Conversation with xsx

+xsx
a 3rd party candidate would have to be compelling enough that it would overcome inertia and I-always-vote-X people
ⓘ sad_procurement is now known as procurement
+xsx
akin to a black swan candidate
was Trump a black swan candidate?
+xsx
I'm tempted to say Trump was a black swan, but I'm sure that he didn't engineer the win, maybe Bannon?
+xsx
remember when Trump tweeted endlessly about Obama playing gold, and said that he'd be the hardest working president ever?
I doubt Trump has worked a single 40-hour week in his life
playing golf, I mean
+SevenOfNine
xsx: It is known in mathematics that FPTP is strictly inferior to several other voting systems.
Continued employment of FPTP is an illegal disenfranchisement of over 100 million Americans.
+xsx
I agree FPTP is a mediocre method, but it's unlikely to change until we break the party duopoly
→ tammy- has joined
ⓘ Mabus set mode +v tammy-
+xsx
I'd stack-rank our internal threats to our democracy 1. dark money/unlimited money, 2. duopoly, 3. gerrymandering, 4. voter suppression, 5. FPTP
+SevenOfNine
Aww, a smart person.
Shall we begin.
+xsx
you sound like you're sitting down to a pork chop...
+SevenOfNine
I am vegetarian.
As animals do not consent to being eaten.
And it is not necessary to eat animals in order to live as a human.
If you're reasonably non-poor.*
+xsx
ah, the Queen's Gambit, ok
+SevenOfNine
Resolving any potential dilemma.
First, I will compare some of your choices.
Gerrymandering is certainly > voter suppression
I think FPTP is > than voter suppression, however.
Voter suppression is still in the several hundred thousand only, I believe.
FPTP is demonstrably affecting at least several million votes.
Duopoly is a result of FPTP (the mathematics shows), so I will put FPTP > duopoly
+xsx
well, I'm measuring these options by not only their electoral impact, but also their impact to effective governmance
+SevenOfNine
I am also considering both of those factors.
FPTP is playing an important role in the stranglehold on our government by two private entities, the DNC and RNC.
Let us project to the single dimension of effective governance.
+xsx
gerrymandering not only defeats the will of the people, but also drives extremism, which results in gridlock and dysfunction
+SevenOfNine
The big three have got to be mass media, education, and dark money/big money.
Agreed.
Gerrymandering seems an easily solvable problem.
It's shocking courts haven't resolved this yet, though, they are starting to become diseased.
+xsx
yes, there are babysteps developing there already
+SevenOfNine
xsx: I have an alternative approach.
Hypothesis: Democracy cannot co-exist with freedom of speech and mass media.
+xsx
and there is a scramble right now to adopt the mathematics to gauge when gerrymandering has gone too far
+SevenOfNine
xsx: Yes, I know there is still work in that space, but the existing solutions are orders of magnitude better than the status quo.
Courts should immediately improve to that standard, and then allow continued progress.
xsx: I believe mass media broke democracy several decades ago.
+xsx
Agreed.
re gerrymandering, that is
+SevenOfNine
However, I think democracies are hypernormalizing and that is outside the Overton window to discuss.
← Dreams2X_ has quit (Ping timeout)
+SevenOfNine
Let us be philosophers.
All possibilities are on the table.
Do you notice that almost all mainstream discuss assumes democracy is fixable?
Certainly, it is possible it is not possible with the current technologies.
The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept. It is used by media pundits.[1][2] The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003),[3] a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy,[4] who in his description of his window claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[5] According to Overton's description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.
+xsx
sure, but then we'll be relegating ourselves to armchair utopias, but that could serve as inspirations for a future, right?
+SevenOfNine
xsx: I think we should move away from universal suffrage as a goal.
I think the new goal should be 'competence'.
* xsx listens to the floor creaking
+SevenOfNine
xsx: Are you familiar with Homo Deus by Yuval Harari.
+xsx
no
+SevenOfNine
He argues that the liberal notions of universalism arose with the French Revolution to support economic and military needs of states.
This is a Marxist analysis, with the economic system as the infrastructure atop which culture sits.
xsx: Have you heard of this book?
