Thankful there are people out there like you. I would just like to share my perspective. You can take from it what you will. The only real 'Problem' is the problem that has plagued Humankind from the beginning, that is we have no way to reconcile our different perspectives. We are all equally 'not God' and prone to logical errors for many reasons. Being able to reconcile the 'conclusions' we hold as individuals is the one and only real problem there is. We are billions of computers that don't sync. That is why we constantly insert, Gods, Leaders, Authorities, etc.
The Greatest power is not our working together or collaboration it is our unique Human intelligence.
So to change the world you must begin to see two worlds. The one now as we know it, a world dominated by "Individual" intelligence and the next world, a world dominated by a "Collective" Intelligence. In this sense 1. Nothing of this present world, no tinkering, rebranding or extra efforts related to the world as it is as we know it will save us. Our only real hope is to build (software) that enables us to form "Conclusions" collectively , that are permanent, anonymous, transparent and 'Moderated' by human logic as best we understand it.. 2. You must see this for the Evolutionary step that it is. Transitioning to a world dominated by a "Collective" Intelligence will change everything. Think of it as a Human powered A.I.. Power centers that dominate in this world will fade. Here is my link again. You may not understand or agree. That is fine. I hope I have given you something to consider and think upon regardless Thanks
Good question. Transparency is definitely not a synonym for anonymous. And AI is, IMV, not existent, it is simply the inputs made, what is consumed.
It is all about power, but there are disparate aspects to power. ( A light or healthy aspect, and a dark aspect, which must be diffused by decentralization, and revealed by transparency.
1. access, being anonymous is equality. If you are 14, poor and live in a slum in India do you think they will want your perspective, participation thoughts or questions. A ‘collective Intelligence’ is a Human powered A.I. The more perspectives or points of thought the better. 2. Power. At some point in time you realize it is all about ‘power’. If the thoughts and perspectives of the contributors, participants was not ‘Anonymous’ then Power would flow to ‘Individuals’. There would form a hierarchy a pecking order. Individuals would garner prestige and acclaim. The ‘power’ of the platform would be siphoned off to individuals and groups of individuals (think, think tanks). Anonymous assures the power generated belongs to and benefits all equally. 3. Humanity. If the conclusions formed or offered are anonymous, who will you hate? who will you demonize and stereotype? where will you aim your nuclear weapons? We are all Humanity. We all share Humanity. War is organized murder because we cannot reconcile our thoughts and perceptions. We know it is impossible. Go to the street and attempt to convince anyone of anything. So we seek power, power over the impossible situation we find ourselves in and we justify it. Power gets you the things you perceive you need and want. War determines who was right before ‘God’.
Some people will no doubt put more effort into the system than others. We would have no problems using our real names and real faces. Power would only flow in a decentralized system where it was deserved, in our opinion. Why should a 14 year old kid in India not have his ideas percolate to the top if indeed they are good ideas?
“Some people will no doubt put more effort into the system than others” If the system consisted of 300 or 1000 people, maybe this would matter. 20 million, no. What is the point. This is simply stardom which in a world dominated by Individual Intelligence and our dependence on ‘Leaders’ makes sense. We want to move away from this world. We need Human evolution and that comes of new “environment’ a new “Intellectual environment”
.” We would have no problems using our real names and real faces.” names and faces are like business cards, It would become a brand a business, These function along with ‘perception’ which is an inconsistent forecaster of future productivity. Leaders often have a unique purpose they often overextend. Names and faces would soon be running for public office. The whole idea is “leaders’ are obsolete. What they ‘think’ cannot compete with what “we” the people ‘think’. We the people must retain the power.
“Power would only flow in a decentralized system where it was deserved” In a world where the same thoughts could be reproduced 1000x in a population of 1 billion, someone there “deserves” something?
“in our opinion. Why should a 14 year old kid in India not have his ideas percolate to the top if indeed they are good ideas?” I think they made a movie about this some years ago. Today what you ‘think’ can be disqualified for any number of reasons age, gender, birthplace, degrees, perception, nationality, race, etc. In fact there are people to use terms like, “conspiracy theorist” to shut many down. This nonsense would not stand the light of day in a world dominated by a Collective intelligence.
