Whew!

[Owen Densmore]

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

   -- Owen

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[George Duncan-2]

Anyone like to bet that we will now address these issues "rationally" so that there will be either funding for Pre-K or disincentives for sugary drinks? I will take the opposite side of that bet.

We now see the power of those corporate interests who will provide the millions of dollars needed to defeat any tax proposal that might hurt them. Some how I do not expect them to be funding Pre-K education by any means. Also any new proposal to tax sugary drinks will prompt their money to be put into opposition. Further note what our Governor said in response to yesterday's defeat about the public  mood to increase taxes.

Yes, elitists may well think that Pre-K dominates cheap soda. And, yes, elitists don't drink Coca-Cola and instead like Perrier water. So District votes hardly surprising.

Duncan

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

   -- Owen

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

It seems to me that Santa Fe is sort of a spectator to the country.  Many of the residents are retired.  Other residents work for the military/industrial complex or tourism industries and are detached the poverty of the state.   

 

I think these kinds of unsustainable, desperation revenue measures are part of a process of collapsing the low population, low cooperation parts of the country and increasing the power of the cities.   What are people thinking anyway, raising a kid out here in the middle of nowhere?

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of George Duncan
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:30 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

 

Anyone like to bet that we will now address these issues "rationally" so that there will be either funding for Pre-K or disincentives for sugary drinks? I will take the opposite side of that bet.

 

We now see the power of those corporate interests who will provide the millions of dollars needed to defeat any tax proposal that might hurt them. Some how I do not expect them to be funding Pre-K education by any means. Also any new proposal to tax sugary drinks will prompt their money to be put into opposition. Further note what our Governor said in response to yesterday's defeat about the public  mood to increase taxes.

 

Yes, elitists may well think that Pre-K dominates cheap soda. And, yes, elitists don't drink Coca-Cola and instead like Perrier water. So District votes hardly surprising.

 

Duncan

 

 

George Duncan

Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com

See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Land: [phone]  

Mobile: [phone]

 
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

 

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.

 

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

 

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

 

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

 

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

 

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

 

Amen!

 

   -- Owen!

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

You forget George, that the political Mafia that runs Santa Fe city government not only put together a stupidly doomed proposal, but also brought in outside money that MATCHED the amount of money brought in by corporate interests.  Some of you may remember that $250,000 of outside money also came into the Mayor's race after the City Council had passed legislation to insure a citizen-funded municipal campaign.  As it turned out, the Mayor would have won without the extra money that local power brokers brought in from outside.  Another loss for local democracy and getting money out of politics.  Cry the Beloved City.  Because we really really need pre-K.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:29 AM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anyone like to bet that we will now address these issues "rationally" so that there will be either funding for Pre-K or disincentives for sugary drinks? I will take the opposite side of that bet.

We now see the power of those corporate interests who will provide the millions of dollars needed to defeat any tax proposal that might hurt them. Some how I do not expect them to be funding Pre-K education by any means. Also any new proposal to tax sugary drinks will prompt their money to be put into opposition. Further note what our Governor said in response to yesterday's defeat about the public  mood to increase taxes.

Yes, elitists may well think that Pre-K dominates cheap soda. And, yes, elitists don't drink Coca-Cola and instead like Perrier water. So District votes hardly surprising.

Duncan

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

   -- Owen

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[George Duncan-2]

​Hey, Merle, I don't remember forgetting where the money for this campaign came from. According to the AP, 

Campaign finance reports show New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg contributed $1.1 million to a pro-tax committee. The American Beverage Association spent $1.3 million against the tax.​

Also, relevant is what organizations were for it and what organizations were against? Again according to the AP,

Spending by rival political committees pitted the American Beverage Association and allied local businesses against soda-tax backers including Bloomberg, teachers unions, the American Heart Association and the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting allies to a "political mafia". 

Yes, we do need pre-K and now with this defeat I see no path towards getting it.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

You forget George, that the political Mafia that runs Santa Fe city government not only put together a stupidly doomed proposal, but also brought in outside money that MATCHED the amount of money brought in by corporate interests.  Some of you may remember that $250,000 of outside money also came into the Mayor's race after the City Council had passed legislation to insure a citizen-funded municipal campaign.  As it turned out, the Mayor would have won without the extra money that local power brokers brought in from outside.  Another loss for local democracy and getting money out of politics.  Cry the Beloved City.  Because we really really need pre-K.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:29 AM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anyone like to bet that we will now address these issues "rationally" so that there will be either funding for Pre-K or disincentives for sugary drinks? I will take the opposite side of that bet.

