[FRIAM] *-sovereignty

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Right, which came on the tail end of the argument about anti-vaxers' claims of bodily sovereignty. Part of Kim's argument *for* the vaccine mandates is that one's self doesn't really stop at one's skin. We're permeable to, participants in, the molecular/organismal stew in which we swim. In this context, bodily sovereignty is clearly bogus. Sure, back before the industrial revolution the concept of person/entity autonomy carried some water. But in an age where we get everything from our body dysmorphia from TikTok to our meat shrink-wrapped and shipped from some fly over state, bodily sovereignty is nonsense.

But in their defense, these membranes are not permeable to *everything*. My attempt to bridge the gap between Jon's argument and Kim's was presaged by my discussion of "free will" with EricC. Pragmatically, even if we *know* some diseased mind like Ted Kaczynski isn't autonomously responsible for his behavior, we still toss that psycho in jail, delineating him from his environment by way of his skin. I suppose analogous to quantum decoherence, given a particular context, it's within epsilon accurate to treat him as an atomic object. (Not Schroedinger's Meme, here but a kind of uncertainty principle. You either know what the meme is about or you know where the meme resides. But you can't know both?)

So, bodily sovereignty works in some contexts and fails in others. Disagreement dissolved. Quaff your pint and relax. 8^D

But I agree with Marcus. Unless we can get autonomy and panmixia to elegantly *fall out* of a unified construct, it'll remain a buzzword bandied about by hucksters and the delusional. This is yet another reason the Stadler paper on the ... mechanisticality (mechanisticness?) of integer hyperflows triggered me. These threads also evoke the conversation Jon tried to have about zero-knowledge proofs. It seems like ZKPs (perhaps including tech like homomorphic encryption) hint at a more elegant construct for demonstrating one's authenticity while preserving one's place on a spectrum between autonomy or panmixia.

On 10/18/21 10:43 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> At VFriam with Glen and Jon.  as I came into their discussion on identity, I brought up Self-Sovereignty Identity as something we're designing for in our day job with Realtime.Earth.
> 
> If we classify Web 1.0 (1993-2005) roughly simple pages with databases and forms. Web 2.0 (~2005-2015) was an era of social media, user-generated content and mobile. In the Web 3.0 (~2015-present)  buzzword space, self-sovereign identity is one of three primary components:
> 
>  1. Geospatial: AR, VR, digital twin, and physically interacting in the world
>  2. Decentralization: blockchain, cryptocurrency, NFT, Acequia
>  3. *Self-Sovereign Identity:* web 2.0 identity was dominated by Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Verizon, Government (if in China not USA- we can't even manage a vote with government identity) 
>      1.  Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity>
>      2. image.png
>         https://www.powells.com/book/-9781617296598/2-0 <https://www.powells.com/book/-9781617296598/2-0>
>      3. Sandy Pentland's New Economy: Data as Capital
>         https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-new-economy <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-new-economy>
>         https://youtu.be/Jgg2N1Tnnw8 <https://youtu.be/Jgg2N1Tnnw8>


> 
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:21 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     The Diverse Meanings of Digital Sovereignty
>     https://globalmedia.mit.edu/2020/08/05/the-diverse-meanings-of-digital-sovereignty/ <https://globalmedia.mit.edu/2020/08/05/the-diverse-meanings-of-digital-sovereignty/>
> 
>     "
>     1) Cyberspace sovereignty
>     2) State Digital Sovereignty
>     3) Indigenous digital sovereignty
>     4) Social movements digital sovereignty
>     5) 'Personal' digital sovereignty
>     "
> 
>     Oh how I hate that word "digital".


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