Think Together

Social darwinism (or, as I called it Modern Jungle), and my conclusions were that the future is a society that codes itself:

"If we, as a mankind consciously define our goals, and pursue them, then that would not be market economy anymore. That would be planed economy, with carefully designed flexible, open and reasonable capital flow management system, informed by contribution-based and open risk management system, upon levels of hierarchies of variables, based on our needs that define them."

But a problem that I point out, is our mental limitations (mental health). So, I conclude that one way to enable the majority of people understand how society works as a whole, is to make the knowledge about how it makes everything, publicly accessible, and well-documented (a bit like in an IDE that helps you to drill down to any sub-procedure).

Another problem I pointed out, is algorithms and procedures being proprietary and non-transparent, and my worries that making them open may well may enable machines to self-replicate. I pointed out the monitoring systems as a possible precautionary measure. I could add, that cryptographic signing of operations with real human identities would also help to keep machines from taking over, so with that in mind, yeah, I think the "self-coding society" is a viable alternative to the "social darwinism".

I'll try to describe it as an idea and elaborate on it, as it may be possible to come up with more specifics.

An example is competing for food ala hunger games. Is it right? I find it disgusting.

I cannot compete to the same degree as others due to my illness, schizophrenia. This means I am stuck where I am in a lot of areas. (Closeness to doctors, hospitals) Had I been disabled in 1950s my life would be very different to today. Modern healthcare is far more ethical.

I want to compete and build a Linux desktop environment but I don't have the skills to do so. I struggle with learning new things due to my illness.

// So, "ad-idem" (or on ideas) would probably be the better approach. Again, it also heavily depends on how you formulate those questions.

If you read the idea again you get presented with ideas and you vote for or against them.

// People generally don't like to be judged

I think people enjoy doing quizzes and answering questions.

Television has to change. Programming is currently dumb or for the common denominator. Work takes up the majority of people's waking hours, so working hours have to change also. Perhaps to a four day working week. Then finally people have time and energy to create things.

I would like to see a "Person Count" on labels for products.

That's how many people benefit by you buying that product, the number of people that were involved in producing the product.

You could also track water usage, electricity usage and put that on the label.

This cannot be understated. Our time is limited, and unless we learn to make more of time (I mean, literally, working on extending life), we will run out of it. So, a vote for this.

Actually, through time and reflections on Network of Functions and World Mapping Assistant, I had come up with a higher level categorization system that is more compact and usable. It revolves around the concept of Systems, and involves only 5 classes of concepts: 100: Resource, 200: Category, 300: System, 400: Method, and 500: Operation. The details are on V2 ("Network Resource Vocabulary"). I currently use it to organize all crawled data. It follows a similar pattern how we categorize the HTTP responses with HTTP Status Codes. Perhaps these supercategories here could be used to extend that network resource vocabulary.

I wonder, is there something similar already done by others, and what approaches had they come up with.

I have some early proof that this experiment works. I had a community in 2013 with teachers whom I met this exact way on Twitter. I met Mindey in a similar way. I started collaborating with Malü this way too (whom I met online and asked to co-create a community with during our first call, that became a SAME project). Who else would like to join this experiment with me? :)

Before I talked to any of my friends (comments above), I wrote a reflection on my blog straight after watching a movie.

Now I realise that any topic can be interpreted in many ways: I have quite different points on my individual reflection and feedback from my friends. That makes me think that thinking individually and collectively are both important.

// “Albert Einstein refused to believe in a dice-playing deity. He wrote a letter to Max Born in which he said, ‘You believe in a God who plays dice and I in complete law and order.’ So, he obviously felt that chance and deterministic laws were not compatible. He preferred the deterministic laws. Now, what the Mandelbrot set and chaos and related things have done for us is to show that you can have both at the same time. It is not whether God plays dice that matters. It is how God plays dice.” — Prof. Ian Stewart (46:00) //

• Curious about randomness and order. What can we learn from Fractals to have more fluidity in our human lives and as society?

I asked Mansoor yesterday "how our projects can be fractal?" His answer was that it's project-specific. But a general idea is: "Elements can sync together to create a whole greater than its parts".

We had a fantastic exploration with Struppi! We played with spheres and vectors as magnets, and how they connect with one another into stable structures.

Notes:

• 2 as a minimum system ("you cannot know thyself without the other")

• Spheres as inside/outside/boundary ("no boundary between a human and nature because we're a shared air")

• Life having many forms (polyforms)

• Polycentric structure ("everyone can be a center of the Universe")

• Triangle as a balanced relationship (example of tiny spheres as a cube and as a tetra)..

We plan to continue exploring and go further: take general principles of synergetics and imagine practical examples of how would our world look like if tetrahedron is the basic structure vs cube (how would a city look like? a community? and so on)

Heh, that is so related to the idea of consumer price breakdown requirement. It may be unfair that someone with a machine who can produce millions of items of same quality goes to the same market to compete with handmade items, and people buying them without knowing the human-time estimate. If this human-time estimate were to be included into labels, like an ingredient (ingredients are often legally required to be included), then people would start realizing and adjusting certain social inequalities, like product pricing.