We now see the power of those corporate interests who will provide the millions of dollars needed to defeat any tax proposal that might hurt them. Some how I do not expect them to be funding Pre-K education by any means. Also any new proposal to tax sugary drinks will prompt their money to be put into opposition. Further note what our Governor said in response to yesterday's defeat about the public  mood to increase taxes.

Yes, elitists may well think that Pre-K dominates cheap soda. And, yes, elitists don't drink Coca-Cola and instead like Perrier water. So District votes hardly surprising.

Duncan

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

   -- Owen

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

My wife Deborah graduated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education having specialized in early childhood development.  She has made it clear to me over the years that the benefits of pre-K are enormous cognitively and socially.  Is that clear to everyone or would references be helpful?  

Frank

On May 3, 2017 4:18 PM, "George Duncan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

​Hey, Merle, I don't remember forgetting where the money for this campaign came from. According to the AP, 

Campaign finance reports show New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg contributed $1.1 million to a pro-tax committee. The American Beverage Association spent $1.3 million against the tax.​

Also, relevant is what organizations were for it and what organizations were against? Again according to the AP,

Spending by rival political committees pitted the American Beverage Association and allied local businesses against soda-tax backers including Bloomberg, teachers unions, the American Heart Association and the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting allies to a "political mafia". 

Yes, we do need pre-K and now with this defeat I see no path towards getting it.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

You forget George, that the political Mafia that runs Santa Fe city government not only put together a stupidly doomed proposal, but also brought in outside money that MATCHED the amount of money brought in by corporate interests.  Some of you may remember that $250,000 of outside money also came into the Mayor's race after the City Council had passed legislation to insure a citizen-funded municipal campaign.  As it turned out, the Mayor would have won without the extra money that local power brokers brought in from outside.  Another loss for local democracy and getting money out of politics.  Cry the Beloved City.  Because we really really need pre-K.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:29 AM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anyone like to bet that we will now address these issues "rationally" so that there will be either funding for Pre-K or disincentives for sugary drinks? I will take the opposite side of that bet.

We now see the power of those corporate interests who will provide the millions of dollars needed to defeat any tax proposal that might hurt them. Some how I do not expect them to be funding Pre-K education by any means. Also any new proposal to tax sugary drinks will prompt their money to be put into opposition. Further note what our Governor said in response to yesterday's defeat about the public  mood to increase taxes.

Yes, elitists may well think that Pre-K dominates cheap soda. And, yes, elitists don't drink Coca-Cola and instead like Perrier water. So District votes hardly surprising.

Duncan

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, and Elitism? Culturalism?

Well the south side districts overwhelmly trounced it: 69% & 73% Even the most liberal districts were 50-50.

   -- Owen

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Voters smack down mayor’s beverage tax proposal

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html

Now maybe we can focus on health, pre-K, etc rationally rather than tying them together idiotically.

Quote:

Opponents resisted the proposed tax as an unfair overreach by city leaders and not the best way to fulfill a recognized need for expanding access to preschool programs.

Amen!

   -- Owen!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Though definitely less scifi than it used to be, Ted's prediction is clearly wrong in the most important part: increasing specialization.  The distinction missing (here -- I haven't read the manifesto) is the distinction between special vs general intelligence.  GI is still mysterious and we're a long way from any GAI.  And what passes for SAI like Watson and AlphaGo are still not very much like, say, the nerd who wins all the trivia nights or a professional Go player who also happens to be married.  The idea that humans will become the specialized intelligences and the system (bureaucracy and/or robots) will become the general intelligence(s) is proving false.

But the moral and ethical part of what he's saying is coming true.  And the ability of corporations to pit us against each other is _clearly_ true, as evidenced in the thread. 8^)  Of course, part of our _elite_ superpower is our ability to tease apart complex structures (like Ted, Coca-Cola, and the etiology of diabetes).  So, small disagreement clearly would never disable our ability to recognize and work towards larger agreement.

Tangent re: anarchists -- my usual argument that those who call themselves "anarchist" must "police themselves" in the same way actual Christians (who hold Jesus' sayings highest) should police the "Christians", won't work.  Or maybe it will.  These "thoughtful anarchists" Merle talks about have a duty to distinguish their beliefs and actions from, eg, the black bloc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc).  Or, maybe not.  Merle, do these thoughtful anarchists support smashing windows and burning piles of trash in the middle of the city?  Or are such behaviors limited only to "thoughtless anarchists"?  (No judgement on my part either way.  I'm sympathetic to the idea that we sometimes have to go through a trough to reach a peak.  A little disordered heat is sometimes necessary to obtain a stronger crystal.)


