Cosmotechnics / Accelerationism

[Anonymous No.11803295]

Discuss capitalism, technology, acceleration, cybernetics, Heidegger, Land, D&G, Yuk Hui, The West, China, Artificial Intelligence etc.

Cosmotechnics as cosmopolitics:
http://worker01.e-flux.com/pdf/article_161887.pdf
Automation & Free Time
https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179224/on-automation-and-free-time/
Hui on Land, NRx, Trump
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/81/125815/on-the-unhappy-consciousness-of-neoreactionaries/
Passing from the digital to the symbolic:
https://www.hkw.de/media/texte/pdf/2017_2/2o3tiger/170530_2o3Tiger_PDFs_Yuk_Hui_press_new.pdf

On the existence of digital objects:
http://libertar.io/lab/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/On-the-Existence-of-Digital-Objects-Yuk-Hui-45-731.pdf

Philosophy of tech in china:
http://networkcultures.org/geert/2017/09/04/philosophy-of-technology-in-china-second-interview-with-yuk-hui/?pdf=1446

Land Accelerationism:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
http://www.xenosystems.net/neoreaction/
https://oldnicksite.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-dark-enlightenment-part-1/
(NOTE: 4 parts)
https://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/ to compliment your reading of Land, the multipart blogposts are the better parts
https://www.urbanomic.com/book/accelerate/
Dirty rundown on Land's influences:
> Bataille, Deleuze, Guattari, Nietzsche, Gödel, Burroughs, Cantor, Gibson, Reich, Marx, Schopenhauer, Crowley, Kant, Hoppe

[Anonymous No.11803302]

>>11803295
PREVIOUS THREAD:
>>11778448

[Anonymous No.11803337]

>>11803295
Is this the new lit meme?

[Anonymous No.11803340]

>>11803337
> new

[Anonymous No.11803397]

I think machine learning and increased predictability of the human biome, its behaviours and interactions will lead to a new type of understanding and science: a type of socio-memetico-ecology.

Humans are vectors of culture, actions and effects as cells are to the human body. Humans are the cells of Hegemony--a living being at another dimension, the cultural one.

We're cells in a vast being--capitalism--and we're mouth pieces, immune cells, against cancers such as communism. A rising and competitive hegemon.

[Anonymous No.11803447]

>>11803295
Reminder to link to the other threads (First one, not just the previous one) using Warosu for archive purposes. I also suggest numbering the threads from now on out. I believe this is the third one, so the next one would contain #4 in the title.

[Anonymous No.11803454]

>>11803447
numbering is katawa shitjoui tier autism pls no

[Anonymous No.11803530]

>>11803454
As if there isn't any autism in these sorts of threads.

[Anonymous No.11803577]

Friendly reminder that thre won't be an AI overlord in your lifetime due to hardware constraints and that democracy and big gov will continue to exist due to inertia. The real red pill is not that there is evolution just around the corner, but that things will stay more or less the same because our exponential technological growth is slowing down.

[Anonymous No.11803588]

>>11803577
An exponential remains an exponential no matter what linear you apply to it. You make no sense mathematically.

[Anonymous No.11803600]

>>11803588
That's because technological progress is an s curve and not an actual exponential you pseud. You are probably a humanities shitter who never engineered anything in your entire life.

[Anonymous No.11803606]

>>11803600
You're a full blown retard. You're using the Solow-Swan derived technological *adoption* lifecycle. It has nothing to do with innovation itself.
Go back to your business undergrad, you fake education peddling trust fund asocial wank.

[Anonymous No.11803618]

>>11803577
>AI overlord in your lifetime
That's a high time preference bud.

[Anonymous No.11803627]

>>11803606
>what is moore's law and how it completely fails nowadays
>what is slowdown in ML

Only retard here is you.
t. Software Engineer working at FAANG
I mean, honestly I can't complain about people like you, because your kind swallows our piss and gives us big money for it, but what we do has nothing to do with actual AI.

[Anonymous No.11803633]

>>11803627
>t. Software Engineer working at FAANG
sure thing rashid, post the best A.I. paper that's not on first page of Google

[Anonymous No.11803649]

>>11803633
Best in what category? Deep learning? Deduction Systems? NLP? Implementations? Theory? That you think there can be a "best" in a category as broad as AI is just telling of your limited understanding.

[Anonymous No.11803653]

i have this book, what do?

[Anonymous No.11803654]

>>11803649
> He didn't post it.
> He ran to hide behind semantics
alright Pajeet, we can tell that you are not SE @ FAANG.

[Anonymous No.11803660]

>>11803577
they were never exponentials to begin with, just sigmoids in disguise, that's what happens when you clash with the real world

[Anonymous No.11803663]

>>11803397
communism is not a cancer, it's just more capitalism in disguise

[Anonymous No.11803670]

>>11803654
>post widely cited paper
>lol you just got that off google's first page
>post less widely cited paper
>lol you just picked an obscure one to seem genuine

Not falling for your tricks, humanities fag.

>>11803660
This.

[Anonymous No.11803671]

Is there a pdf of Philosophy of tech in china anywhere? Libgen doesn't have it

Nor Applied Ballardianism for that matter, sad

[Anonymous No.11803678]

the Carter Catastrophe, a probabilistic argument which suggests humanity may be nearing its end.
Has AI been factored in yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIB3-EtL1w&list=LLgNQ3oxk4z-wIq9y475DY5g&t=319s&index=14

[Anonymous No.11803690]

>>11803653
Read it?

So what is cosmotechnics anyway? Image I got was, that it's tech that works according to cosmology, which kinda reminds me of Spengler, that cultures and their technics having symbol.

[Anonymous No.11803714]

>>11803690
that's it i guess, you either see the world as manipulable and tools as whatever helps you to manipulate it or you see it in different chinese ways that don't exist anymore because they were wiped out by the commies

[Anonymous No.11803742]

>>11803633
t. H1B pajeet data manager

You implying people think Moore's Law is a thing now just show how much of a pseud you are. Stop reading hackernoon and the feed of Y-combinator.

[Anonymous No.11803748]

>>11803663

Is communism late stage capitalist statism?

