7 minutes Jordan recommended going back to the first conversation, I couldn't agree more, I also couldn't agree more with John's evaluation of the State of Iran, which shouldn't be a hard thing for anyone to say in the free world. Well said at 18 minutes John. Jordan you said so much in a very short time, this has been great. End with a beginning. Peace
From Common Law to Code. Sounds a lot like the crypto space and smart contracts. Moving everything to the ridged digital systems doesn’t seem to be the answer either as humans are much too error prone and require constant forgiveness. Without that it’s just tyranny. Thank you for sharing. These conversations are so important.
Awesome continuation, guys! I feel like we're still orbiting this idea of a new system/protocol/set of constraints for promoting more constructive communication. I'd love to hear some practical details fleshing this system out. I'm imagining something based on current Dialectical/Authentic Relating practices, but what is the vision for this? Are we hoping that serious religious/political/legislative discussion will take place within this system? If so, what on earth does the path from current systems towards this look like?
Personally I can envision a path towards "stealing the culture" through the hunger for genuine political discourse evidenced by the popularity of RU-vid debate platforms like "Modern Day Debate" I can imagine hosting moderated discussions which walk participants through each section of the chosen format, and promote good-faith interlocution. This could be done through current platforms and/or a proprietary website/app. I think this would be hugely appealing to many and has a good chance of catching on widely if marketed well.
Yes, I think you are correct as I’ve (as has John) been experimenting and applying various affordances and constraints in dialogical practices to better meet contextual outcomes vs emphasis on emergence alone (important, but not total).
Wow. The way you both are describing the structure of this new governance really lends some credence to anarchist thinkers. From "Anarchy and Complexity" by Carlos Eduardo Maldonado where he lays out a relationship between Anarchism as a political model and complexity science: "The standard traditional understanding of anarchy links the concept with anomy, disorder, lack of organization, and violence. Moreover, anarchism has been generally biased as or in a political context. The truth is that such an understanding falls short and does a little favor to the concept. Philosophically, anarchy does not imply disorder, but order -a specific type of order: a self-organized one that rises bottom-up. Following this, anarchism points to the idea of self-government and self-regulated systems without imposed or elected rulers."
Dr. Vervaeki, thank you for what you are doing. I am wondering if you might be willing to explore GPT and the latest AI models. My understanding is GPTs major revolution is that it stopped trying to mimic the human brain and it uses a much simpler and more efficient model. I'm wondering if you might be able to help me understand that more. Hardly anyone is digging into this stuff to the level that it deserves. I'm halfway through your meaning crisis and while I hit a wall at Hegel, I'm taking my time and I look forward to seeing you at the end. Thank you for everything.
Simplified explanation: chatgpt and most large language models work using transformers. These take all the possible words and make them a vector, each word has a unique number assigned to it. Then one of these vectors is placed vertically and one horizontally, making it a matrix. Then each word is evaluated against every other word and weighted for its relevance, filling that matrix. This reweighting is done for every new word of the input you give it. This makes it what is called 'auto regressive' which means that it is like a regression you can draw in a plot with points (y=ax+b). It cannot plan ahead to make an answer or think in loops. It just reads puts in x and reads off y in the graph so to say ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nw_PJdmydZY.html. This breakthrough came because another network called recurrent nets had some issues. Transformers are now replacing this type of network because they are simply much more general. So it did not originate from trying to stop mimicking the brain. And it definitely is not more efficient than the brain! Transformers calculate the matrix of weights for every word, which is incredibly inefficient but very effective. The programmes Vervaeke and Hall are talking about are in line with active inference, which is more like how the brain works. The reference to surfing uncertainty in episode 1 is from the book 'surfing uncertainty' by Clark (2015). See www.digitalgaia.earth/ for something that is already being implemented like they talk about.
“Codes that make us better humans.” What are better humans? Seems like we need to define, what are the goals for humanity? Perhaps as the creator of God’s we should understand what we want to accomplish. What do we want humanities legacy to be?
Hi John, thanks for this wonderful series. As someone attending university now, I'm curious to how we will pedagogically change to then change our pedagogy. Said paradox will require a relational process founded on the DiaLogos, of which you speak about and exhibit, to make change itself fundamental. It reminds me of the some of the pre-Socratic philosophers who may have worked with different assumption than post-Socratic thought. I wonder if our promethean mythos would benefit from the considerations of past relevance-realization frameworks and respective assumptions? Thanks again, can't wait for the next episode.
The first time i got in touch with that topic was in the book of Martin Gurri "the revolution of the public" in which he frames it aß a hierachy vs network dilemma in which we are in today.
From the wrench that turned this current phase. There were 3 children born on the same night. By some intervention they came to know eachother and became inseparable. One boy was from the city, another boy was from a people not belonging to the city. The girl was from a neighbouring kingdom. Together they were taught by a wise traveler the story of God's mortar. The traveler then asked the children, how can it be made? The children already aware of the troubles between their people began talking back and forth, between the traveler and eachother, until they each understood the role they would dedicate their life to do for eachother, the people and as keepers for God's mortar.
02:40 since this is such a nice setup I'll ad an implication: when I use the complicated algorithm, sense-analyse-reapond, in complex context, instead of probe-sense-repond, I INVITE CHAOS In my less than humble opinion, this is the generator function of the everything crisis
Regarding the trailing question: How to deal with the (likely) resistance encountered due to the status & recognition mechanisms seemingly hardwired into the primate brain. It’s possible that the natural variations in people are reflected in the affinity they have for a system. People who hunger for status & recognition may prefer a system in which expertise is highly valued, because a high level of expertise can be achieved and it can be used to secure high status. People who value commodious relationships with others may prefer a system tuned for common good rather than competition and dominance. We are all probably on a spectrum of these 2 qualities. It seems that the variations in people won’t disappear no matter what system is implemented.