On 05/03/2017 07:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> “175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality.
> The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.”

--
☣ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

They are "thoughtful anarchists" who do non-violent civil disobedience---the stuff people like "Earth First" used to do, when they were holding down the far left of the old environmental movement.  Some consider their actions"destructive" but they don't promote violence in their own ranks.  They know, however, that their provocations often provoke outsiders to respond with violence.

The alternative new world vision is one of community and sharing--because technology will not get us out of the profound implications of rapid climate change.  We will have to change the way we live in the world.  More competition is not a survival strategy at this moment.  Stu Kauffman is back in town and he and I are meeting later this afternoon to continue expanding our ongoing conversation about how the concept of the "adjacent possible" might be helpful in thinking about the new world order.  I've always thought complexity thinking might point the way. 

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:07 AM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Though definitely less scifi than it used to be, Ted's prediction is clearly wrong in the most important part: increasing specialization.  The distinction missing (here -- I haven't read the manifesto) is the distinction between special vs general intelligence.  GI is still mysterious and we're a long way from any GAI.  And what passes for SAI like Watson and AlphaGo are still not very much like, say, the nerd who wins all the trivia nights or a professional Go player who also happens to be married.  The idea that humans will become the specialized intelligences and the system (bureaucracy and/or robots) will become the general intelligence(s) is proving false.

But the moral and ethical part of what he's saying is coming true.  And the ability of corporations to pit us against each other is _clearly_ true, as evidenced in the thread. 8^)  Of course, part of our _elite_ superpower is our ability to tease apart complex structures (like Ted, Coca-Cola, and the etiology of diabetes).  So, small disagreement clearly would never disable our ability to recognize and work towards larger agreement.

Tangent re: anarchists -- my usual argument that those who call themselves "anarchist" must "police themselves" in the same way actual Christians (who hold Jesus' sayings highest) should police the "Christians", won't work.  Or maybe it will.  These "thoughtful anarchists" Merle talks about have a duty to distinguish their beliefs and actions from, eg, the black bloc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc).  Or, maybe not.  Merle, do these thoughtful anarchists support smashing windows and burning piles of trash in the middle of the city?  Or are such behaviors limited only to "thoughtless anarchists"?  (No judgement on my part either way.  I'm sympathetic to the idea that we sometimes have to go through a trough to reach a peak.  A little disordered heat is sometimes necessary to obtain a stronger crystal.)


On 05/03/2017 07:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> “175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality.
> The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.”

--
☣ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

 

“The alternative new world vision is one of community and sharing--because technology will not get us out of the profound implications of rapid climate change.”

 

Maybe after some big extinction event.  Until then, how about some holes?  There are some respectable numbers here compared to 10 billion tons a year of carbon. 

 

http://globalenergyobservatory.org/list.php?db=Resources&type=CO2_Storage

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders" or whatnot?  If someone comes to me and says "I'm an anarchist", what choice do I have but to assume they're a violent idiot who would rather throw bricks through my window than tolerate a demonstrably effective bureacracy?


On 05/04/2017 12:13 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> They are "thoughtful anarchists" who do non-violent civil disobedience---the stuff people like "Earth First" used to do, when they were holding down the far left of the old environmental movement.  Some consider their actions"destructive" but they don't promote violence in their own ranks.  They know, however, that their provocations often provoke outsiders to respond with violence.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

The remarks of Carne Ross are worth a listen.  For example the linked interview with Bill Moyer's.   I haven't read his book.   

He still can't seem to get away from the diplomacy thing because I'd summarize it as "You whiners should really take some responsibility for yourselves."

http://www.carneross.com/about

To the extent I disagree with him it is because people won't take responsibility.  So they get what they get, that's just the nature of things.

It's never been clear to me how the nonviolence thing is supposed to work.   As technology advances and if governmental controls weaken, the instruments of force will become easier to acquire.  It seems silly to think it won't be used even if 99% of the population won't support organizations that use it. 

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of glen ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 4:37:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

 

So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders" or whatnot?  If someone comes to me and says "I'm an anarchist", what choice do I have but to assume they're a violent idiot who would rather throw bricks through my window than tolerate a demonstrably effective bureacracy?


