Dark Enlightenment

[AnonyMint]

I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608

Thanks. A refutation would be more helpful.

The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.

Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.

Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?

With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.

The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.

[AnonyMint]

Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source".

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716

There is very limited ‘knowledge networking value’ for carrots. Extrapolate from there.

What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation?

Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models?

Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate.

The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity.

Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742

Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.

We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.

The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.

[AnonyMint]

Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217

> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy.

Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.

For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).

Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.

Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.

> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free.

In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.

And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future.

[AnonyMint]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286

> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest.

I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).

I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.

[AnonyMint]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-481122

Decreased transactional friction leads directly to elimination of the opportunities for arbitrage. I can buy plenty of products and services directly from Shenzhen, and there’s no profit for a new middleman.

I assume your implied point is that as knowledge moves more freely then no one can build a Buffet-esque moat to defend profit. Your correct use of the term "middleman" goes to the heart of my counter-logic. Remember I wrote upthread that knowledge creation isn't fungible. So when you need something created based on an existing body of work, you need an expert. Let me distill that for you. As the transactional costs of knowledge sharing decreases, the profit moves closer to the producer of knowledge and away from the rent-seeking middlemen. Diversity of creation and the maximum division-of-labor guarantee that moat but where it is rightfully deserved personal property. People will finally own their expertise and creative energy.

Eric I continue to honor you. Peace.

[AnonyMint]

Generally speaking, the point of life (at lower levels) is to make more life.  This is someways is explained well in The Selfish Gene.  It will do this by any means necessary and those means often mean creating gradients.  So life doesn't reduce gradients, it creates them.

Maximizing entropy (disorder) is the maximization of the number of equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom. Btw, degrees-of-freedom is potential energy. Creating more unique (every human is!) instances life increases diversity, granularity, and degrees-of-freedom. Procreation is breaking down the concentrated gradient (order a.k.a. kinetic energy) incoming from the Sun into maximum entropy or potential energy.

I got into this in the Information Is Alive! and The Universe essays at my blog (see my signature).

Schneider is semantically incomplete though on one point. jabo38 is correct, the goal of life is to maximize the instances life, yet life goes hand-in-hand with death because if nothing dies then procreation rate has to diminish. So in that sense Schneider is correct as quoted.

That was appreciated but let's not discuss that philosophical tangent further in this thread, so we don't bury the main point of this thread. We've already built a sufficient case for the point w.r.t. to stated goals for crypto-currency. I strongly urge to move further discussion on that to the Dark Enlightenment or Economic Devastation thread. I will copy this post there. You can click "Quote" then copy+paste into a Reply at any thread.

[Mike Christ]

This must be what limbo feels like

[Xello]

The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ ! 

[AnonyMint]

The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ ! 

You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.

[MilkyWayMasta]

The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ ! 

You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.

I'm young. What do you suggest?

[AnonyMint]

The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !  

You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.

I'm young. What do you suggest?

1. Get involved with a micro payments, cpu-minable, anonymity coin to accelerate the coming of #2 below. Some discussion on that at another thread I started.

2. Develop your skills in some creativity activity in which some aspect of it interfaces with content that can be delivered electronically, e.g. 3D printing designs, programming, biotech, nanotech, marketing plans, medical tech and art, visual arts, audio arts, etc..

Did you know it is possible to print an entire house of marble using a 3D printer:

http://d-shape.com/

Get in touch with your creativity ability. Most men have this as it is sort of innate to being a man. There are so many areas. This isn't restricted to just programming. You see that D-Shape is very hands on, get your hands dirty. Some men like to work with their hands, not just their mind.

In short, become a hacker, in the broadest definition of the term.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is

P.S. I'd love to see you guys help improve the Flying Car.

[MilkyWayMasta]

The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !  

You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.

I'm young. What do you suggest?

1. Get involved with a micro payments, cpu-minable, anonymity coin to accelerate the coming of #2 below. Some discussion on that at another thread I started.