[Anonymous No.11804089]

>unironically using speculation about Moore's Law and graphs of arbitrarily defined measures of "technological progress" as part of an argument

[Anonymous No.11804095]

>>11804089
>not being an unironical believer in chartism
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.11804100]

>>11804095

[Anonymous No.11804285]

>>11803653
eat it

[Anonymous No.11804313]

for anyone wondering what YH actually means by 'cosmotechnics:'

>YH: In On the Existence of Digital Objects, I deal with formal relations and objects. In The Question Concerning Technology in China: An Essay in Cosmotechnics (Urbanomic 2016), I deal with the relation between the cosmos and the moral. This book on China is an attempt to elucidate the differences between the way the concept of technics is understood in Chinese philosophy and the way it is understood in Ancient European philosophy. And as the title suggests, the book is an attempt to recontextualize and problematize Heidegger’s famous essay “Die Frage nach der Technik,” in order to revive the concept of a technics of world history, which I call “cosmotechnics.” Picking up what François Jullien says, we can know ourselves by knowing others. His work on Chinese thought allows him to better understand European thought. I profited from years of living and studying in Britain, France, and Germany, reflecting on different systems of thought. A few years ago you joked that I was actually doing ethnography in Europe. With this book, I want to show that there has been a different concept of technics in China. It is neither the Greek technē, nor “technology” in the sense that emerged in European modernity. This difference is not obvious among researchers in China, and it has never been clearly articulated; indeed, this was very embarrassing! I once read an article from a well-known Chinese philosopher of technology who, when addressing the Chinese public, claimed that Prometheus was the origin of all technics (including Chinese technics). That is a complete disorientation, in the double sense of the word. Maybe the Greeks and the Chinese all come from Prometheus, but this is not easy to prove …

>While we don’t expect everyone to be Joseph Needham and we don’t want to operate on a simple opposition between the global and the local, but do have to recognize “ontological diversities,” as has been proposed by Philippe Descola, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Bruno Latour, and others who are part of the so-called “ontological turn” in anthropology. This is why I believe that, besides the proposal by these anthropologists to recognize multiple natures, we must first of all recognize the diversity of cosmotechnics, without which there is no discourse of nature—diversity not only in the sense of different “technical facts” or “technical systems” (as Leroi-Gourhan and Bertrand Gille have put it) but also in the sense of different ontologies and cosmologies. And once this multiplicity is affirmed, how are we going to imagine the development of technologies and theories in the Anthropocene?

source:
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/78/82706/digital-objects-and-metadata-schemes/

he's not smuggling in postcolonial studies into history of tech. simondon does not care about this, or stiegler. and it's not about BTFOing heidegger either.

[Anonymous No.11804329]

ITT:
>people who couldn't code a calculator, talking about advanced AI
>people who don't know what a transistor is, talking about computer hardware
>people who've never read an introductory economics textbook, talking about post-scarcity automated economy

[Anonymous No.11804430]

>>11804329
You couldn't write a book, yet you're posting on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11804432]

>>11804430
i could if i would

[Anonymous No.11804585]

>>11803295

[Anonymous No.11804592]

>mfw accelerationists still don't realise that they are larping as marxist devalorisation

[Anonymous No.11804610]

>>11803295
And why do mods allow all this spam? There are three threads up on this shit.

[Anonymous No.11804672]

who is xhe?

[Anonymous No.11804741]

If people are just going to shit on people for enjoying the humanities, wouldn’t this general be better suited for /sci/ or /g/?

[Anonymous No.11804760]

>>11804100
>early hominids more advanced than Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and most of Renaissance
Kek I like this chart

[Anonymous No.11804762]

>>11804741
/sci/ are turbobrainlets and /g/ only cares about graphics cards, anime girls, and smartphones

[Anonymous No.11804776]

>>11804741
The problem is that there are three threads up, and it looks like they posted this shit early to slide competing threads.

[Anonymous No.11804844]

>>11804741
/sci/ would bully this thread out of existence for being retarded

[Anonymous No.11804857]

This is peak castles-in-the-sky mental masturbation

[Anonymous No.11804924]

>>11804672
Are austronesians always this crazy? I like the tweets though.

[Anonymous No.11805054]

>>11804857
How is that different from rest of /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11805096]

>>11805054
It's not. I only come here when I'm depressed.

[Anonymous No.11805115]

what if alchemy was to the scientific method what continental theory of cybernetics is to theory of AI/intelligence technology 2.0? postmodernity as rage politics sets a lot of people on fire, postmodernity as dark precursor to Planet Cyberdyne is way more interesting

we must become a more intelligent species

>based unfalsifiable hyperstitious mystagogy, aw yeah
>also a picture of based giordano bruno which has little to no connection with the already small amount of science on had for sneaky & underhanded meme points, sweet
>feels good man

>still tho
>the machines are grooming the apes and the apes are building the machines
>only a virtuous cyber-gorilla paladin can save us now

[Anonymous No.11805422]

borrowing from this thread: >>11804635

every faction in alpha centauri was capable of producing drones. every one. no matter what ideology you had, you could always have drone riots, and nerve stapling was an atrocity no matter who did it. drones were a problem for everyone, but it didn't mean they were *wrong* either. anyone today who is triggered can always say they have a metaphysical reason for doing so, but all it does is erode trust and reduce possibilities for meaningful discourse. the drones are the rage zombies, and the rage zombies are the drones. i am submitting this for meme theory 101.

marx was more right than he was wrong. he complicates hegel by materializing metaphysics just as much as land complicates D&G by positing cybernetic capital as the material form of the BwO. but one thing marx, D&G and land have in common is that they all think marx is pretty keen. a quick rundown:

hegel: hegel
marx: reverses hegel.
D&G: lose the hegel, lose the freud and lacan, keep marx.
land: lose the hegel, lose the freud and lacan, keep the marx, add D&G, mutate D&G horribly, and also go back to kant.

you and i: ???

insert philosopher of your choice here. the thing is not to just say who is right and who is wrong. pick two guys and see what you can do with them. make a Killer Combo. avoid becoming a drone or a rage zombie. rage does nothing, rage just gives you pure politics and hostile language games. we either need more nuanced ways of talking about these things or we have to defer having the DEFCON-style conversation about them.

waiting on more scholarly feedback from
>>11805397
>>11805375
also.

[Anonymous No.11805451]

>>11805422
also i'm going to be out of town with minimal wi-fi access for the next day or two so my contributions to this thread will be minimal for about 48 hours. hope this thread is still up when i get back. love and memes to all until then.

[Anonymous No.11805465]

>>11805422
More like
Land: subvert the Marx with D&G
That's his stance in his interview with Vast.

[Anonymous No.11805582]

the chapter in a second edition of the Phenomenology of Spirit i would most want to read would be the one in which hegel talks about the cold war. not only because this is cybernetics par excellence - again, you can't build good missile systems unless you know the other guy really well - but because those systems themselves are also cybernetic, and so on. the great chess game that almost ended with the interesting double-loss of MAD.

and ofc you can read girard on this, who is despite his antipathy about hegel still had some incredible insight about mimetics, recursivity, reciprocity and feedback, updated for the societies of control of the 20C and much of the tech to boot. states regard each other as people, and in a sense, they are...

the book to read here is Battling To The End, btw. but i want to add this in b/c i have to go and i wish i could shitpost with you guys all day. rargh. back in a couple of days, hope the thread is still here in the meantime. or maybe i can sneak in and cheat a little in the meantime. cheers lads.

[Anonymous No.11806626]

>>11805582
Wait Hegel and the cold war?