We like the idea of highly aligned people working together. The term "collective" has been used to create tyranny many times before (see communism) so we prefer to use other terms, but your ideas expressed here have merit. A highly aligned decentralized group of humans using technology to organize is what you are describing, yes? How is that much different than what we have described in previous articles? We think it is very much the same - as long as the sovereign individual's rights are protected. As pragmatic idealogues, we cannot fathom a system that doesn't protect the individual.
That said, we wanted to read more about your idea but the link you provided is a dead one. Can you provide another?
"As pragmatic idealogues, we cannot fathom a system that doesn't protect the individual."
Indeed, and that requires decentralization. (Foundational principles of the US, now ignored and overturned) It appears to me that this "collective" achieves actions how? The more people, the more ideas yes, and certainly they do not all align.
Where is the decision making power? So what, simply the majority? Then we are back to "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch yes?"
Systems solve nothing. However some systems are more effective than others at limiting problems. Human nature is the essential source of the problem, as outlined here.
“We like the idea of highly aligned people working together” It is not so much about “working together” We all as Individuals use logic and reason to survive. We form “conclusions” from which we operated. It is these ‘conclusions’ that we must all ‘Collectively’ form together. That said, no effort by Humanity can be said complete (we are not Gods). Hence, our formed Conclusions are more of guidelines, These conclusions (formed collectively) are though the most thoroughly vetted and most rigorously generated. So looking there would be an obvious first choice, if not a wonderful base of reference.
Communism has as it’s main fault that it is simply a variance in a world dominated by Individual Intelligence. At the end of the day there will be 2, 3, 5 10 people at the top doing all the, ‘Thinking’ for the millions below.
“A highly aligned decentralized group of humans using technology to organize is what you are describing, yes?” Not really. Once I got to participate in what the originators were calling “the online party”. It was a political effort with many of the participants being in technology in some way or form. It finally dissipated. They were simply online doing what the people down at the party headquarters would be doing. Another case of the world implemented through ‘Individual Intelligence’ just in a different format. So what does “decentralized” really mean? What is decentralized? What is being organized? If decentralized does not refer to the ‘Conclusions’ being formed and ‘organized’ to the thoughts, logic and questions of the participants then the “decentralized organization” is simply a new variance of Individual Intelligence and will encompass all the pitfalls any other system based on Individual Intelligence does.
I can’t say that I have read all the previous article. I was skimming and latched onto comments about ‘Leaders’ because that is something I often mention.
Often I think of wanting to ask people, “So this world as it is, based on Individual Intelligence is good”? “If you could start from scratch you would design it just like this”? The truth is until the advent of Computing and Internet there was no alternative to the world as we know it. Second and this is a big one, this is the world people were born into. This is the world they know and understand. Believe me. I was a state representative for Ron Paul 2x. In 2006 I latched onto this seeing that politics is rigged. I consider it a very simple concept. I thought all I had to do was explain it and someone else could run with it and change the world. Humans seem to want to live in this world, even if it kills them. Don’t ask me why. So, “as long as the sovereign individual's rights are protected.” simply means their right to ‘thought’ and no person should have a monopoly on that.
I am very much a champion of the, “Individual”. Why, because No person is God, we are all equal in that we all operate form a point of perspective with our individual limitations, needs and wants. We make ‘errors’ (fallacies) when we form our conclusions. We are error prone. We form ‘delusions’ to support our conclusions. We form alliances to support our conclusions. We wage war to support our conclusions. Still, no representative of Religion or state should take away our individual access to “thought”. Thought is what it is all about. It is not about ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ those are just abstractions or actions. It is about our unique ‘Perspective’ and rational, logical thought in this world to support our Individual survival and life. No ‘Individual’ should ever have the ‘Authority’ to deny another ‘Individual’ the ‘right’, ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ to ‘think’ for their individual navigation of the world to support their survival.
Another way to look at it is we live in a world based on ‘Perceptions’. What is it that divides us? Our perceptions form our conclusions which form our culture, our religions etc. This is a ball that can only be undone one way, war. War is the great reset. What if though your ‘thoughts’, your ‘perceptions’ your reasoning was valued and integrated into the thoughts, perceptions and reasoning of others throughout the world? What if the ‘moderator’ was Human logical, rational thought. Would you need to kill them to prove you were, “right”? Who would you kill, Humanity? Why does a preacher of a politician wear a thousand dollar suit, stand behind a podium, talk with warm and sincere guestures and tone, play background music and stand surrounded by allies? So your ‘perception’ of their thoughts and conclusions will be positive? If this doesn’t work there are guns.