2. Develop your skills in some creativity activity in which some aspect of it interfaces with content that can be delivered electronically, e.g. 3D printing designs, programming, biotech, nanotech, marketing plans, medical tech and art, visual arts, audio arts, etc..

Did you know it is possible to print an entire house of marble using a 3D printer:

http://d-shape.com/

Get in touch with your creativity ability. Most men have this as it is sort of innate to being a man. There are so many areas. This isn't restricted to just programming. You see that D-Shape is very hands on, get your hands dirty. Some men like to work with their hands, not just their mind.

In short, become a hacker, in the broadest definition of the term.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is

P.S. I'd love to see you guys help improve the Flying Car.

Thanks for the post AnonyMint. I've been reading your posts almost everyday for a few weeks now and I appreciate your sharing of astute observations, it has helped me get a better sense of where I should be spending my time in.

[AnonyMint]

A test claimed I used to be ENFP, 44/88/25/22%. Took the test again, and P increased but more balanced E @ ENFP, 22/88/25/56%.

ENFP
Extravert(22%)  iNtuitive(88%)  Feeling(25%)  Perceiving(56%)
You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (22%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%)
You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (56%)

As for the slight preference for F but it is local in scope (e.g. I didn't hesitate to predict massive technological unemployment ahead), and let's say I can switch it off and go into thinking mode. The update is saying I am less extroverted but only very slightly so, because I answered that I get pleasure from quiet and solitude, but this only so I can think and it didn't ask me if I am constantly interacting with others in forums. I just find the forum interaction more stimulating than parties which are superficial and less focused on common interests. I answered that have empathy for others and that I proceed on problems without calculating the complete solution in advance. This isn't lack of T and S, rather it is me incrementing the "publish early and often" process of open sourcing my learning and  R&D process.

So actually I am very balanced ET, and moderating more on P for perceiving than Judging, but on the N I am very intuitive even though I do incorporate sensing but I don't allow sensing to slow down my process of discovery and experimentation.

This is what I strive for, balance on ET, more P but not carelessly, and turboboost on intuitive experimentation and inquiry.

I share more in common with these people:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php (Visionary)
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php (Thinker)

Than these:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php (Indealist)

Or these (although I share slight characteristics with Mark Twain and some other writers/artists there):

http://www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php (Inspirer)

See also:

https://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html

Add:

BS Obama is not ENTP, rather he is ?N?J (and not quite sure if he is extrovert with feelings or if that is a facade), as quite evident by these quotes and joins Newton, Karl Marx, Aryn Rand, Nietzsche, ZSuckerberg, Elon Musk, Keynes, and other judgmental introverted thinkers or the extrovert judgmental thinkers such as Napoleon, Caesar, Bill Gates, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove or the introverted judgmental feelers such as Noam Chomsky, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Chiang Kai-shek, Osama bin Laden or the extroverted judgmental feelers such as Cicero, Joe Biden, Tony Blair, Michael Moore, Joseph Goebbels, Oprah Winfrey, Bono. The key is that all evil politicians and wacko philosophers are judging types. They want to force their will on others, rather letting the free market decide and just perceive what the free market is doing.

I am nearly sure Obama is non-feeling and is feigning empathy. His "you didn't build that" is an example of his judgments. He isn't perceiving and interacting with the world. He is privately forming his pet Theory of the Day which is based in his sole judgment not on actual data or perception. One of the quotes Obama says he is faced with decisions every day where at best one can only be 30 - 40% chance of being correct. So he is saying that his judgment is applied. An ENTP would refuse to make a decision in that case. We would step away and let the free market decide. You can see him say in the linked video that the American dream of non-ideological liberalism wasn't working out, so clearly he is making a judgment. Obama was exposed to a lot of judging in his childhood and decided to make its his role to fix it (with more judging).

The salient trait of judging is they think they must act and it must be applied to others against their will for the greater good.

[CoinCube]

Hey now I am an INTJ too.
I always come down 55/45 on the J/P split every time I take that test.
Ha ha lots of INTJ's out there. INTJ discrimination I tell you =)
Then again maybe it has to do with the degree of judging.