On 05/04/2017 12:13 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> They are "thoughtful anarchists" who do non-violent civil disobedience---the stuff people like "Earth First" used to do, when they were holding down the far left of the old environmental movement.  Some consider their actions"destructive" but they don't promote violence in their own ranks.  They know, however, that their provocations often provoke outsiders to respond with violence.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump, etc.  Same effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can preen and pick at the language all day.  But unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as every other well-paved road to hell.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear about the self-contradictory nature of such things.


On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

> Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
> groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
> able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
> non-violence is the winning strategy.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
>> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
>> or whatnot?

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

Well said, Glen.  At the same time, some of us who are not anarchists (I'm still on the journey) understand that the actions of many who call themselves Democrats, or Republicans, or President or Congressmen or CEOs--just a few seemingly less extreme examples--all exemplify the "different demagoguery" you mention.  (Thanks for including Trump.)  The question of responsibility for collective action is a big one.  At some level I actually do feel a sense of responsibility for the people around the world who are voting for 21st century fascism.  Our cultural values in the U.S. have become a source of much destruction and despair. 

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump, etc.  Same effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can preen and pick at the language all day.  But unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as every other well-paved road to hell.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear about the self-contradictory nature of such things.


On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
> groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
> able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
> non-violence is the winning strategy.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
>> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
>> or whatnot?

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but
doesn't it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive
speech (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended
to *persuade* and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion),
then they are responsible for the consequences of their persuasion.

I have a strong identification with the ideals of anarchism, as I do
with libertarianism, and to a lesser extent conservative and progressive
ideals.   I am not eager, however, to proseletyze on any of those
subjects overmuch *lest* I persuade someone to act on those ideals,  
Action, also by it's very nature, is intrinsically irresponsible.   We
can never know the full consequences of our actions, so we take them
based on a lick and a promise that they won't go totally and
unexpectedly bad.

Talking and acting are a risky business it seems.   But it is the stuff
of being in the world.  I believe it was Rumi who suggested we "be IN
but not OF the world".   Subtle business.

I appreciate your use of the term "elite sophists" here.   It is the
place I retreat to and feel that is what most of the discussion here
(about religion, politics, social, economic theory) is... the use of
sophist(icated) language to try to understand complex and subtle
phenomena but from a somewhat distanced perspective allowed by our
various circumstance.

- Steve


On 5/5/17 9:03 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

> OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump, etc.  Same effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can preen and pick at the language all day.  But unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as every other well-paved road to hell.
>
> To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear about the self-contradictory nature of such things.
>
>
> On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>> Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
>> groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
>> able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
>> non-violence is the winning strategy.
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
>>> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
>>> or whatnot?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

< Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause. >

There is an underlying moral stance, that damage of some kind occurs without decentralized control systems, and that groups ought not damage things.  For the violent anarchist Kaczynski, the damage he perceived was to personal dignity and avoiding feelings of helplessness.    As a class, anarchists could agree that some kinds of social damage are more important than others, and thus wiggle out of taking responsibility for what other people, with other moral systems, call "damage".  For example, if property damage or injury or waste occurs, that is ok to them so long as the agent performing the injury was free and the other agent who was injured arguably had opted not to be.   One simply defines-away the humanity of the individuals complicit in oppression because they (in this view) deserve it.  Sure it is a dance with nihilism but it is also distinct from nihilism.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

" But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed."

I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded.  To certain technologists, there is the view that our culture is made up of rule-based parts that act much like software.  They are not personal (in your terminology), they are abstractions that take on a significance of their own.   If one can get voters to embrace a set of slogans, or go to a building on Sunday to hold their head down periodically, or throw someone in prison because of an interpretation of a law, then it is not personal.  It's a generalized abstraction that some advocate like a priest or legislator threw-up and managed to get to stick.  The view that "knowledge is power" is another form.   Free software advocates like Stallman are well-aware of the thinking of scholars like Chomsky.   And certainly folks like Assange crossed paths with the free software movement (in the Stallman sense) on several occasions.   So, rather than handing out weapons, they hand out tools and information because these technologists believe that is the basis for power in the world, or soon will be.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

< I disagree.  These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract.  When you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to Wikileaks, that's personal.  When you spend 1/2 your day futzing with dependencies so you can use open source tools to edit the ROM on your phone, that 1/2 day is personal.  And when you spend hours reading through really boring e-mails from and to someone like Podesta or some banker in the Cook Islands, that's personal. >

These local representations are not necessarily the same or even similar and interesting insights come about from the simple act of distribution.   Assange is arrogant, but he is not so arrogant to think that someone else may be able to profoundly contextualize the documents he distributes.   Similarly, anyone that has worked with component-oriented software has had the experience of discovering a new unintended use for an artifact.   Whether any given distribution act is constructive or destructive is arguable, but there are certainly examples where millions of people would agree that it was constructive, e.g. the Linux kernel.  