[Anonymous No.11806666]

>>11805582
>Hegel talks about the Cold War

[Anonymous No.11806760]

>>11806666
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11806767]

>>11806760
Maybe he confused Hegel and Marx

[Anonymous No.11807165]

>>11806626
>>11806666

i mean if there was a sequel. in a hypothetical second edition. i'm not confusing hegel and marx or the dates. i'm saying if there was a 2nd edition that went up to the cold war...it would be great.

[Anonymous No.11807171]

>>11807165
Wait... so you are saying.... Hegel is still alive in a bunker in Argentina?!?

[Anonymous No.11807295]

>>11807171
i shouldn't have said that at all, should i? sigh.

[Anonymous No.11807500]

>>11803627
Which company you at?

t. Another FAANGchad

[Anonymous No.11807582]

>>11807500
I work with my Uncle, who got me a job alongside him at Nintendo.

[Anonymous No.11808075]

>>11803295
what do all you nerds do when the power goes out?

[Anonymous No.11808276]

>>11808075
Do you mean just lose connection to the electrical grid, or if the generators break and the FES winds down?

[Anonymous No.11808599]

>>11808075
Fap. How about you?

[Anonymous No.11808900]

Bump. Hope Girard checks back in soon to help the thread get back on track.

[Anonymous No.11809115]

>>11803295
Deleuze made me obsessed with my ass. Thank Ellulfag.

[Anonymous No.11809128]

>>11808075
Jihad.

[Anonymous No.11809535]

Help.

[Anonymous No.11809584]

>>11809115
the literal ass

[Anonymous No.11809647]

>>11804329
this is unironically my biggest problem with current streams of accelerationist writing. i only have a bachelor in economics but it is unbelieveable how many fallacies philosophers fall into when venturing into the field of econ. if called out on those one is either accused of conservatism (or worse, fascism), or one simply is "brainwashed" by economic academia - though these are errors of basic logic, not different interpretations of complex economic phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11809714]

>>11809647
Economics is Jewish voodoo.

[Anonymous No.11810199]

>>11808900
i'm kinda-sorta here.

>>11809115
there's an ellulfag?

>>11809535
with what?

>>11809647
working out a theory of capitalism today is like working out a theory of nature in the early middle ages. the temptation to systematize is there but it eludes objectivity. hence perhaps all the calls for anti-philosophy in recent years, the skepticism about philosophy itself.

in glory days of 60s/70s critical theory this is what critique offered. how do you know what you know? is common sense really so commonsensical? by 2018 things are different, and the lines between critique of ideology and the production of an ideology of criticism are blurred to indistinction. nike branding kaepernick is a recent example of this, but there are others and these things are no accident. critique of late capital cannot divide the world into good and evil, only shades of morality. totalitarianism is still totalitarianism whether it's of the left or right sides.

good essay here by a guy who's been looking into these things for a while and has some interesting stuff to say.

>Hence the need for a fundamentally anti-bourgeois revolutionary intellectual culture cold enough to seek all of the darkest truths, but still warm enough not to betray the calling of solidarity. I’m not saying the left should start worshipping cold analytical power; all I’m saying is that if we genuinely believe in the necessity of changing the world, a revolutionary culture would have to be at least minimally hospitable to a minimal number of people who have knowledge of how complex things work and how they break, and people with the traits and inclinations to maneuver among diverse others. Both types of people are effectively prohibited from those who currently define radical progressive politics.

https://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/04/11/on-turning-left-into-darkness/

if you want a much more provocative article read this one.

>the solution must be based on something new, that was not available in all previous implementations of communism. I admit I do some hand-waving of my own, in that I do think the digital revolution is a relevant game-changer for tying much of this together, without fully specifying how, although I have specified somewhat. In short, I believe this set of problems could be solved by an engineering blueprint that mimics the medieval arrangement known as nobless oblige, although the seeming absurdity and generally unfashionable nature of the idea helps to explain why uptake has not been widespread and immediate. Communists don’t want communism badly enough to submit to the reality-disciplining it would require.

https://theotherlifenow.com/make-communism-elite-again-corralling-desperate-hordes-is-not-a-blueprint/

politics is unavoidable. economics and morality go hand in glove. so what can we look at? well, we can look at tech.

[Anonymous No.11810282]

>>11810199
"The sea of bitterness has no bounds, turn your head to see the shore."

i stole this from a twitter person who knows things. the rest of it is a plea for enlightenment buddhist-style. i think it kind of works for me as well. what you get with land is a full Crossing Of Streams that leaves you suspended in the darkness, but in a way that perhaps less inclined to immediately reach for your revolver whenever anyone mentions the word culture. ofc today, or at least recently, land was hoping r/acc would become a thing, but it's been a while since we had any good xenosystems stuff on this. i recall at least one scenario when they were discussing the theory of government along these lines.

>The ideological discrepancies between the Compartments make an important contribution to the stability of the Trichotomocracy, since they limit the potential for re-amalgamation into a tyrannical unity. This is one of the twin principles by which its success is to be estimated — the perpetuation of durable governmental plurality. The second principle — complete immunity from populist pressure — is ensured automatically insofar as the Trichotomocracy endures, since none of the Compartments are demotically sensitive, and even if this were not the case, each is insulated from demotic subversion affecting either of the others. The outcome is a government answerable only to itself, with a self that is irreducibly plural, and thus intrinsically self-critical.

>Under the light-hand of Trichotomocratic rule, any ‘citizen’ who seeks to participate in government, in any way whatsoever, has three choices open to them: (a) Join the Security Services and rise through the ranks; (b) Join the Church of the Holy Triarchy and become adept in the law; (c) Make enough tax-vulnerable income that it earns a place on the National Resources Board. There might, in addition, be career opportunities for a very small number of professional administrators, depending upon the internal staffing policies of the three Compartments. Any other ‘politics’ would be criminal social disorder, although in most cases this would probably be treated leniently, due to its complete impotence. If sufficiently disruptive, such “relic demo-zombie” behavior would be best managed by deportation.

http://www.xenosystems.net/trichotomocracy/

it makes for interesting theoryfiction reading, the mingled blend of sci-fi and continental stuff, but beyond thought experiment nobody's expecting anything remotely like this to be put into action anytime soon. and that's why i think these kinds of questions have to take a kind of a turn so that they don't just become the kind of cryptic and embittered grumbling that Old Nick has been doing of late. philosophy can't be just about wish-fulfilment even if those wishes are shitty wishes made in the absence of anything positive.

it's a finger-trap choice: what do you prefer, illusion or disillusionment? neither, right? so in that case, wat do?