We have some weaknesses
INTJ are driven to come to conclusions about an idea so you may see us jump into a position early.
We are quick to express judgment and are often initially convinced we are right about a position initially (even when we are not).
INTJ strongly favor systems and organization and this may give us a tendency to favor socialist solutions early in life.

However, our weakness are offset by some very powerful strengths.
INTJ apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything including their own ideas.
If an INTJ discovers that a system does not work he will focus his efforts on dismantling and repairing the broken system.
We tend to be very strong strategic planners (arguably the strongest of all of the types)
INTJ's are very good at seeing the objective reality of a situation.

Edit: Retook the test recently and came out ESFP. Thats new. Maybe I was feeling outgoing that day.

[AnonyMint]

Hey now I am an INTJ too.
I always come down 55/45 on the J/P split every time I take that test.

The political megalomaniacs don't inhabit the introverted, judging, thinkers group. The worst of them are the outcomes of their philosophy such as Karl Marx.

The bottom line is that judging is very, very dangerous when it is applied as a general theory that can be adopted by politicians.

Judging is not a global threat, when limited in applied scope to solving local problem sets. Everyone uses some amount of judging, otherwise no decisions would ever be made.

The problem is those who are so sure of their judgments that they propose it as a model or ideology for society to FOLLOW. And the worst are the megalomaniacs who implement such ideology with the force of the State.

Ha ha lots of INTJ's out there. INTJ discrimination I tell you =)
Then again maybe it has to do with the degree of judging.

It is not the degree, rather it is the proposed scope. You apparently have the ability to see the harm in applying judgments in a top-down structure, because you understood the Petri dish experiment from my essay.

Unfortunately our other community member who brow-beated me recently has isn't capable of understanding that science.

We have some weaknesses
INTJ are driven to come to conclusions about an idea so you may see us jump into a position early.
We are quick to express judgment and are often initially convinced we are right about a position initially (even when we are not).
INTJ strongly favor systems and organization and this may give us a tendency to favor socialist solutions early in life.

Yup that is weakness I've seen in you several times, e.g. from our private discussions you jumping too fast on naming decisions, and siding with the theory that D. Nakamoto could be Satoshi.

Note you tend to exhibit fear or worry when you can't see the organization and structure. It doesn't phase me. I trust the ability to adapt on my feet.

However, our weakness are offset by some very powerful strengths.
INTJ apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything including their own ideas.
If an INTJ discovers that a system does not work he will focus his efforts on dismantling and repairing the broken system.
We tend to be very strong strategic planners (arguably the strongest of all of the types)
INTJ's are very good at seeing the objective reality of a situation.

Agreed, you've provided a correct counter-balance to me on several occasions, e.g. pointing out in private that too generic of a name would be fatalistic.

You provide excellent, well organized posts that more clearly eludicate some highly jumbled writings I've made (because I often move so fast and jump around randomly that I don't have time to come back and organize it).

Also you fact check and test. I fact check too, but you do so in cases where I wouldn't have the time to dot every i.

[AnonyMint]

[snip]

As for the slight preference for F but it is local in scope (e.g. I didn't hesitate to predict massive technological unemployment ahead), and let's say I can switch it off and go into thinking mode...

Let's explore why the test doesn't accurately measure the difference between localized empathy and not applying my empathy rather my thinking to analysis of outcomes.

When I read the following news stories, my heart aches. I can imagine them dying so young. I imagine being there with them, I feel overcome with sadness and tears. But I wouldn't advocate new State regulations as a (non-)solution. Rather this is just a reflection of North East Asian obey authority culture. (The brown S.E. Asians don't obey authority and would have jumped ship)

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/595029/mom-i-love-you-says-text-from-student-on-sinking-ferry
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/595001/passengers-denied-chance-to-escape-sinking-south-korea-ferry
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/594990/9-confirmed-dead-after-ferry-sinks-off-south-korean-coast

[CoinCube]

Took the test again. Been about 8 years since I took it last time.
Introvert(44%)  iNtuitive(75%)  Thinking(25%)  Judging(1%)

You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (44%)
You have distinctive preference of Intuition over Sensing (75%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
You have marginal or no preference of Judging over Perceiving (1%)

Still INTJ but that is far lower then I have ever scored on Judging in the past.
I must be getting lest judgmental as I age.