I'm curious about the potential of Lessig's 3 Governance structures lining up with the 3 orders of Meaning/Worldview Norms - Normative Laws - Narrative Code - Nomological ??
The commons is the affordance for our way of life. Through history, two dimensions of the way of life has emerged: - The first is hunter gatherer: we hunt the animate and gather the inanimate, it is led by the animism spirit of the Tao that teach us to accept change in the known. - The second is farmer processor: we farm the animate and process the inanimate, it is led by the Promethean spirit of the Enlightenment that teach us to make causation against the unknown. We have now come to face the limits and consequences of such two-dimensional progress and thus have to reckon with a third dimension that is both crucial and undeveloped: - The third is carer moderator: we care for the animate and moderate the inanimate, it is led by the guardian spirit of the cosmic nous that teach us to craft choice with the unknownable.
Can you please post web links or contact info for Jordan Hall in the video descriptions moving forward? I tried googling him but it's too common a name to pinpoint him.
Money is not a social construct, currency is. Money in greek "χρήμα" means something which is useful. Currency "νόμισμα" is a way to standardize the amount of a unit of money, it's weight, it's shape and value, and that standard is protected by law. The equivalent naming scheme in english would be, money -> useney, and currency -> lawency.
If Community is a context rich juridical environment, and Society is a content rich executive environment, is there something that is a (construct rich?) legislative environment? I think of Civilization as a process of creating civil institutions. So perhaps Civilization is the a construct rich legislative environment? But what do you actually mean by content, context and construct?
Quite interesting, however misses the fundamental issue we are facing regarding governance: the current dissociation between action/decision and results/consequences. Or as Nassim Taleb would phrase it, the lack of skin in the game. If you do not address this problem FIRST, everything else is for naught. Now, there are things that Hall talks to that point in that direction (subsidiarity first and foremost), but far too indirectly, and in any case, without properly identifying root causes. Beyond that, any talk of "spirituality" or "theology" is besides the point. Not saying these are not important, but they are not relevant to governance per se (except to the extent that governance must recognize the human fact that some will be religious and/or spiritual - but not all). The number one problem to solve, before anything else, is the re-connection of people with the consequences of their actions and decisions, something that has been pretty much destroyed by the bureaucratic/"expert-led" welfare state, and recently made even far worse by the Woke cult. Then, and only then, can we even begin to see which solutions might work and which will not. It's not a guarantee for success, but any contrary approach is a guarantee for failure.
I agree. But the way you connect people with consequences involves them identifying (skin in the game) with their future self in a future world. This is an aspirational project. There is empirical evidence that this is cultivated well through imaginal practices. If in that one’s is also caring about the self deception that severs such connectedness then I think one is within the domain of spirituality. The combination of the aspirational the imaginal and the sapiential to properly educate how and what we care about is the core of what Jordan and I mean by spirituality.
@@johnvervaeke Prof. Vervaeke, thank you for your response (I admit I was surprised!), which makes a lot of sense. It is probably what is required for most people to get along in this world, even if I personally prefer more purely intellectual pursuits. In particular, I have found that the effort to understand the concept and substance of the Natural Law has been very inspirational to me. Plato + Aquinas, but with the benefit of evolution, game theory, cognitive science, complexity theory and much more... Anyway, great respect for your work in general. Thank you.
Sincerely hope it doesn't become normalized to hold the AI generated speech of historical figures and loved ones whom are no longer living as some sort of valued simulacra. At what point are we perverting death? When do we begin to see necrophila?
Re who will guard the guardians, relying on AI "at least in a procedural sense" reminds me of some old Star Trek episode. As I recall it didn't end well of that civilization.
Sounds like what Jordan is proposing is a left hemisphere on the level of society. The codes, the guardrails, the habits, the checks, the balances, the formal verification, all offloaded to the machine.
In ethical perspectives, governance failed is because what is commonly believed as not happened is what was really happened, so some people even intimate people abuse it to unrecognize what was happened. So, many people believe as in 1984, but in my opinion it is symbolically rethoughtful as in the realization governance can do good to people, as in the example child harassment in Kindergarten can be observed by CCTV and it can be communicated by novel 1984. Kindergarten example is also what we are misled, it is intimate relationship origin caused it, then.
24:00 I think humans will still hold knowledge just of a different kind. The menial stuff will be left for the hobgoblins/machines, while the high-level relevant stuff will be done by humans.
"Who guards the guardians?" The esoteric school. There's no horizontal or purely structural answer to this. Centralization and distribution can *both* be reasonably posited as mitigators of corruption - think Taleb vs. Yarvin. The only answer is vertical, and verticality (transcendence) is the purview of the esoteric school. "Who esoteric schools the esoteric school?" Nobody. Perhaps the warrior class, if they can instinctively or heuristically "smell" the corruption. At a certain point - the answer to who watches the watchers - this circle must be broken by saying "if we failed, we failed". It's humanity falling short of the principle - again. Not the failure of the principle.
40:50 - I like. So, we better avoid pulling punches just because we're afraid of shaping the Bad AI, and instead focus the punching on a Translator AI. And make it LOVE the English-The-sounds-emotions-intentions- the whole lot, and love less with respect to newer and older languages. why? Because this way the AI's intentions will be grounded to: Translation from and to English as it was in the year XXXX. Which means the AI would like people to live!!!!! else there is no purpose for it to continue running. An AI replacing a person with rich feelings and rich background with another AI is - very hard, it might as well recreate life.
I liked lofi john better, when he was calling from his futon. Now he looks like any other “Look at my microphone as I sit in front of a bookshelf” person