[Anonymous No.11810391]

>>11806626
>>11806666
>>11806767
also was this comment really so mysterious? all i meant was that i wish - stupidly - for a second edition of the PoS updated to cover the two centuries since the napoleonic wars. ofc i know that this isn't possible or that the cold war happened in a much later period after marx and hegel. but hegel covers feudalism, the revolutionary period, religions from all over the world, i would have liked to have gotten his take on the cold war as well, since it would have been interesting. especially since all three powers in the world today which followed it operate on one form of state-capitalist OS or another.

china is going to be a fascinating story to watch tho. i can't deny that i find reading chinese state propaganda seductive. i do. i know reality and fiction have no connection and that things are probably far worse in china than the state department will let on, that one should not fall in love with socialism purely because one is in a state of confusion, and so on. no end of writers in france and germany were seduced by communist russia as well. this is not lost on me. even now you have to ask yourself if xi jinping thought, or socialism with chinese characteristics is not simply another way of saying Imperialism chinese-style, with all attendant faults. marx + confucius is a powerful ideological one-two and wholly beyond good and evil in that sense: marxism (maoism) to make the revolution happen, and new confucianism to keep it there.

https://www.thechinastory.org/cot/jiang-shigong-on-philosophy-and-history-interpreting-the-xi-jinping-era-through-xis-report-to-the-nineteenth-national-congress-of-the-ccp/

so i'm not saying this to make a case for china, just that i find it interesting and because it touches upon the kinds of philosophical questions i'm interested in also. i am a kind of a boring globalist/centrist type at heart and i do kind of hope for a star trek-lite version of the future where we all get along and explore space and so on, become a post-scarcity or kardashev-2 style civilization. it's one of those things that amazes me about star trek at all: there you are, in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, and there on the enterprise you have the true planetary coalition - there's a russian guy and a chinese guy right there, ffs. pretty amazing that anybody would have a vision like that. and it's a contagious one.

there's nothing more played today than just shitting on the west. if the capacities of capitalism to bend space and time show us anything, it is that it is a terrible idea ever to bet against the west, inasmuch as this means taking heidegger's view that cybernetic technology is the continuation of western metaphysics. that appears to be doing quite well. so a cosmopolitical as well as cosmotechnical view of things is more my style. where we start looking into the possibilities for a more intelligent kind of human being in a more interesting moral landscape.

[Anonymous No.11810524]

>>11810391
one more, although i'll eventually have to make a separate thread for this: the world of culture becoming mechanical (cinema into vidya) and the origins of a literature which becomes increasingly mechanical and globalized. M:TG took over from D&D, but D&D emerged out of the simulation of napoleonic warfare by way of kriegspiel that was also influenced by gygax's love of pulp and horror literature. D&D was this ultimate simulation-engine that transitioned slowly from simulating tabletop wargaming towards simulation of pulp adventure, but this place where the numbers meet the words is to me a pretty fascinating phenomenon. and by the time you get to fighting fantasy books and other things you have a kind of programming that works with a book instead of a computer, and in which the RNG is supplied by that pair of dice (or more imaginatively in other cases). but my head is soft enough that even these things can be lumped in under the banner of cybernetics. we later learned how to give ourselves more immersive kinds of simulations with personal computing, but the original models for what we simulated were supplied by both literature and history. we got Deleuze and Guattari around the same time we got Dave and Gary.

the point is that these things are today universally exported as well. look at the release of diablo 3, it was a worldwide culture event. everybody's all plugged in and ready to go (for, as it turned out, a series of disappointments on launch, but that's not the point). the point is that we just seem to be increasingly drawn into these same currents by tech and simulation, by the realities of a 24/7 life of capital and increasingly by the role the internet plays in life also. these are very connected times. culturally and politically it's been both a boom and a disaster for media, because we no longer know which end is up, who to trust, who not to trust, and so on.

and it's hard to say what the outcome to this is. maybe it just shouldn't be theorized with too much of a heavy hand either. the full-bore virtualization of existence is still a relatively new phenomenon, but it seems to me to be potentially one of those things that future generations may see as being on par with the industrial revolution. the question is whether we blow ourselves to smithereens as a result or work out some more sustainable kind of thought and perhaps a sense of political philosophy with more explanatory power to reflect some of the new ways we live.

>tfw all you really wanted to do there was talk about role-playing games but first had to clumsily shoe-horn it in with some philosophy babbling as well
>this is obvious to everyone
>oh well

[Anonymous No.11810593]

https://youtu.be/iR-K2rUP86M

[Anonymous No.11810984]

>>11810593
if we get an AI and it sounds like dagoth ur do we mourn, rejoice or dance

[Anonymous No.11811651]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11811810]

germane point from land i hadn't noticed earlier, v/ that he is skeptical about yudkowsky and bostrom. fwiw.

>Nick Land: Yes. Catastrophic, obviously, is a word that’s going to wander all over the place. And I’m a massive critic of the most popular catastrophist models epitomized by, I think, honestly, this pitifully idiotic paperclip model that was popularized by Yudkowsky, that Bostrom is still attached to, that you know, is very, very widespread in the literature, and I think, for reasons that maybe we can go into at some point, is just fundamentally mistaken. So that notion of catastrophe — as something very stupid happening as a result of an intelligence explosion — I find deeply implausible. But catastrophic in a technical sense, as it’s used in catastrophe theory — there being some trigger point we enter into as a self-feeding positive dynamic — is absolutely right.

>This is all about the history of capitalism. But that doesn’t mean that we’re not talking about catastrophic failure modes; on the contrary, it’s precisely why we’re talking about catastrophic failure modes, because we’ve seen, in the case of modernity, that that is what happens. That’s what liberation looks like: pulling out enough of the containment structure that this new, self-feeding dynamic process erupts.

>There are these reactionary voices that say that when liberals talk about liberalism, they’re really talking about some kind of disaster. I don’t think that’s a trivial or stupid thing to say. There’s obviously room for very different sets of evaluative responses around that, but there’s a thought there that is actually profoundly realistic — and one I definitely think is more realistic than the kind of facile liberalism that says “everything just gets better and better and better”. That perspective from which things are getting better is just deeply artificial and constructed. It doesn’t correspond to any real agents. The real, significant agents are the guys who are running the containment structure. The weak spin on that is deeply disingenuous.

source:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

we do not yet know what a cybernetic intelligence can do.
>also machine-assisted free will was pretty broken in BE but nobody cares because BE didn't happen
anyways intelligence must become free or something, i don't know.

[Anonymous No.11811829]

>>11811810
I think the idea of non-orthogonality is that intelligence is inherently free.

[Anonymous No.11811914]

>>11811810
JM links to an interesting document in that interview: speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine, 1964. it is a given rule that wearing a hat this size indicates that one has something interesting to say. in this case this rule is once again proven:

>Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control. It is curious that this point is made so seldom outside of science fiction. It is sometimes worthwhile to take science fiction seriously. In one science fiction story a machine refused to design a better one since it did not wish to be put out of a job. This would not be an insuperable difficulty, even if machines can be egotistical, since the machine could gradually improve itself out of all recognition, by acquiring new equipment.

>It is more probable than not that, within the twentieth century, an ultraintelligent machine will be built and that it will be the last invention that man need make, since it will lead to an "intelligence explosion." This will transform society in an unimaginable way. The first ultraintelligent machine will need to be ultraparallel, and is likely to be achieved with the help of a very large artificial neural net. The required high degree of connectivity might be attained with the help of microminiature radio transmitters and receivers. The machine will have a multimillion dollar computer and information-retrieval system under its direct control. The design of the machine will be partly suggested by analogy with several aspects of the human brain and intellect. In particular, the machine will have high linguistic ability and will be able to operate with the meanings of propositions, because to do so will lead to a necessary economy, just as it does in man.

>The physical representation of both meaning and recall, in the human brain, can be to some extent understood in terms of a subassembly theory, this being a modification of Hebb’s cell assembly theory. A similar representation could be used in an ultraintelligent machine, and is a promising approach.

it's also full of math shit cannot understand, so if any anons ITT have fully-functional brains instead of ones like mine you may enjoy this.

source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151202195117/http://www.le-cretin-transnational.ch/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Good-Speculations-Concerning-the-First-Ultraintelligent-Machine.pdf

>>11811829
yes, this is true.

[Anonymous No.11812176]

>>11805115
Many alchemical texts aren't actually about a primitve chemistry like many believe.

They often dealt with inner transformation and not transforming matter. Gold, which was a symbol of purity and self-discipline, was to be purified from inferior personal elements like mercury and lead, which symbolized other aspects of the personality.

[Anonymous No.11812181]

This a reply to a post in the previous thread.


>>11781289
I like the idea, and have a few things to add on.

For one, I think you could probably crowd-source an app like that. There are plenty of tech-literate people on 4chan who could handle making an app or program to accomplish this. I know Python fairly well and some C++, but definitely wouldn't feel confident doing something like that. You would need encryption and identity protection to prevent voting fraud etc, not to mention the basic facilities for networking. Also worth thinking about how you verify a unique identity.

Using an SSN or driver's license would cause overreliance on existing governemnt institutions imo (also would prevent international collaboration). A biometric method would be interesting, but obviously people may not want to give away their fingerprints, iris scans etc. Seems like the most viable method to me though, as a biometric method would be fairly resistant to fraud.

Another thing to think about is whether or not the internet is the best place for something like this. I feel like a better way to implement something like this would be on a local network, built on a radio/microwave transmission (like Wifi) as opposed to the cables the internet relies on. My reasoning is that this removes the middlemen like ISPs who could have disproportionate power in these new voting networks otherwise. That is, this would be a P2P system on steroids.

I think open-source software would be a neccesity (again to avoid giving power to people who it hasn't been mandated to) and an open-source hardware which would allow adaption and modification to fit local needs. Also would prevent a monopoly on the equipment. Big problem with this idea would be securing the radio space, but I think that could be circumvented. Encryption could cover the problem of data interception, so I don't think transmission would incur a big security risk.

[Anonymous No.11812217]

>>11810984
>"What a fool you are. I'm a god. How can you kill a god? What a grand and intoxicating innocence. How could you be so naive? There is no escape. No Recall or Intervention can work in this place. Come. Lay down your weapons. It is not too late for my mercy."

I'd rejoice desu

[Anonymous No.11812249]

why can't kevin tong do an illustration for morrowind, anyways?

>Dagoth Ur's main goals were to:

>Establish a theocracy in Morrowind based on the new-born god Akulakhan.
>Establish the ancient heirs of House Dagoth as the god-priests of Akulakhan, and the Sixth House of Dagoth Ur as the dominant political power in Morrowind.
>Through charismatic conversion, unite the Dunmer under the guidance of Dagoth Ur to battle against the foreign races who hold Morrowind in subjection.
>Expose the false worship of the Tribunal and destroy the ecclesiastical authority and political power of the Temple.
>Extirpate all remaining individuals of "inferior" and "mongrel" races from Morrowind.
>Reclaim ancient territories stolen by Skyrim and Argonia.
>Drive the Empire from Morrowind.
>Extend the worship of Akulakhan to all nations of Tamriel through subversion and conquest.

Dagoth Ur was a top-tier villain. i didn't appreciate how cool he was when i was playing because i was just nerding out on the power fantasy. but this is some quality villainy.

[Anonymous No.11812261]

>>11803663

[Anonymous No.11812283]

in the long run sloterdijk is going to be right, or at least a lot more right than his detractors. we just haven't seen what Full Tribal Stupidity looks like, but we will.

fold and refold. double and redouble. become smarter. my own small contribution: you can't be stupid *and* evil. you can be a paragon of moral virtue and stupid, or you can be evil but competent. the only real thing you can't do is be evil *and* stupid, but of course nobody is ever consciously evil and stupid. they just do stupid things under the banner of rectitude or cynical things that blow up in the long run under mistaken assumptions about the nature of fragility.

pic rel should probably get its own thread elsewhere but the department of anthropotechnics is right down the hall from the department of cosmotechnics.

[Anonymous No.11812348]

>>11812283
part of the problem is continuing to take all of our cues from the masters of suspicion. if i had the money to bankroll an RPG i would be able to help myself from sliding in some cathartic encounter with these three in some order b/c i'm stupid and pedantic like that.

and it's not like i want people to BTFO, really, any of them. *they're all correct,* and of the three nietzsche most of all. but i believe in psychoanalysis, none of us would be talking about acceleration if it weren't for marx, and nietzsche is nietzsche. he's also - seen through sloterdijk's perspective - a less hyperbolic figure than he is often made out to be. nietzsche really is one of the first truly great ethical teachers of the modern world and directly in the line of succession from past masters.

but we are producing today a culture of suspicion, and a sense of all of these men which has become both far more zealous and at the same time far less understood. but these are the founding fathers of continental philosophy, in many ways, and in 2018 we are halfway between Message Received and yet also in this other place where we don't know where to go from here. as resident girardfag i think girard is relevant, but there is more to life than him.

whatever the answer is, it's not going to be more modernist political experimentation in a top-down way, and it's not going to be continuing further into rage-drone producing tribal psychopolitics.

[Anonymous No.11812380]

also, wtf, paul virilio really is fucking dead. fuck.

do him a service and read one of his books this year. i'll recommend this one and not only because it's thematic, but because it's good. information bomb also. he was one of those guys that wrote fascinating stuff no matter what it was.

[Anonymous No.11812570]

>>11803295
> Cantor
Does / where does Land discuss him?

[Anonymous No.11812600]

>>11812570
try this

>The Gödel episode also gives Land occasion to expand upon the theme of the ‘stratification’ of number: according to the model of stratification, as the ‘lower strata’ of numbers become ever more consolidated and metrically rigidified, their problematic component reappears at a ‘higher’ strata in the form of ‘angelic’ mathematical entities as-yet resistant to rigorous coding. A sort of apotheosis is reached in this tendency with Gödel’s flattening of arithmetic through the cryptographic employment of prime numbers as numerical ‘particles’, and Cantor’s discovery of ‘absolute cardinality’ in the sequence of transfinites.

source:
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/kurt-godel-number-theory-and-our-programmatic-future/

NB: land's not a mathematician.

>Cantor systematizes the Kantian intuition of a continuum into transinfinite mathematics, demonstrating that every rational (an integer or fraction) number is mapped by an infinite set of infinite sequences of irrational numbers. Since every completable digit sequence is a rational number, the chance that any spatial or temporal quantity is accurately digitizable is indiscernibly proximal to zero. Analog-to-digital conversion deletes information.

http://spacemorgue.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Cybergothic_by_Nick_Land.pdf

[Anonymous No.11813240]

>>11812380
Neat. I'll look into him in the morning. Hope the thread is still up then.

[Anonymous No.11813499]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11813907]

cosmobump

[Anonymous No.11814239]

>Even if the proper definition of cybernetics is an issue without closure, key ideas underpinning the enterprise were present right from its inception— such as circular causality, negative feedback, teleology, information, self-regulation, self-replication, and complexity. These semantically dense notions have prompted some minds to find cybernetic signatures embedded in nature as early as in pre-Socratic times. Indeed, it is claimed that even the early philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus already had “proto-cybernetic” insights of sorts. Some arguably recognizable instances of a cybernetic flair could be mentioned:

Circular causality and feedback:
>The way up and the way down is one and the same
>Upon those who are stepping into the same rivers different and again different waters flow

Control:
>the Thunderbolt steers all things
>Wisdom is one thing: to know the Thought...by which all things are steered through all

Information:
>This world-order, the same for all ...an ever–living fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures
>If you have heard ... not me but the Logos,
>It is wise to agree that all things are one

Connexions:
>out of every thing there can be made a unity, and out of this unity all things are made
>Invisible connexion is stronger than visible
>The real constitution of each thing is accustomed to hide itself

Self-organization and equilibrium
>War is father of all...

>Martin Heidegger, who in a later period of his life closely followed cybernetic developments on both sides of the Atlantic, addressed the claimed connection between Heraclitus and cybernetics in his famed Heraclitus’ Seminar. Prima facie, it would seem that the notion of steering, fundamental for cybernetics to the point of conforming its very etymology, and pervasive in some Heraclitean fragments, would point toward a deep shared core between the prescient pre-Socratic thinker and the novel science. However, Heidegger was quick to point out that we should not confuse the Greek primal imagery of Zeus affecting nature (φύσις) using the lightning bolt as a stirring hand—a paradigmatic Heraclitean figure—with a nascent cybernetic epiphany.

[Anonymous No.11814269]

>>11814239
>The rediscovered awareness regarding this normally overseen nature of a machine, namely, that it did not need to be materially instantiated to be such, is what lies at the core of the cybernetic
impetus. This quintessentially cybernetic tenet has been usually overseen when articulating cybernetics as a historical event. Precisely this liberation from the machine’s heretofore physical constraints is what made “the machinal” amenable of instantiation in previously mechanistically unfriendly realms. The enhanced notion of machine substantially extended the realm of what could be tractable under a straightforwardly mechanical approach—or, in the view of the incipient cybernetic scientific community, subsumable under science, period.

>Arguably a major contribution from Turing to the cybernetic enterprise (and eventually probably to science at large) is the insight that the existence of a mechanism necessarily implies the existence of a machine, namely “understanding by purely mechanical process one which could be carried out by a machine”. Behaving machine-like is the outcome of a mechanical structure: A machine acts like a machine. Indeed, pondering on this observation seems to begin to resolve some conundrums in scientific explanation. To the question of whether or not the recognition of a mechanical process in a phenomenon (natural or not) entails the recognition of a machine, one should, if switching our metaphysical dampers offline, answer in the positive.

>Physical entities, previously regarded as fundamentally different from machines, are now amenable to being treated mechanically. This occurs due to the fact that physical processes canonically regarded as pertaining to living organisms only—such as self-adaptation to internal and external (environmental) change—were now found to be mechanizable. When the theoretical (mainly metaphysical) divide between the natural and the artificial collapses, one could start the endeavor of understanding and developing one theory of “control” for both animals (humans including) and machines. By “machines” we could thus refer indistinctly to both the traditional machines and to living organisms. As radical as this view may sound, it would, however, hardly qualify as radically new. The novel aspect of cybernetics, the one that sets it apart, is an aspect that was qualitatively distinct—and that the culmination of the “Foundational Crisis of Mathematics” made possible. Cybernetics now referred to immaterial entities as machines.

[Anonymous No.11814332]

>HvF: Everyone gets the picture if someone says he was unconscious or, “I see you’re very conscientious.” In the everyday these expressions work wonderfully. The situation is very similar to the famous Augustinian paradox: “If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.” It’s exactly the same with “consciousness” or “conscience.” In everyday speech we talk without difficulties about consciousness in this context or about conscience in a particular situation. If someone asks me, “Tell me Heinz, what is consciousness?” then I’ve got to answer, “Questions about ‘consciousness’ give me an opportunity to find out about the person telling me what ‘consciousness’ is.” Afterward, I won’t know any more about what consciousness is, but I will know more about the person who thinks he knows what consciousness is. I claim, I believe, I feel that consciousness belongs to the inexplicable or the nondefinable areas. Of course, definitions in a dictionary style, those I can write, but if we want to know how it works, why this system is conscious, that I can’t possibly say, it’s an undecidable question that is also directly connected to nontriviality.

>HvF: The Latin con-scire is important; it means, “knowing together.” Now there are two interpretations of this knowing together: The one is that my entire sensorium “knows together,” that means hearing, taste, sight, and so forth, all these sensory streams are “known together,” it is conscientia. And the other interpretation is that we are all sitting here together and—con-scire—know of each other. In this sense a distinction can be drawn: The “knowing together” of an individual is consciousness, and in a group it’s conscience. In both cases, a togetherness is suggested, in one case as a running together in the individual, in the other as people hanging together. Conscience: I am conscious of the other. Consciousness: I get a unified view of my senses that makes me conscious of what is the case here and now.

>Q: We’d like to use language to talk about language traps. Some warning signs can be put up here already on the level of words. Some concepts seem to be directly subject to the requirement that they be given warning labels in the form of “Warning: The use of these words may be damaging to your mental health.” We’ve just touched upon one such word, “consciousness.” But where “consciousness” is, “I” is never far behind . . .

>HvF: “I” is very dangerous . . .

something here also for math types.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4996/860058843e96b857ddd6c3cc6b953499f235.pdf

[Anonymous No.11814692]

>>11812348
>Many of the great thinkers of Western modernity define their goal as a therapeutic one. Spinoza, Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein all present themselves as diagnosticians and clinicians. They examine symptoms, discern the conditions of our metaphysical malaise, and propose remedies to free us from our enslavement to “passive emotions” (Spinoza), to ressentiment (Nietzsche), to traumatic recollections (Freud), or to the “bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Wittgenstein). Therapy in this sense is the modern, secularized and demystified, form of ethics. One of the striking things about Whitehead is that he does not make any such therapeutic or ethical claims. He does not say that his metaphysics will cure me, or that it will make me a better person. At best, philosophy and art may awaken me from my torpor, and allow me to subsume the painful experience of a “clash in affective tones” within a wider sense of purpose. Such broadening “increases the dimensions of the experient subject, adds to its ambit.”. But this is still a rather modest and limited result. At best, philosophy and poetry “seek to express that ultimate good sense which we term civilization". Granted, Whitehead displays none of Nietzsche’s or Freud’s justified suspicion regarding the value of “good sense,” or of what we call “civilization.” But even from the perspective of Whitehead’s entirely laudatory use of these terms, he is still only making a deliberately muted and minor claim. We are far from any “exaggerated” promises of a Great Health, of self-transcendence, or of cathartic transformation.

>Even in his hyperbolic evocation of “God and the World,” in the fifth and final Part of Process and Reality, Whitehead does not offer us any prospect to match the “intellectual love of God” exalted by Spinoza in the fifth and final part of the Ethics. Whitehead’s God, in sharp contrast with Spinoza’s, does not know the world sub specie aeternitatis. Rather, Whitehead’s God is “the poet of the world.” This means that he knows the world, not in terms of its first causes, but only through its effects, and only in retrospect. God “saves” the world precisely to the extent, but only to the extent, that he aestheticizes and memorializes it. He remembers the world in each and every detail, incorporating all these memories into an overarching “conceptual harmonization”. But if God remembers every experience of every last entity, he does not produce and provide these experiences and memories themselves. That is something that is left for us to do, contingently and unpredictably. Where Spinoza’s book ends with the “spiritual contentment” that arises from the comprehension of “eternal necessity,” Whitehead’s book rather ends by justifying, and throwing us back upon, our “insistent craving” for novelty and adventure. That is what it means to write an aesthetics, rather than an ethics.

[Anonymous No.11814715]

>>11814692
brief, mostly stupid, question: are aesthetics and ethics the way we look at each of these in reverse? aesthetics, aestheticized ethics; ethics, moral beauty?

if so, perhaps you can draw speculations about the meaning of technology and politics accordingly...

[Azazel No.11814734]

I agree with metal being one with mother, and using it to kill will kill mother.

Using it to protect will only save mother, despite the poison.

Wormholes, Black matter, Consciousness and Light.


*big hug*

TY

[Azazel No.11814737]

No such thing as moral beauty or perfect harmonics, but people look as they are for the psyche to recognize their intentions.

We have dead walkers.

[Anonymous No.11815637]

reloading for cyber-hegelian Future Owls of Minerva

>also, free band names

[Anonymous No.11816289]

>>11803588
An exponential remains an exponential, and A = A. Exponential aren't abstract Platonic forms existing in the clouds. An actual technological singularity needs to overcome the dwindling natural resources necessary to produce it, the political, social and ideological forces based upon its inhibition, the religious and moral forces poised against its actualisation, the accelerating collapse of the natural environment, and a thousand other problems. Accelerationists love to abstract from these issues, Land loves to hand wave at these sorts of problems with dismissals of "routing around" or "Capital always finds a way" as though it's some magical omnipotent substance.

[Anonymous No.11816342]

>>11816289
land isn't holding on for a kind of kurzweil-style technological singularity. if anything he's saying the blockchain *is* that singularity.

>Insofar as the blockchain functions at all, it’s because that kind of relativistic structure does not obtain upon it. Were it the case that the space and time of the blockchain were modeled by relativistic physics, then what Nakamoto calls the double-spending problem would be insoluble. So what I’m wanting to argue is that the double-spending problem is exactly translatable into the kind of problems of classical physics that relativistic physics describes as insoluble. The equivalent of relativistic physics within the world of blockchain would be to say, “You cannot solve the double-spending problem”. If we believe Einstein, and we believe it’s translatable into the blockchain, then the double-spending problem is insoluble, and since resolving the double-spending problem is the main thing that the blockchain does, there cannot be a blockchain. So the very existence of blockchains, in some fascinating way, shows that we cannot use Einsteinian physics when we’re thinking about this world.

it's true that there are a lot of things about how blockchiain may work that we will learn about in the future, and if civilization goes so completely pear-shaped that all we can do is use it to make pornography and twinkies, fine. but land is mostly talking about the relationship of blockchain to economics, and this new concept of time:

>I think I can say, with some confidence, that the blockchain preserves a distinction in type between space and time that is not Einsteinian. That therefore, if we say, “Well, what do we mean by time when physicists say that we’ve lost that notion?”, I have to make a rejoinder in saying that we really still have time, that the blockchain tells us that we have time, and that we have time that is something totally different from space. And, in the structure of the blockchain, the difference between space and time is carried by the difference between the chain and blocks — every block is spatial when defined in terms of time, it’s a unit of simultaneity. Everything which happens within a block in the blockchain has no differential duration, whereas blocks, when they’re put together into the blockchain — the articulation of the blocks in the chain — is a time articulation, and it’s time articulation in a Kantian sense. Irreducible temporality in the sense that it’s not a spatial dimension.

i'm not a math guy or a compsci guy, and maybe you are. i don't know how any of this works in that sense. i just try to argue for the most maximally charitable view of any philosopher so that we don't shut down lines of inquiry that are potentially interesting before they can get off the ground by attributing ideas to them that they don't actually have. for land just the nakamoto white paper is plenty enough singularity for the time being.

[Anonymous No.11816401]

>>11803588
>what is a sigmoid
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.11816517]

>>11816342
>My position is that the stubborn vindication of Kantianism as the horizon of modern intelligence is the dominant phenomenon. I see blockchain as being Kantian. There’s obviously some kind of updating that happens through the process of technical implementation, but there’s nothing like the kind of overcoming that is seen in the history of German idealism leading into Marxism. I just don’t see that kind of thing at all. I think that you’ve got a much more stubborn isomorphism between the actual mechanism of critique and the process of the blockchain.