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"Linux is useless without a shell like GNU.  But that doesn't mean those artifacts are somehow abstractions."

There's abstract as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence".   A computer program not really physical.   It can be represented as physical state as in neural tissue.   DRAM charge conditions or magnetic fields on a hard disk.

There's abstract as "consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else".   Linux is abstract in this sense as it enables users not to think about certain issues.

There's abstract as "extract or remove (something)" as one does when refactoring.   To capture the essence or to generalize over alternative implementations.

I make no distinction between mathematical abstractions and computer programs.  Most people think of computer programs as operational and imperative, but the artifact of a Mathematica code and a derivation in front of a whiteboard can be the same referent.  

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

FWIW, I would try not to over-parse "rhetoric" any more than I over-parse "abstract".  All informational language is persuasive and all persuasive language is informative.  The distinction is false, I think.  We see this most egregiously in the saying: If you want to learn something, read about it. If you want to understand something, write about it. If you want to master something, teach it.

As in the argument with Vladimyr, I take the same position.  There is no stable "you".  There is no such thing as the "mind".  What does exist, however, is the real stuff around you, including your fingers, your tongue, your ears, etc.  As you write down your rhetoric, you (as Eric suggested) reconfigure yourself.  In my own personal experience, the act of saying or writing something can either verify or decohere whatever physiological state I was in before.  (Note these acts address logical validity, not soundness.  That has to be done interpersonally, through a more isotropic medium.)  Another example is when you, say, write code and then have to read that code 10 years later.  The writing is both persuasive and informative.  In fact, to emphasize the false distinction is to engage in the very abstraction I'm ranting against.  Yes, Steve, you are as evil as the rest of us. 8^)

Similarly, in direct response to Marcus' "listeners bear responsibility" ... I was reared to avoid stating the obvious.  But as I die, it becomes more obvious that one person's obvious is another's occult.  So, to be clear, I'm arguing that all these things are tightly coupled.  Soooo ... yes, of course the listener bears some responsibility.  If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a speaker abstracting their self.

And you're right that it bears directly on the obvious false equivalence between intelligence and AI, specific or general.  It would be great fun to use AI to craft a new political philosophy.  Of course, I like stochasticity, so I'd simply train an Eddington typewriter on Marx, Ghandi, Hitler, Roosevelt, etc. and see what popped out.  That would probably be as effective as any body of rhetoric that popped out of any one "mind".



On 05/05/2017 10:55 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing match here.  The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be blinding but engaging.   The content, when I feel I have parsed it down all the way is usually enlightening and informative.
>
> Rather than try to join in and thus create a bit of a melee, I will try to stand back and lob a few things onto the ground of the discussion.
>
> Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes "to inform" as well as "to persuade"
>
> I believe that both of you are primarily using language intended to inform in this (and most if not all) discussions in this forum.   But I also believe that MOST public discourse is fundamentally rhetorical.   Noam Chomsky might be the closest to a public figure outside of hard sciences who seems able to refrain from deliberately conflating persuasive and informational language.
>
> My point in this pivots around Marcus' point here of "Listeners, bear some responsibility too".  In my general experience, but acutely informed by our recent elections, MOST listeners seek out persuasive rhetoric which supports their existing beliefs... and ignore or at least are fairly unaware of the difference of that from informational rhetoric.   They are not seeking to understand or even learn more, they are seeking to confirm existing biases and to adopt convincing rhetoric to flail their opponents with.
>
> I particularly appreciate the discussions the two of you share with the rest of us here, but there are many (or at least several) others who seem to maintain a similar level of honest intent to inform and/or explore rather than simply persuade.
>
> Touching briefly onthe OP or is it OT, I thnk that both SAI and GAI may be a severe travesty in our culture to whatever extent we "listeners" don't take responsibility.   Will AI become the new speechwriters?   Have they already?   I think that Artificial Wisdom will come much later than effective Artificial Intelligence and would seem to need to grow out of GAI rathr than SAI.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove