Re: Beg your pardon? (Was: Teach the hungry)

J. Maxwell Legg (
Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:13:07 +1200

Dan Fabulich wrote:

J. Maxwell Legg wrote:

>I'm glad you asked. What I mean by hoping that there will be beneficial timing
>a change of methods, is another way of saying that I'm not for a complete and
>utter destruction of the capitalist system prior to installing its replacement,

>but instead would prefer to opt for an orderly and enlightened change over. I'm

>encouraged towards the latter because of historical evidence in support of this

>view as expressed by the ultimate holders of capitalist power themselves
>to control the entire world's wealth simply in order to get rid of monetary
>speculation and the system that that measurement of wealth entails. However in
>the many worlds scenario these folk are playing in an environment beyond their

I'm not sure what you mean here. I suspect we've been reading very different books. :)

Most of the so-called "many worlds" scenarios that I'VE heard of tend to posit that all logically possible worlds exist, which on some level renders *everything* irrelevant. Is that what you're referring to?


However, I'm leaning towards the idea that maybe a quark-like thingy can vibrate backwards and forwards through time to stitch up coincidental cause and effect though
not necessarily in that order. In other words, an awful lot of historical baggage will have to have been created in order to knock out a simple software idea who's time has come.

To see this simple software idea -

More to the point, look at the way my email is slopped around, not only on this list but all throughout the course of unmediated human communication. Thread meltdown occurs as easily as subject headings getting changed willy nilly. When the Skull & Bones storm troopers come out of the woodwork to slay perceived dragons, information loss is the result. With all this undisciplined communication all that is likely to happen is that we will continue to jabber on while the super intelligent AI networks surpass any efforts at human control. However this doesn't have to be the case. As you know, I have an expressed interest in the future development of feedback loops via continuously adjusted summaries of all encompassing global activities.

Don't like what's going on here? Need a soapbox? Have a beef about something or other
then this will be your chance to have a say in the making of new global politics. I envision
a transitional and arbitrary global government based on a one size fits all qualitative
statistical mediator which works with synaptic units relative to the components at hand
where the results of each neuronomy (my word) affect the operation of super ordinate
constructions and vise versa. Best of all, I don't have to lift a finger because it's already
happening anyway. This is not just some utopian concept and because of the practicality
of now causally linking the billions of currently isolated clusters of information the result
would be a conscious reflection about the world. Hopefully, it would be to this common
sense that super intelligences will initially look for their source of identity and motivation, so in a sense we can control them by providing their ideal self image. Hopefully this image will reflect human effectiveness. There will be lots of daunting realities that may remain
as unconscious elements however these will not be forgotten and should be able to re-surface as conditions change.

The biggest hurdle to acceptance of such a form is not the criminal or deviant abuser
though their numbers will drastically shrink, but in aspiring to the rational hope that such an active global mediator can handle the problems of economic planning at all levels and
in fact do away with the use scarcity money for exchange or to store value. From the
individual to the group much the same software in all its guises will be on hand to act as
an intellectual collaborator for going right at the fabric of life as well as guiding the
individual through later uploading processes.

>As to how and why AI will influence the accounting business, several comments
>need to be made. Firstly, it will become obvious that AI's data mining efforts
>are being frustrated by the inability to access full transactional content.
>it will become globally apparent that national currencies are in fact an
>unregulated but inferior form of supervised neural network (i.e., all those
>cumbersome hidden layers, the invisible hand of capitalism, etc.) Capitalism is

>not a natural law of nature, as some like to say, and was born during times of
>inferior data gathering concepts.

So a "superior" form of neural network (unsupervised, presumably?) would be coordinated by/with/through AI? I take it you're presuming that AI will come in the form of a neural-like network or some other complex information processor. The impression I'm getting then is that people will turn on the Internet-or-something to find out what they need to do today (possibly wiring straight into the wet ware so that they're actually thinking with the net themselves). Am I close so far?

A reserved "Yes" to the above, except that needs and wants are necessarily undertaken
as different processes. The present economic drivers may/will still be active but there
will also be so many more all using the same forms of abstraction and delving into those
hard to get at bionomic and personal areas that the methods of reporting the same and
the motivation for doing so will be so unlike what restricted capitalism offers, so much so,
that the means of transactional measurement should at least for clarity's sake not be
called money. Don't forget that no land area on earth is presently exempt from the

totalitarian concept of money and that exchanging one concept for another at particular
moments in history has been done before. Like I said before the world's rulers are on
record as wanting to ultimately do away with capitalism and currency speculation. Let's
give them this part of what they want with the added rider that they then forget about
the continuing to rule bit.

>The literature of nonmonotonic relativity/clustering techniques shows up the
>skewed injustice of price coercion and other new connectionist models have been

>around long enough for these comparisons to have been noticed even by the
>accounting community.

I have no clear idea at all what this sentence means. Relativity/clustering techniques? Are you referring to the way in which income equality is measured? There's a lot of different people and ways of thinking that call themselves "connectionist." What do YOU mean here?

No, I'm referring to the way in which clusters of information need to maintain a set of
measurements applicable to type and where the same measurements can be used in other classifications. For example, at certain levels of abstraction the numbers 1 trough 5
could be used to represent the qualitative value of everything providing the element
being measured was in the correct context. In another example, a needs analysis would
register the appropriate amount of information to cause an action. I don't foresee the need to restrict the use of these numerical abstractions because of a scarcity of bits and there won't need to have an income of bits allotted as each abstraction will not subtract from a pool like money does in capitalism. Each abstraction will be a reflection amongst larger and larger circulations. Anyway, this is my view of a positive sum economy or what I now term a neuronomy. Get it?

Also, there is a common acceptance of what represents old connectionism and new connectionism. I understand basically that perceptrons were of the old kind and PCA / radial basis functions are of the newer. What is being looked for is less layers and more inferencing.

>In economics it is the loss of transactional binding caused by the
>inherent privacy of the capitalist accounting methods that will become an
>problem to be solved.
>Bi-directional transactional 'binding' is the key problem to which David Brin
>shown the solution.

What sort of binding are you referring to here? I'm not aware of Brin approaching a problem like what you're describing.


No, seriously! The bindings I refer to will make use of particular information a known
event to the other parties concerned. In other words the little guy will automatically be
afforded knowledge of how his personal data is being used by government and business.

21-C 4-96|41 BRIN: "I live off intellectual property. I would gain far more from openness than encryption. Encryption allows people to make infinite copies of my work. In an open
society, I will find the bootleg copier, and make him or her pay me the royalties."

I think Brin here is referring to my concept of binding, however we differ as to what
constitutes payment. Mine is not just a moot point but constitutes an all out attack
on the methods of accounting such that the use of the term 'money' may well be consigned to the dustbin of history.