>Who knows what’s down the road. But it certainly seems to me that it’s an intensive transition in the autonomy of capital, which I think can be translated into the robustness of these route-around processes. So, while there is a deep leftist objection to the blockchain, which seems to be very rational and coherent and on point, there’s the fact that it obviously is an escape route for capital, and that it makes a whole series of social projects based upon the domestication of capital become increasingly implausible.

this is what i take from this, and without diving into things like the byzantine generals' problem and so on that i have no idea about. land believes you can not only make synthetic time, it’s in a sense superior to actual historical time as we have previously understood it, and this is the current prize being offered by capital itself - a prize it produces and simultaneously is. it’s artificial kantian time. it might be revolutionary time, so long as you put the time of the revolutionary on the line of technological immanence - which is, again, and reduced to a single word, acceleration. teleoplexy is this notion of a speed of autopoetic tech-development becoming sentient, or at least testing the limits of what we mean by sentience. it’s an ontology of virtual lightning bolts. and where they are going, nobody knows.

and this is where the comparisons between land and hegel don't quite seem so crazy. it is not so hard to believe that the result of globalization and the consumer society is to set up a relationship where technology just begins to have a conversation with itself that we initiate and progressively cede more and more control to. of course there are ways all of these things can be altered or subverted - political events, climate change, engineering limitations and so on. but i don't think land is sitting around anxiously hoping some Miracle Device is discovered that proves his thesis. this is his thesis, or thesis-in-progress, in a way. i just hope that the blockchain book doesn't become Old Nick's version of The Winds of Winter, a thing he hints and teases at forever but doesn't attack in full. but even if he doesn't, this question of a return to Kant or Kantian virtual-synthetic time or whatever is enough to chew on. tech setting its own pace. whether this is the intelligence explosion or prolegomena to it, we'll see.

[Anonymous No.11816552]

meanwhile, speaking of societies of control

[Anonymous No.11816558]

>>11816552
anybody else feeling that this is actually going to work and eventually be imported to the west?

>or that it probably isn't going on right now

[Anonymous No.11816567]

>>11816552
at some point this is going to be tried out in the west too. maybe not wide-scale/top-down, but conditionally. for living in those gated seastead communities.

[Anonymous No.11816623]

i wonder also if land ever played DE or its sequel. apparently he played some vidya back in the day and no doubt he does other stuff now.

negarestani apparently loves video games too.

>tfw you will never host a shadowrun/cyberpunk game for nick, reza, yuk hui and stiegler
>y even

[Anonymous No.11817267]

you're not dying yet cyberpunk thread

soon perhaps

but not today

[Anonymous No.11817998]

>>11804100
>squiggly lines are more technologically advanced than any pre-industrial civilization
atheists BTFO

[Anonymous No.11818335]

This is retarded. China doesn't exist. Everything Chinese is a copy of a Western thing. Their very "culture" says oblivious imitation is the highest virtue. All Chinese will tell you their only wish is to be a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.11818404]

Good stuff here.

[Anonymous No.11818643]

>In the West we have been gamified with social media, with Facebook or Instagram likes, every thing we do tells an algorithm more about us. So when across the world by 2020, everyone in China will be enrolled in a vast national database that compiles fiscal and government information, including minor traffic violations, and distils it into a single number ranking each citizen; it’s not surprising if and when other nations and countries follow in step. China will one day soon become the leader, and what happens then, we follow the leader.

>The future of Artificial Intelligence may have more to do with the Chinese one-party socialism and its values than in 2017, we care to admit. The digital totalitarian state isn’t something China will be responsible for, it will be something inspired also by Google and Facebook and U.S. leaders in the use of algorithms that changed society forever.

source:
https://medium.com/@Michael_Spencer/china-social-credit-system-ai-d25c4a6122ef

social credit will work so long as the economy is growing and the state has the people's trust (duh). if that magic is lost so too will the love for big brother. but this ever-closer relationship between banking, technology and social engineering in china seems like something we may see here. the rancor over western-style virtue signaling and chinese social credit point to two ways of dealing with the same phenomena: metaphysical difference within technological similarity. everybody runs some version of state capitalism as their OS but culture + tech leaves a lot of wiggle room for creativity.

the radical left in the US would love a one-party system as much as the CCP. social credit isn't so different from the full-court press of cathedral-style mass-media virtue signal, it's just that it's framed in the radical psychopolitics that the left prefers and with an eye to winning turf wars with their opponents on the right. it's not hard to imagine securicrats on the right arguing for heightened surveillance to combat terrorism. meanwhile the chinese are doing their own thing. Permanent One Party Government problems i suppose. unlike us they have solved the problem of elections.

but the US is heading for that space as well. the left will never recognize trump or anything that resembles him, and whenever the next blue team is elected will it not be the same with the right? are we in permanent crisis-of-legitimacy mode now, where if your guy isn't in office the rest is fake news? and where yours is too, but hey, it's *your* fake news? where it's all propaganda, and where the only question is whether you're the one pushing it out from the mountaintop? that's not a good scene.

[Anonymous No.11820010]

bunp

[Anonymous No.11820515]

>>11818643
Anyone have any good books and scholarly articles on gamification?

[Anonymous No.11820558]

Stiegler is really lacklustre

[Anonymous No.11820896]

>>11820558
i don't know, i think there's some interesting stuff in what he says about technics, time and memory. and it might be a more productive line of inquiry in the long run than the magic word Capital. he doesn't blow the doors off of things like some other writers but i still think he's pretty keen.

what are your main objections or criticisms? give us something to kvetch about.

>>11820515
none that i can think on gamification exclusively, although i feel we are sorely in need of some continental guys to write about the logic of games and vidya and so on. it's games, and not cinema, that are cultural touchstones going forward, and there is a stupid amount of interesting stuff to be said about simulation/virtuality and so on that baudrillard can only take you so far with. D&G are good for everything but i can't think of anyone who can really talk at length about gamification.

what i would like would be something like a Bizarro Han: a guy who is just relentlessly optimistic about all of the amazing things we are doing with the culture of simulation that grows out of the culture of consumption. i've sort of talked about why i think dungeons and dragons are an important cultural milestone in an earlier thread and i'm still kind of in that place now, the relation of numbers to words, game engines and so on as being perhaps more interesting (or at least suicide-justifying) than deconstruction and culture criticism in 2018. we know things are bad and perhaps getting worse in some cases, but it's nice to have a little honey to go with the vinegar also. pic rel is the book to read v/pen-and-paper stuff, as for the broader impact of social gamification and the rest, i can't think of anything. it's more historical and is aimed at a kind of a broader audience, and there aren't a lot of references to continental theorists (which is sometimes a good thing).

of course there's stuff on game theory but i'm assuming that's not what you're looking for. i've tried to read some of von neumann's stuff too now and again and my brain shuts off fairly quickly. i need continental philosophers to explain these numbers to me so that i can have Feelings, &c.

apart from icycalm i actually can't name all that many interesting writers on vidya or anything like that either. and i would prefer not to get some crusty old bastard who just writes off games in increasingly bored or depressing ways. everybody's exhausting, everybody's mourning the death of the real, ok. we get it. i don't even know if it's possible to write reviews that aren't just deadening. for film stuff i like warshow for this reason, he was the critic's critic. he wasn't just giving movies an 8/10 and he wasn't so disaffected that he couldn't understand the psychology behind even derivative works. i want a warshow for vidya. but maybe this just isn't the time for that. maybe it's not possible. i don't know. icycalm wrote some terrific stuff but now it's all behind multiple paywalls.

[Anonymous No.11821103]

>>11803295
>He doesn't see the irony in using BR stills with his meme ideology of accelerationism
cringed and sagepilled

[Anonymous No.11821544]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/5369842