+xsx
no, but I follow what I assume are his broad strokes
+SevenOfNine
His central thesis is that humans gave up religion and meaning for science and power.
+xsx
I would posit something mathematically similar, a meritocracy based on roles or metrics
+SevenOfNine
But we attempted to backdoor meaning in modernity through liberalism.
Sorry, humanism.*
Liberalism is one of three types of humanism in his book.
He claims that humanism is a religion, and its central tenets were refuted in the 20th century.
The notion of universal suffrage is an idea that is derived from humanist axioms.
+xsx
as a media analysis and social construct, perhaps, but the foundation of being is still empty
+SevenOfNine
If it is true that humanism is broken, we should abandon its derived goals and consider new goals.
+xsx
walks like a duck, sure
+SevenOfNine
xsx: The ownership of self is the central tenet of humanism.
From that, we have things like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Or, no taxation without representation.
However, the scope of technology in the 21st century presents us contradictions.
+xsx
yes, agreed, behaviorally prescribed
+SevenOfNine
The people of South Korea are now under much greater threat of death than 12 months ago.
This is because the Americans voted in an imbecile traitor to be president.
'No nuclear holocaust without representation' seems a natural corollary to the American revolutionary sentiment above.
Also, climate change does not respect national boundaries.
Climate change is largely created by wealthy countries, and disproportionately affects poor countries, making a it a social justice issue.
Which is why Pope Francis engaged this topic in Laudato si'.
So, what is my point.
Even given the humanist axioms, a local pursuit of them with 'Everybody should vote!' is self-contradictory.
Even if your only goal is to pursue the humanist ideals, we still need to restrict liberty.
→ CharmlessMan has joined
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v CharmlessMan
+SevenOfNine
If this sound contradictory, I would point out Karl Popper's ideas on tolerance for intolerance and John Rawls' ideas on overlapping consensus.
To wit, All forms of liberty require constraints.
If your goal is to maximally empower individuals, then you have to restrict some of their impulses.
And we can no longer afford people who engage in conspiracy theories from determining the course of our world.
I am ready to have my vote denied whenever I have a stupid idea.
What counts as stupid will be determined by the scientific method.
While there is important debate on many points, there is also knowledge humans have acquired.
+xsx
we, as a species, have no capacity for abandoning our prior values, we seem only to migrate like value-consumers from placard to placard
+SevenOfNine
For example, climate change is primarily anthropogenic with confidence above 95%.
xsx: I am capable of that.
As are many smart people.
I think that last post should be amended to 'The average human is generally stuck in the values of their birth culture'.
xsx: I propose a tiered society in which different people have different powers, as determined by their competence.
We already live in such a society, but have not explicitly constructed the varying powers.
+xsx
and, as the value become less concrete and marketable, they become more diffuse and rarely adopted
+SevenOfNine
Is there danger in living in a tiered society?
Yes.
We already live with danger in such a society.
+xsx
we are primate, first and foremost, and there is little cause to believe that will change anytime soon
+SevenOfNine
What shall be our model for simultaneously denying some humans the right to vote, while ensuring their rights are protected?
The animal rights model developed by vegetarians and vegans.
+xsx
primates are social beasts, driven by the need for social status
+SevenOfNine
Most.
I am driven by that, in part, but also mathematics.
+xsx
of course, we're talking in generalities
+SevenOfNine
xsx: We are driven for social status because we are agents built in a game theoric world -- evolution.
The current paradigm for our species to break is game theoric limitations.
+xsx
to transcend your primate-nature, you must accept that's where you are
+SevenOfNine
My above construction is an attempt to impose the categorical imperative into politics.
The categorical imperative is an anti-game theory device.
xsx: Are you familiar with the work of Peter Singer?
He wrote Animal Liberation (1975), and is a 'father' of the contemporary animal rights movement.
+xsx
as a animal rights/vegan, you can appreciate the slippery slope of "human" rights
+SevenOfNine
I don't think it has to be as hard as is portrayed.
xsx: The consensus model is the person-threshold model.
+xsx
and, as the granularity and scope of those rights expand, sooner or later, we'll have to wrestle with "edge conditions" within our species
+SevenOfNine
In this model, if you're a 'person', you get all the rights. If you are not a 'person', you can be generally owned by a 'person'.