[AnonyMint]

Cross-posting...

Generative essence of why humans prefer slavery

Let's reduce this Bundy ranch debate to its generative essence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-korea-north-usa-idUSBREA3P02U20140426

Obama reminds North Korea of U.S. 'military might'

"So like all nations on Earth, North Korea and its people have a choice. They can choose to continue down a lonely road of isolation, or they can choose to join the rest of the world and seek a future of greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect - a future that already exists for the citizens on the southern end of the Korean peninsula."

Obama's rhetoric above cloaks the true meaning which is that world government is "greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect" than sovereign countries, counties, and individuals.

The powers-that-be create a conflict (China supporting N. Korean and USA supporting S. Korea) in order to frighten individuals and cause them to think a world government is necessary for security. The powers-that-be are doing it again with China threatening the Philippines over the Spratly islands and the Philippines taking their claim to UN tribunal.

What Obama's rhetoric doesn't reveal is that instead of a diversity of sovereign countries, counties, and individuals (which includes allowing individuals to express and live their own opinions of diverse issues such as race, work ethics, and marriage), the world government means all that freedom of expression and life will be subjected to the will of those powers-that-be who manage the world 'democracy' by promising the people everything, manipulating 75% of their emotions, and taking everything for themselves. This is how the power vacuum of 'democracy' has always worked and will always work.

Upthread we have Communists who vehemently express their hatred of diversity of expression and life. They prefer a society that is top-down managed, so the powers-that-be can enforce all their control-freak pet peeves they want the community enslaved within.

The subconscious (root) motivation of these upthread antagonists is they won't want to see anyone have something they don't, i.e. jealousy. They convince themselves they are fighting for the good of all, but the truth is they are subconsciously jealous that individuals could compete and excel without their control over them via their powers-that-be proxy.

So I don't want to speak to these brain-dead antagonists who throughout history have destroyed themselves in repeating bouts of economic gridlock collapse and megadeath.

I speak today to those who want to opt-out of their killing machine.

Join me. I have the solution.

I'm ceasing debate with the antagonists. Their fate is sealed.

[theMiracle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[AnonyMint]

Cross-posting...

I did some research on Tue May 01, 2012 6:36 am (quoted below) on the Long Wave Cycle (a generational cycle)

It's a lot less complicated than that.

For 5,000 years a war has raged between people who attempt to predate others, and people who resist predation.

The use of Russell Brand as an anthropological weapon is merely the latest iteration.

It is a mistake to think of the universe as a one-way progression except in terms of expanding entropy.

There must be friction else nothing could exist, because if speed-of-light was infinite the past and present would collapse into a single point (and thus nothing would exist). With friction there must exist cycles (waves), because nothing will cascade without reverberation, reflection, diffraction, etc., e.g. consider the Butterfly effect. I covered this in great detail in my blog essay on the The Universe:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

Thus it is import to study the Generational Cycle I shared and understand that the youth will be coming up as Hero and Artist generational cycle attitudes. Thus when they rebuild the global economy (circa 2032 per Armstrong's model) after this imminent Sovereign Debt Big Bang (Armstrong's model's ETA is Oct 2015), they will be applying extreme idealism. And that is extremely dangerous.

Note that Martin Armstrong's ECM model is based on multiples of Pi, i.e. 8.6 years, and one of the key periods is 3 x 8.6 = 25.6 years which is roughly the maturity cycle of a human wherein one forms a family to generate a new cycle. Armstrong's real estate boom & bust cycle (which also appears to correlate with bouts of technological unemployment) is 3 x 25.6 = 76.8 years.

You provided numerous analysis and examples of how that is occurring and I suggest readers study your post which I had replied to.