If any “who”, or ‘individual’ gets their hand on the bat it just ends up like it is today. This is all about ‘conclusions’ that are there 24/7 to contemplate, revise, improve. Conclusions that are transparent in ‘process’ and evolution form point A to Point B ( no black box of the Human mind). Conclusions that are moderated by Human logic and reason as best we know it. If any Individual or group of individuals gets their hands on that “Bat” then it is all done and falls apart. It get corrupted
The "power" is in the rational and logical analytics of the Human brain and intellect. This is not an Authority, just a process. Like what goes on in your head when you attempt any task or goal. There is no majority or minority. We are all Human and take part.
It also attracts psychopaths, like moths to a flame, and the end result is similarly painful and destructive. It cements this power in the rule of law, and the weapons to enforce said rule of law. IMV, the problems with Communism are many, and unavoidable. History agrees.
Controlling is management. Management is formed around a plan or protocol which are the result of Human thought. (Individual Intelligence) The only difference between Stalin being the “decider’ or Bush is what lies and manipulations are told between when they conceive (think up) the plan and it’s implementation. A democracy may impede the tyrant more for a period of time.
"A democracy may impede the tyrant more for a period of time."
"Government is a necessary evil" A constitutional republic of inalienable power to the individual, protected from group power, is far better. Scientific education on human nature, its dark side and light side, and what psychology and actions universally engender happiness within individuals, is necessary.
Thankful there are people out there like you. I would just like to share my perspective. You can take from it what you will. The only real 'Problem' is the problem that has plagued Humankind from the beginning, that is we have no way to reconcile our different perspectives. We are all equally 'not God' and prone to logical errors for many reasons. Being able to reconcile the 'conclusions' we hold as individuals is the one and only real problem there is. We are billions of computers that don't sync. That is why we constantly insert, Gods, Leaders, Authorities, etc.
The Greatest power is not our working together or collaboration it is our unique Human intelligence.
So to change the world you must begin to see two worlds. The one now as we know it, a world dominated by "Individual" intelligence and the next world, a world dominated by a "Collective" Intelligence. In this sense 1. Nothing of this present world, no tinkering, rebranding or extra efforts related to the world as it is as we know it will save us. Our only real hope is to build (software) that enables us to form "Conclusions" collectively , that are permanent, anonymous, transparent and 'Moderated' by human logic as best we understand it.. 2. You must see this for the Evolutionary step that it is. Transitioning to a world dominated by a "Collective" Intelligence will change everything. Think of it as a Human powered A.I.. Power centers that dominate in this world will fade. Here is my link again. You may not understand or agree. That is fine. I hope I have given you something to consider and think upon regardless Thanks
://medium.com/https@whmilk
And why must they be anonymous?
Good question. Transparency is definitely not a synonym for anonymous. And AI is, IMV, not existent, it is simply the inputs made, what is consumed.
It is all about power, but there are disparate aspects to power. ( A light or healthy aspect, and a dark aspect, which must be diffused by decentralization, and revealed by transparency.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anderdaa7/p/does-absolute-power-corrupt?r=slvym&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
1. access, being anonymous is equality. If you are 14, poor and live in a slum in India do you think they will want your perspective, participation thoughts or questions. A ‘collective Intelligence’ is a Human powered A.I. The more perspectives or points of thought the better. 2. Power. At some point in time you realize it is all about ‘power’. If the thoughts and perspectives of the contributors, participants was not ‘Anonymous’ then Power would flow to ‘Individuals’. There would form a hierarchy a pecking order. Individuals would garner prestige and acclaim. The ‘power’ of the platform would be siphoned off to individuals and groups of individuals (think, think tanks). Anonymous assures the power generated belongs to and benefits all equally. 3. Humanity. If the conclusions formed or offered are anonymous, who will you hate? who will you demonize and stereotype? where will you aim your nuclear weapons? We are all Humanity. We all share Humanity. War is organized murder because we cannot reconcile our thoughts and perceptions. We know it is impossible. Go to the street and attempt to convince anyone of anything. So we seek power, power over the impossible situation we find ourselves in and we justify it. Power gets you the things you perceive you need and want. War determines who was right before ‘God’.
https://medium.com/@whmilk/the-value-of-anonymity-in-a-collective-intelligence-c0a003f481b6
https://medium.com/@whmilk/decentralized-thought-9bf368914391
Some people will no doubt put more effort into the system than others. We would have no problems using our real names and real faces. Power would only flow in a decentralized system where it was deserved, in our opinion. Why should a 14 year old kid in India not have his ideas percolate to the top if indeed they are good ideas?
“Some people will no doubt put more effort into the system than others” If the system consisted of 300 or 1000 people, maybe this would matter. 20 million, no. What is the point. This is simply stardom which in a world dominated by Individual Intelligence and our dependence on ‘Leaders’ makes sense. We want to move away from this world. We need Human evolution and that comes of new “environment’ a new “Intellectual environment”
.” We would have no problems using our real names and real faces.” names and faces are like business cards, It would become a brand a business, These function along with ‘perception’ which is an inconsistent forecaster of future productivity. Leaders often have a unique purpose they often overextend. Names and faces would soon be running for public office. The whole idea is “leaders’ are obsolete. What they ‘think’ cannot compete with what “we” the people ‘think’. We the people must retain the power.
“Power would only flow in a decentralized system where it was deserved” In a world where the same thoughts could be reproduced 1000x in a population of 1 billion, someone there “deserves” something?
“in our opinion. Why should a 14 year old kid in India not have his ideas percolate to the top if indeed they are good ideas?” I think they made a movie about this some years ago. Today what you ‘think’ can be disqualified for any number of reasons age, gender, birthplace, degrees, perception, nationality, race, etc. In fact there are people to use terms like, “conspiracy theorist” to shut many down. This nonsense would not stand the light of day in a world dominated by a Collective intelligence.
We like the idea of highly aligned people working together. The term "collective" has been used to create tyranny many times before (see communism) so we prefer to use other terms, but your ideas expressed here have merit. A highly aligned decentralized group of humans using technology to organize is what you are describing, yes? How is that much different than what we have described in previous articles? We think it is very much the same - as long as the sovereign individual's rights are protected. As pragmatic idealogues, we cannot fathom a system that doesn't protect the individual.
That said, we wanted to read more about your idea but the link you provided is a dead one. Can you provide another?
"As pragmatic idealogues, we cannot fathom a system that doesn't protect the individual."
Indeed, and that requires decentralization. (Foundational principles of the US, now ignored and overturned) It appears to me that this "collective" achieves actions how? The more people, the more ideas yes, and certainly they do not all align.
Where is the decision making power? So what, simply the majority? Then we are back to "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch yes?"
Systems solve nothing. However some systems are more effective than others at limiting problems. Human nature is the essential source of the problem, as outlined here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anderdaa7/p/does-absolute-power-corrupt?r=slvym&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“We like the idea of highly aligned people working together” It is not so much about “working together” We all as Individuals use logic and reason to survive. We form “conclusions” from which we operated. It is these ‘conclusions’ that we must all ‘Collectively’ form together. That said, no effort by Humanity can be said complete (we are not Gods). Hence, our formed Conclusions are more of guidelines, These conclusions (formed collectively) are though the most thoroughly vetted and most rigorously generated. So looking there would be an obvious first choice, if not a wonderful base of reference.
Communism has as it’s main fault that it is simply a variance in a world dominated by Individual Intelligence. At the end of the day there will be 2, 3, 5 10 people at the top doing all the, ‘Thinking’ for the millions below.
“A highly aligned decentralized group of humans using technology to organize is what you are describing, yes?” Not really. Once I got to participate in what the originators were calling “the online party”. It was a political effort with many of the participants being in technology in some way or form. It finally dissipated. They were simply online doing what the people down at the party headquarters would be doing. Another case of the world implemented through ‘Individual Intelligence’ just in a different format. So what does “decentralized” really mean? What is decentralized? What is being organized? If decentralized does not refer to the ‘Conclusions’ being formed and ‘organized’ to the thoughts, logic and questions of the participants then the “decentralized organization” is simply a new variance of Individual Intelligence and will encompass all the pitfalls any other system based on Individual Intelligence does.
I can’t say that I have read all the previous article. I was skimming and latched onto comments about ‘Leaders’ because that is something I often mention.
Often I think of wanting to ask people, “So this world as it is, based on Individual Intelligence is good”? “If you could start from scratch you would design it just like this”? The truth is until the advent of Computing and Internet there was no alternative to the world as we know it. Second and this is a big one, this is the world people were born into. This is the world they know and understand. Believe me. I was a state representative for Ron Paul 2x. In 2006 I latched onto this seeing that politics is rigged. I consider it a very simple concept. I thought all I had to do was explain it and someone else could run with it and change the world. Humans seem to want to live in this world, even if it kills them. Don’t ask me why. So, “as long as the sovereign individual's rights are protected.” simply means their right to ‘thought’ and no person should have a monopoly on that.
I am very much a champion of the, “Individual”. Why, because No person is God, we are all equal in that we all operate form a point of perspective with our individual limitations, needs and wants. We make ‘errors’ (fallacies) when we form our conclusions. We are error prone. We form ‘delusions’ to support our conclusions. We form alliances to support our conclusions. We wage war to support our conclusions. Still, no representative of Religion or state should take away our individual access to “thought”. Thought is what it is all about. It is not about ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ those are just abstractions or actions. It is about our unique ‘Perspective’ and rational, logical thought in this world to support our Individual survival and life. No ‘Individual’ should ever have the ‘Authority’ to deny another ‘Individual’ the ‘right’, ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ to ‘think’ for their individual navigation of the world to support their survival.
Another way to look at it is we live in a world based on ‘Perceptions’. What is it that divides us? Our perceptions form our conclusions which form our culture, our religions etc. This is a ball that can only be undone one way, war. War is the great reset. What if though your ‘thoughts’, your ‘perceptions’ your reasoning was valued and integrated into the thoughts, perceptions and reasoning of others throughout the world? What if the ‘moderator’ was Human logical, rational thought. Would you need to kill them to prove you were, “right”? Who would you kill, Humanity? Why does a preacher of a politician wear a thousand dollar suit, stand behind a podium, talk with warm and sincere guestures and tone, play background music and stand surrounded by allies? So your ‘perception’ of their thoughts and conclusions will be positive? If this doesn’t work there are guns.
https://medium.com/@whmilk/thinking-outside-the-vertical-line-28161b232d64
https://medium.com/@whmilk/save-the-world-collective-vs-individual-intelligence-69e1353ea9b5
https://medium.com/@whmilk/here-is-a-book-i-have-placed-on-amazon-and-smashwords-e864cc0e2c60
The difference between centralized and decentralized is important to note - who has the final "hand on the bat."
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/embrace-decentralized-systems-fear
If any “who”, or ‘individual’ gets their hand on the bat it just ends up like it is today. This is all about ‘conclusions’ that are there 24/7 to contemplate, revise, improve. Conclusions that are transparent in ‘process’ and evolution form point A to Point B ( no black box of the Human mind). Conclusions that are moderated by Human logic and reason as best we know it. If any Individual or group of individuals gets their hands on that “Bat” then it is all done and falls apart. It get corrupted
So how does this "collective" of your bat? Where is the power, the decision making authority to act? Is it simple majority?
The "power" is in the rational and logical analytics of the Human brain and intellect. This is not an Authority, just a process. Like what goes on in your head when you attempt any task or goal. There is no majority or minority. We are all Human and take part.
Communism's main fault is that it is centrally controlled. It also has a motivation problem, as why would I want to do any work if you are doing none?
It also attracts psychopaths, like moths to a flame, and the end result is similarly painful and destructive. It cements this power in the rule of law, and the weapons to enforce said rule of law. IMV, the problems with Communism are many, and unavoidable. History agrees.
Controlling is management. Management is formed around a plan or protocol which are the result of Human thought. (Individual Intelligence) The only difference between Stalin being the “decider’ or Bush is what lies and manipulations are told between when they conceive (think up) the plan and it’s implementation. A democracy may impede the tyrant more for a period of time.
"A democracy may impede the tyrant more for a period of time."
"Government is a necessary evil" A constitutional republic of inalienable power to the individual, protected from group power, is far better. Scientific education on human nature, its dark side and light side, and what psychology and actions universally engender happiness within individuals, is necessary.