[PLUG-TALK] SOPA, PIPA, "Piracy", Incentives

[glen]

I agree completely that the boundary between the inside of an organism
and its environment is not simple.  But I don't think such boundaries
are dissolving.  At least I _hope_ with all my heart that they are not
dissolving, because those boundaries are what give us the creativity and
innovation we see around us.  Transduction across a boundary is
necessary to avoid simple reduction.  Transduction is the mechanism for
complexity.

Now, you're right that we are not limited to the same boundary types
(transduction types) we've been limited to in the past.  But that's not
new.  When our ancestors grew eyes, gills, fingers, and toes, more types
of boundary were opened to us.  When our ancestors invented language,
more types were made available.  It's a continual process.

But the boundaries will _never_ disappear.  They will merely change.
(This is by definition, I think, because when/if the boundaries do
disappear, we will _be_ simple physical processes with no ability to
observe, understand, etc. ... there will be no complexity.  So, if the
boundaries dissolve, it won't matter because we won't be hear to grieve.)

Given that, I stick to my claim that the two taxonomies are necessary
for the conversation to be useful.  Taxonomies of 1) organisms and 2)
artifacts.  This is nothing more than 1) biology and 2) physics.

And don't be tricked into an over-simplified referent for the word
"taxonomy" just because my vocabulary sucks. ;-)  They need not be
static, acyclic, n-ary, or have any other stable property.  But a
classification, some classification, any classification, must exist if
we're going to map organism to artifact.  Each taxonomy and any one
mapping between taxonomies can change given different circumstances.

Indeed, in order to do it properly, accurately, we might have to develop
2 new taxonomies and 1 mapping for each and ever situation considered.
This is what we do already in trial by jury.  We consider the law and
the actors involved, and have the ability to apply a unique relationship
at that trial.

But just because our system is "special" (allows unique relationships
under unique conditions) does not mean it's arbitrary, only that it
depends fundamentally on the actors involved in doing the mapping.

Underneath, though, we still need actors that have semi-permeable
boundaries around them.  And what happens purely inside those boundaries
is irrelevant except for how it [ae]ffects the actors' behaviors and the
(also dynamic) artifacts that are [ae]ffected.


Keith Lofstrom wrote circa 12-01-19 05:41 PM:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:36:31AM -0800, glen wrote:
>> Keith Lofstrom wrote circa 12-01-19 09:03 AM:
>>> I will start things out by saying we need a better way to
>>> compensate producers of ideas that does not involve lawyers
> 
>> I can't help but think there are demons underlying your simple first
>> statement, here.  I think the problem lies in the concept of "producing
>> ideas".  Ideas are mental constructs that are useless unless they're
>> exported from one's head ... represented in an external form ... acted
>> upon with one's arms and legs ... communicated from mouth to ear ... etc.
> 
> Brains are production zones.  Drawing conceptual boundaries between
> the insides and outsides of brains is just another mental construct,
> of increasingly limited usefulness.  I sit here and type words, and
> look at them, and change them based on how they appear on this screen. 
> It isn't a one way flow.  I am an integrated circuit designer, who
> stares at geometric patterns on screens and changes them based on
> what I observe.  What actually manifests in silicon is invisible to
> the unaided human eye, and sometimes not even physically measurable
> (what is an "AND" gate, really?).  Even my perception of boundaries
> ( "N type and P type" ) is based on abstracts, on descriptive
> conventions, on intent.  Is a stick kindling, a flagpole, a
> screwdriver, or a weapon?  TSA has one perception, a 6yo another.
> 
> Some of my colleagues are working on systems that convey signals
> out of the brain, controlling real world systems, not mediated by
> muscle, sometimes even bypassing normal cognitive censors.  They
> are helping people with total lock-in produce text, sound, even 
> maneuver their wheelchairs.  Any decade now, the connection between
> brain and "muscle" will be technological, first for the "impaired",
> next for the "normal" struggling to catch up.
> 
> The Cartesian boundaries are dissolving.  Nature, machinery, image
> and mind are merging ( they've always been that way, actually, but
> we can't ignore it anymore ).  Theories, analytical techniques,
> emotions, and reflexes are merging also.  Usually badly. :-(
> 
> And this is why "intellectual property" based on "artifact" will
> become just as dangerous as "property" in human bodies and minds.
> Already, much of what I consider my "mind" is embedded in this
> hunk of matter in front of me.  I insist on free/open source and
> multiplatform transportable data because the pathway to this
> part of my mind must not be owned by others, be they Bill Gates
> or Richard Stallman.  Imagine how it will be if our corporeal
> enhancements become both essential to our economic survival,
> and are partly controlled by others against our consent.
> 
> That, in a nutshell, is why an artifact must not intrinsically
> convey an obligation.  That is the road back to slavery.
> 
> Steve Jobs never invented much of anything, besides perceptions.
> In his reality distortion field, he owned the smart phone, and
> was preparing to sue Android/Google before cancer stopped him.
> Labelling can be confusing.  Calling an "idea" (or an artifact
> purported to represent it) "intellectual property" results in
> very different relationships and behavior than calling it an
> "achieved blessing".  History is replete with ideological
> pathologies based on what we name things.
> 
> My buddy Sheldon Renan says "things want to be connected". 
> I agree, but also say "things want to change", to evolve in
> helpful directions if we design for that, towards damage if
> we are careless.  The internet age is about connecting things,
> and the people connected to those things.  This will reach you
> though my virtual server in Dallas - unless Dallas goes down,
> and it reaches you through a copy of the virtual in New York or
> London or Brisbane.  All based on sophisticated and fungible
> physical artifacts, as well as a lot of clever "ideas" that
> will never become rigid material objects.  Postfix running on
> Intel VT-x is indistinguishable from Postfix running on AMD-V.
> 
> So watch out for property based on classification and taxonomy,
> matter and idea and relationship.  At best there are agreements,
> and it is our job as citizens and ethical beings to decide which
> agreements we will help each other understand and enforce, and
> which disagreements to stay out of.  Most agreements are the
> fossilized remnants of agreements made between dead people in
> very different situations, so it is generally wise to stay out.
> 
> Keith
> 


-- 
glen