This model is a binary classifier and is generally weak.
Peter Singer has proposed a graph-based model similar to the perk system in RPGs.
So, elephants have the right to not have their tusks cut off their bodies.
But they don't have a right to determine nuclear policy.
+xsx
this sounds analgous to a tiered meritocracy
+SevenOfNine
That is because their physiology is sufficient for the first right, and not the second.
xsx: Yes.
I think that humans are a single biological species, and multiple cognitive subspecies.
I think all humans have the right to not be stolen from, for example.
Because their physiology supports that.
I do not think all humans have the right to determine nuclear policy.
+xsx
Agreed.
+SevenOfNine
Because some are not smart enough, or not able to control their impulses.
I claim my construction is a very natural conclusion from the observable data of the ascendant post-truth movement and biology.
+xsx
and, what about AI, what happens when *we* are the laggards?
+SevenOfNine
The only impediment is the humanist notion that humans are 'all equal'.
Then AI should apply to us the vegetarian/vegan model.
Because I am not interested in building a system in which I succeed as an agent at all cost.
That is the game-theoric action.
I am interested in building 'correct' systems.
+xsx
AI is the nuclear weapon on economics, yes?
+SevenOfNine
In some systems, I am the boss, in others, AI make many decisions for me.
+xsx
of economics
+SevenOfNine
Why do you say that?
+xsx
super-human intelligence is only a matter of time
+SevenOfNine
It's already here, in part.
+xsx
when a robot has a 1000 IQ, then what?
+SevenOfNine
Data science firms routinely manipulate the feelings of millions of Americans.
For example, the 2016 election.
We are not being honest as a society how dumb and impulsive and easily controlled a substantial portion of our society is.
About 30-35% of Americans are completely domesticated.
They know they are not domesticated.
Just like a lion knows it runs shit, not humans.
← Dreams2X has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
+SevenOfNine
We currently live in a society in which a few thousand wealthy oligarchs with access to data science firms are casting about 30 million votes.
+xsx
right, a believe only allowed to persist because of their limited understanding
→ Dreams2X has joined
+xsx
a belief
ⓘ Mabus set mode +v Dreams2X
+SevenOfNine
That is a tiered society that naturally arose without planning.
The goal of that tiered society is to maximize the benefits of the few at the cost of the many.
My tiered society would allow anybody with sufficient competence to become a 'decider'.
+xsx
yes, and at risk to all
+SevenOfNine
We are not going to built this tiered society I just suggested.
What's going to happen is that we're going to continuing to living in the current tiered society.
And that will persist until it generates a crisis which shifts the Overton window.
At which point there will be an opportunity to change society, though those in power will have an important advantage.
Repeat.
+xsx
when our societal command and control dwindles down the a small narrowly-focused population, it ceases to function in the best interest of the species, indeed with little regard for the viability of the species
+SevenOfNine
Agreed.
It is borne from narrow, agent-maximizing interests.
Which, due to current technology, is a threat to the species.
+xsx
and, if they adopt self-destructive fetishes, like Easter Island, then we all go extinct with them
+SevenOfNine
Yes.
The system is currently tolerating the imbecile traitor Donald Trump as commander-in-chief.
Which immediate arrest or assassination is easily warranted.
Our culture encourages us to fear discussing the philosophy of executing the leader.
Even when that leader discusses with his 3rd grade level intellect executing tens of millions in nuclear holocaust.
+xsx
The Donald is dead.  Long live The Donald.
+xsx
I forget the pundit, but his idea was that the nuclear codes should be surgically implanted into a person that accompanies the president.  In order for the president to launch nukes, he has to kill that person and dig the codes out of his chest.
that way the president is only able to launch nukes when he's willing to kill an innocent person personally
he must be willing to kill 1 innocent personally before he can commit to killing millions of innocents
+SevenOfNine
That's an interesting idea.
That might be a very good idea.
Human brains are evolved to mostly be moved by ethical considerations when they are immediately present.
There is lots of cognitive science research on this point.
← Peter__ has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
← tammy- has left
+SevenOfNine
So, killing one person right here you can see might be much harder than order a strike to kill millions.
+xsx
some objected to the savagery of the solution, but I applauded its immediacy
ⓘ Debates set mode +l 79
+xsx
IE, I would only launch when I was utterly convinced not-launching would be worse
+SevenOfNine
I don't think it's 'savage'.
That it is consider savage actually demonstrate my last point.
+xsx
and, sometimes, not retaliating might be the right thing to do
+SevenOfNine
Of course.
+xsx
politically impossible to say, but nonetheless true for some at times
+SevenOfNine
Politically impossible because we have a failed political culture.
→ Ibrahim_ has joined
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v Ibrahim_
→ i_c_u has joined
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v i_c_u
+xsx
SevenOfNine, how will we deal with the ethics of super-human intelligence...what do we do when the robots tell us to kill X
?
+SevenOfNine
If the robots are sufficiently smarter than us, then we should do what they say
+xsx
"just following orders"
+SevenOfNine
If they robots are only somewhat smarter than us, we should strongly consider their counsel
xsx: As an atheist, following the orders of a sufficiently superior being appears to be correct
+xsx
my concern is more the alignment of ethics between ourselves and our robot overlords
+SevenOfNine
I think the 'just following orders' idea from the Nuremburg Trials is a mixture of two things:
1 - Application to a problem consider sufficiently simple by the prosecutors
2 - Insufficient gap in competence between orderer and orderee
I think that if you change the values for those two variables you'll see that 'just following orders' is actually quite defensible in at least some cases
For example, you're an intern physician and the head of surgery tells you a procedure to do to save a man
And later you say, 'I did the procedure because everything I knew told me that he was much smarter than me in that area of medicine'
And I think that would be a sufficient defense
+xsx
yes, because of shared presumptive ethics
+SevenOfNine
xsx: If we are free of game theory, we have to be open to a divergence between our ethics and that of the next species
That is, our understanding of existence might become obsolete
And not try to top from the bottom
+xsx
I'm worried that our robots may have programmed or evolved ethics that put us into a 2nd class citizenship, if not 'pet' status
+SevenOfNine
xsx: We are 2nd class citizens to some potential beings.
That is obvious.
If that were false, we would be some kind of omni-gods
If you believe in competence, then you have to be ready to become extinct in some cases
Otherwise, you're just trying to survive at any cost
+xsx
that is our imperative
+SevenOfNine
Not mine. ;)
I am for the system, not myself.
+xsx
what happens if our system is threatened by another system?
+SevenOfNine
Then we should try to evaluate which system is better.
And abandon the inferior system.
+xsx
what if the situation or mandate is wholesale win/lose?
→ sl00pyKrisp has joined
+xsx
IE, alien invasion
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v sl00pyKrisp
+SevenOfNine
Then we should use the most advanced statistical models and computational power available in the time allotted to make the best decision.
xsx: We should be open to alien invasion, in at least some cases.
Our goal isn't to survive at any cost.
+xsx
analysis paralysis can be fatal
+SevenOfNine
That is the imperative of the beast.
xsx: Agreed.
+sl00pyKrisp
heh, the beast ( ;
ⓘ Debates set mode +l 82
+SevenOfNine
xsx: Do you think humans have value?
+xsx
only within our minds
+sl00pyKrisp
making babies is valuable
Ignoring sl00pyKrisp!*@*
+SevenOfNine
sl00pyKrisp: I put you on ignore.
Suggested course of action: Submit yourself to the nearest retraining facility.
xsx: That is a reasonable answer.
xsx: I think that humans have value.
→ iibods has joined
+SevenOfNine
I think that whatever is the source of that value can be held in other things which are not human.
ⓘ Raven`X set mode +v iibods
+SevenOfNine
I think that in some cases the value in those non-human things can match or exceed the value of humans.
That all seems to follow from the original premise that 'humans have value'.
Therefore, in some cases, humans need to compromise their survival, because they have value.
+xsx
we are born into our mind cages, and, while breaking free of them seems like the 'natural' thing to do, it doesn't mean that we won't damage the cages on our way out
← iibods has left
+xsx
and, it becomes our lot in life to live among the caged birds as they gawk at our mangled cages
+SevenOfNine
That is beautiful imagery.
+xsx
thank you