[FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump

Wed Jan 22 02:59:17 EST 2020

Yep, I would go for this one. IMO we are involved in a collective process
where communication, reason, and action are indeed possible and
flourishing. Sure there are risks, climate change being one but not the
only one. Humanity is still very fragile and vulnerable to existential
risks like climate change, a big meteor or comet hitting the earth, a big
sun flare causing major damage to our electricity distribution networks,
new very dangerous, and others. The end could come before I finish this
sentence. But on the positive side if you observe the progress that has
happened, I am very optimistic that we are on the path towards a better
future.
I am a big fan of David Deutsch. Apart from him being part of having
developed the first quantum computer algorithm (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch%E2%80%93Jozsa_algorithm) , his views
on infinite progress as per his book The Beginning of Infinity resonates
very well with me.
I quote about the book from wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity)
“Deutsch views the Enlightenment of the 18th century as near the beginning
of an infinite sequence of purposeful knowledge creation. Knowledge here
consists of information with good explanatory function that has proven
resistant to falsification. Any real process is physically possible to
perform provided the knowledge to do so has been acquired. The
Enlightenment set up the conditions for knowledge creation which disrupted
the static societies that previously existed. These conditions are the
valuing of creativity and the free and open debate that exposed ideas to
criticism to reveal those good explanatory ideas that naturally resist
being falsified due to their having basis in reality. Deutsch points to
previous moments in history, such as Renaissance Florence and
Plato's Academy in Golden Age Athens, where this process almost got
underway before succumbing to their static societies' resistance to change.”

Pieter

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 01:05, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Nick writes:
>
> "So, in these sorts of situations, people tend to sort themselves out into
> Dionysians and Apollonians, the former declaring that we're probably
>  fucked and we might as well stay warm, run around in our cars, and burn
> all the coal we can, and the later declaring that we have a chance to get
> it right and we should take our best shot."
>
> How about one step back:  Are we involved in a collective process where
> communication, reason, and action are possible?   If we are not, then
> democracy is nothing more than a temporary way to keep the peace and to
> diffuse a need many have for (a feeling of) agency.  It is a rearrangement
> of deck chairs because soon the real shit will be coming down.   If all
> living creatures are just riding a wave, a process unfolding and going
> wherever it must go, some may recognize they have no control and rationally
> opt for the Dionysian approach.  Other living things like koalas and
> kangeroos and polar bears die by the millions, helpless and afraid.   At
> least the Dionysian gets the luxury of recognizing, "Yep, this is it."  It
> just depends on what kind of influence *can* work.  At one point the
> British Empire ruled over a quarter of the world.   Now it isn't even
> possible to get people to dispose of their plastic bottles properly.  I
> think the Apollonians better take charge ASAP, if that's what they are
> going to do.
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <
> gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:49 PM
> *To:* FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump
>
> Nah. I reject the dichotomy. I consider myself both D and an A, but in
> different domains. And I think it might be reasonable to time slice between
> A & D. My sister's ex used to say "We play hard and we work hard" ...
> indicating that they were both D & A, maybe even simultaneously, depending
> on how you interpret that.
>
> The more interesting thing about AGW is whether or not one *must* be a
> believer or a "skeptic" [†], and nothing in between. As a dyed in the wool
> agnostic, I neither believe nor am I a "skeptic", from gun control to
> abortion to AGW. I also don't like Britney Spears' music. But if she showed
> up at my door and asked me to ... oh, I don't know ... create a
> visualization package for her music, I would definitely do it, which would
> mean listening to her music a LOT for days on end. You don't have to agree
> with a mission in order to contribute to the mission.
>
> So, it seems to me to be *unreasonable* to run around complaining about
> how so many people are AGW believers. So what? If you don't want to work on
> the problem, go work on something else. It's just weird how the "skeptics"
> are so obsessed. E.g.
>
>   https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
>
>
> [†] In quotes to indicate that many people abuse the term. I am a skeptic,
> but not a "skeptic" ... if you grok the gist.
>
> On 1/21/20 12:17 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > While I am "in", it seems to me that a distinction is beginning to
> evolve here between whether a reasonable person CAN doubt Anthropogenic
> Global Warming (AGW) and whether such a person SHOULD doubt AGW.   I think
> reasonable people could argue whether we are in a period of AGW (400yrs), a
> period of global cooling (11,000 yrs) or a spectacularly fragile and
> geologically unprecedented period of climate stability (also about
> 11kyrs).  So, in these sorts of situations, people tend to sort themselves
> out into Dionysians and Apollonians, the former declaring that we're
> probably  fucked and we might as well stay warm, run around in our cars,
> and burn all the coal we can, and the later declaring that we have a chance
> to get it right and we should take our best shot.  I am, as you all know,
> with the Apollonians.  We are, after all, the choosing species, the species
> that can knowingly chart it's own path.  So we “should” choose; in fact, we
> /will/ chose, even if we only do so by
> > choosing not to choose.
> >
> >
> >
> > But it's clear, now why the debate is so intractable.  The debate
> between Dionysians and Apollonians has been in progress for centuries, so
> it's no surprise that we are struggling with it now.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hear some of you formulating an argument that whether we are D’s or
> A’s should be determined by the shape of the hazard space.  As a
> collective, I think we FRIAMMERS are particularly well positioned and
> qualified to have that discussion, and I hope it will continue.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200122/3b7029d5/attachment.html>