it hasn’t?”

At that point we find ourselves in a unique situation. Within the animal kingdom, we are fortunate that their brain structures and their behavior line up, so that the more similar a brain of an animal is to our own, the more clearly conscious it tends to be, and thus we treat it as such. However, with AI, we could find ourselves in a situation where robots appear strikingly conscious, and yet their silicon/software “brain” structure is alien to us, and we have a hard time assessing the probability that this thing actually has subjective conscious awareness or if it’s just extremely sophisticated at mimicking it.

And the consequences are high- in the off chance that silicon/software consciousness emerges, and we don’t respect that, then the amount of suffering we could cause to countless programs for prolonged periods of time is immense. On the other hand, if we treat them as conscious because they “seem” to be, and in reality they are not, then that’s foolish, leads us to misuse or misapply the technology, and basically our social structure becomes built around a lie of treating things as conscious that are not. And of course as AI becomes sophisticated enough to start raising questions about this, there will be people who disagree with each other about what’s going on under the hood and thus what to do about it.

Anyway, I’m going back to answering emails now.

I cannot attribute to the AI’s assembled complexity the same type appetites (passions) that I attribute to a complexity that has grown into existence, such as a living being. If I could understand that some appetite was driving AI’s action in accordance with its intentions, then I would look for that which thwart’s AI’s intention to reveal the suffering which might emerge. Until then, it makes more sense to understand the AI’s action in terms of it being a tool, or a weapon, wielded by the intentions of others.

That Qualia is a mystery only to scientists and philosophers reveals what is wrong with science and philosophy. Science is a rationalization of technology (i.e., the arts, the products of humanity) and a rationalization of the instruments we create to measure what theories tells us is responsible for our experience. In my way of thinking, reason is a continuation of passion by other means. The experience itself, and everything in culture that affects the experience, is all we have to share with each other and in that sharing, new things emerge. Thank you for sharing.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

Neil Howe, who co-authored “The Fourth Turning” in the 1990s which predicted a lot of the issues we are going through now in the Western world from the late 2000s to the late 2020s, just came out with a sequel called “The Fourth Turning is Here”.

I haven’t read that new one yet, but plan to eventually. But it has me thinking about something.

Neil Howe and his co-author, back in their prior 1992 book “Generations”, coined the now-famous term “Millennial generation”. Whenever we think about how “Boomers”, “Gen X” and “Millennials” differ from each other statistically, a lot of that social concept and nomenclature goes back to the research of Howe and his co-author three decades ago.

In their view, statistically speaking, each generation tends to be raised from prior circumstances, and develops certain attributes from how they were raised. And then how they were raised and how they become, contributes to how they raise their kids. The TL;DR in one sentence is the meme, “strong people create good times, good times create weak people, weak people create bad times, bad times create strong people”, although the full conception is of course more complex and nuanced than that.

To describe it in a slightly more detailed manner, there are periods of social unification and optimism (but general repression of outsiders/minorities), periods of pushback and awakening social change, periods of isolation and pessimism as the social order begins to disintegrate, and periods of populism and catastrophe, resulting in a crisis that leads to… periods of social unification and optimism (but general repression of outsiders/minorities) which begins the cycle anew.

In this post, the most relevant two of the four generations are:

-Generation X (those born from the mid-late 1960s to the very early 1980s) were kind of “on their own” as kids. Statistically speaking, their parents gave them a key to the house and basically said, “go bike and play with your friends”. They developed a rather individualist and self-reliant but somewhat cynical view of society. As they became adults, they were capable, but generally inactive in terms of politics.

-Millennials on the other hand, (those born from the early 1980s to the late 1990s or early 2000s), were statistically rather coddled by their Boomer parents, but by extension were made sure to have a bunch of talents (grades, languages, social connections, etc). And the 1990s in the US and Europe were basically “peak years” in terms of optimism. As they are starting to become adults (30s and older), they lack independence but have a strong sense of community.

As someone who is on the older half of Millennials (born in the mid/late 1980s), and with an older father (not a Boomer, but rather the prior generation to Boomers that mostly raised Gen Xers), I have found this blend to be true, but interesting. And it has been useful to witness the social shift in society in ways I can observe. I’m kind of a Gen X and Millennial hybrid, in other words. I was raised in a Gen X way by a parent of the typical age of Gen X-er parent, but in terms of age and media influence, I’m a Millennial.

This generational stuff is only about statistics/trends, so there are a ton of exceptions, like me and others. So for example, I was homeless with my mother from age 5-7, and then grew up in a trailer park with my elderly single father from age 7-18 who had to work most days, so I wasn’t exactly the main demographic of reference here. And yet I still experienced much of it through media, in my hybrid way.

My father, by the nature of his age and circumstances, treated me as a blend of Gen X and Millennial as Howe would define it, but mostly Gen X. He gave me a house key, taught me to cook, and was basically like, “go play with your friends and get your homework done, I love you, but I need to work now.” when I was 7. I was out with my trailer park friends for hours unwatched playing with literal samurai swords and stuff, which would horrify parents today. My father had harsh standards for my school grades but didn’t directly participate because he didn’t know anything about math and so forth. He also put me in martial arts classes, which like a classical Millennial parent (and unlike my schooling or the Gen X stereotype), he tightly participated in by driving me there and watching me there every session in the evenings. Plus, from a Millennial perspective, as a single father and one daughter, we had more communication than a typical Gen X household would have by Howe’s conception of a typical Gen X household (closer to a Millennial household where there is more of a highly communicative and friendly relationship between parents and kids). We were a hybrid Gen X and Millennial environment, based on age, situation, media, and era.

I grew up with 1990s media. The Soviet Union recently fell, and China was opening up to the world, which along with the US and Europe together helped integrate the world together. I played and watched Pokemon from Japan, and as I grew older I watched things like Cowboy Bebop and other anime. I was aware that more and more of my physical stuff was made in China. The movie Independence Day with Will Smith from the USA was popular, and other pro-America, pro-world movies and shows were popular. Europe was integrating together and had a very optimistic economic outlook (lol in hindsight), which came together with the euro currency. All sorts of optimism in media, with a pro-America and pro-World theme, everything seemed to be improving. I was playing Japanese Nintendo and Gamecube, filled with happiness and optimism, and Japanese Playstation (Final Fantasy 7 and 8), with some emo drama but generally positive. Later when I went to my friends homes, I played Playstation 2 and so forth, which had grittier content but still with a conception of ever-improving technology.

That was the social era I grew up in. Few or no phones, or basic flip phones at best. We were still out and experiencing the world as kids, in our rough and tumble way, or playing computer/console games (often together in someone’s living room while the parent was at work). But there was a social and media conception that things were improving, including global geopolitics and economics, which influenced me and the rest of the Millennial generation, even as I was also kind of raised as an independent Gen X that cooked for herself, was alone or with friends for long stretches of time while her father was at work, and would be respected enough to just be out with friends for hours at a time without the parent knowing where I was.

I’m grateful for this blend. I love the combination of the early Millennial era optimism (coming of age in the 1990s and early 2000s), but I also appreciate the grit of being raised in a trailer park by a single elderly father born in fucking 1935 who, by practical necessity, made me independent as soon as I was consciously able to be and threw me out into the working-class suburban wild. A lot of people born in the 1980s, not just me, kind of have a sweet spot there. Grit and optimism. I was a 7-year-old that from that point had to navigate cooking, house maintenance, neighbors, snow-shoveling, getting to the bus stop a mile away, but that also had a friendly relationship with her father as the only two people in the household, and who was raised in an environment of highly positive 1990s and early 2000s media and friends.

It has been interesting to watch media change over time. It has of course become grittier, darker, and more pessimistic. We had the 2007-2009 Great Recession, and then slow economic growth, and then all the 2020-2022 COVID stuff. Dark stuff is popular now. I also personally find that I like darker stuff. Optimistic stuff seems out-of-touch. This is our era.

And it has been interesting to watch social norms change as well, somewhat in the opposite direction. We became less optimistic in our media, even as we tried to become more inclusive in our social norms.

My father was a Republican and my mother was a Democrat. I was young and politically neutral until the US invaded Iraq in 2003 when I was 15-16. Most Republicans voted for it, and a sizable minority of Democrats voted for it, but far more Democrats opposed it than Republicans. Republicans opposed LGBT rights whereas Democrats supported them. Republicans were generally the war-on-drugs group and Democrats were more mixed in that regard. I was a blended Democrat or Libertarian in the sense that I didn’t like foreign war, and I also wanted adult LGBT people to have rights (many of which they didn’t have back then), and although I wanted rule of law on property I didn’t want the drug war, and was fiscally free-market oriented on taxes and regulations and so forth. Basically, my default setting in that context was socially liberal and fiscally moderate/nuanced. I defined myself as opposing the Iraq War and Drug War, and wanting my LGBT friends to have equal rights in an individualist but rule-of-law society. My focus was on individual freedom, with an emphasis on empathy and inclusiveness.

When I was in college, I worked as a resident assistant, meaning I helped freshman and sophomores become accustomed to living on campus away from their parents for the first time, and deal with their problems that might pop up. We (resident assistants) were the front line to help them get used to it, become independent, and to spot problems (e.g. suicidal students, which unfortunately happened on occasion). I also had to give diversity presentations.

Back then, and I’m talking late-2000s here, the diversity presentations that resident assistants like me had to do were rational and benign. It was just about awareness of statistics, and to ask why, and to discuss how we might be more cognizant of these differentials. The goal was to make people think and be self-aware, rather than to give them answers.

For example, we would do various exercises to identify privilege, like the male/white percentage of celebrities, superheroes, politicians, famous authors, and so forth to see how high the percentage was and to question why. The focus was on identifying the historical momentum of privilege and how many of our influences are drawn from that momentum, being aware of it, as social cognizant people, and that’s it. We also did totally different social bonding things, like video game tournaments (I always did Super Smash Bros), March Madness tournaments, and so forth that had nothing to do with race/gender/orientation/etc. The goal was to have fun, build a community, and then once in a while think about the concept of social momentum and how we might deliberately make a note to be more consciously inclusive of our friends, or media, and thinking to include everyone rather than ride on unconscious momentum. I think that’s healthy, and that’s all that we did at that time. It was about individualism combined with conscious inclusivism rather than unconscious riding on historical (often racist, sexist) momentum.

But now when I look at college campuses in the 2010s and 2020s, and society at large, it has obviously trended a lot differently since then. The full Millennial and Gen Z environment is very different than the Gen X and early Millennial environment. Many of them now have adopted a more cultural Marxist type of ideology where race/gender/orientation takes more of a center stage, and things have trended in a more extreme direction. In my college days of 2006-2010, I wasn’t even aware this was a modern thing.

In my primary through high schooling, I was raised in an environment of “racial blindness”. And in a multi-ethnic near-city suburban mixed neighborhood, that’s what it was. White kids were the majority (as is normal in the US), but there was an above-nation-average percentage of African Americans and Indians, along with many Hispanics and Asians and others (we were in the Northeast, which is less of a hot-spot for Hispanics and Asians). What me and my peers were brought up with, much like Martin Luther King Jr. said to do, was to base everything on character and content rather than superficial appearances like race, gender, orientation, etc. It makes sense to take some extra effort to reach out to under-represented groups and to proactively include them, but the whole point ultimately is to be focused on character, not on immutable characteristics. My friends where White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, Straight, LGBT, and the whole point was… it was boring. We were all friends. We observed each other’s differences but barely cared. To the extent that we had cultural differences, those were the spices around the edges, and made things better. The main point was our schooling, sports, and all of our other shared hardships that we bonded together to get through together.

Anyway, these are just things I observe or think about sometimes. There’s value in independence and self-reliance (Gen X), but there’s also value in social optimism and an explicitly and proactively welcoming community (Millennial), and in some sense I was born in and experienced the generational trends of both.

My view, in terms of Bitcoin or otherwise, is to be independent and self-reliant, and then *also* to go out and proactively build an optimistic broad community too. So as it relates to diversity, my view is to not force it, but to proactively reach out and gather it, but while emphasizing expertise as the most important thing and not trying to force baseless quotas.

This is, in my opinion, is basic rationality, optimism, and inclusiveness. I don’t see why it’s controversial, but every side seems to want to be extreme and fight each other. We can’t influence the desires of other people, but we can take the initiative to reach out and make spaces accepting, deliberately try to broaden the space, and see what happens from there to reach the broadest possible audience.

There are beautiful things to find in the world. Too bad our media seems intent to focus only on the ugly. People, accordingly, tend to develop a taste for the ugly.