Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World

Expand Messages
  • Julian Bond
    Scott Feamster Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01 ... When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power, yes, definitely. It s
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
      Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
      >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

      When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
      yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
      McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
      the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
      the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
      of the universe.

      Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
      Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
      indistinguishable from the world of things.

      --
      Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
      Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
      Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
      *** Just Say No To DRM ***
    • Lucas Gonze
      ... Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it s possible to wander off topic in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on for more
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
        Julian Bond wrote:
        > Ooops, wandered off topic there.

        Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it's possible to wander off topic
        in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on
        for more than a year at a time and still manages to pick up the thread.

        > more seriously though Teilhard de
        > Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
        > indistinguishable from the world of things.

        So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
        formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
        thing I can think of.

        Any chance you know of any other interesting work? Are there any blogs
        or community centers for internet-of-things hacks?
      • Serguei Osokine
        ... I believe it was Vernadsky s Noosphere: http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
          On Friday, November 09, 2007 Julian Bond wrote:
          > ...Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is
          > increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

          I believe it was Vernadsky's Noosphere:

          http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme

          - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts of
          this concept that are different in its Chardin's interpretation.

          Best wishes -
          S.Osokine.
          9 Nov 2007.


          -----Original Message-----
          From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Julian Bond
          Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:47 AM
          To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
          Physical World


          Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
          >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

          When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
          yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
          McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
          the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
          the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
          of the universe.

          Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
          Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
          indistinguishable from the world of things.

          --
          Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
          Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
          Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
          *** Just Say No To DRM ***


          Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
          http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Hugh Pyle
          I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon. Here s one I m finding
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
            I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail
            price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon.

            Here's one I'm finding quite interesting right now.
            http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?JiveUI


            On Nov 9, 2007 10:59 AM, Lucas Gonze <lucas@...> wrote:
            >
            > So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
            > formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
            > thing I can think of.
          • Mike Dierken
            ... Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas doesn t.
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
              > more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)

              > is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.
              Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
              doesn't.
            • Julian Bond
              Mike Dierken Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40 ... Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I m twisting the original ideas. The
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40
                >
                >> more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)
                >
                >> is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

                >Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
                >doesn't.

                Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I'm twisting the
                original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                keeps seeping out into the real world.

                Where's my augmented reality head up display. That's what I want to
                know. (and my one piece spandex jump suit, meals in pill form, personal
                hoverboard, cure for this disease, etc, etc)

                --
                Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                *** Just Say No To DRM ***
              • Lucas Gonze
                ... EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more durable than the objects. ... Here is an example of seeping -- I have been playing
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                  Julian Bond wrote:
                  > Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist.

                  EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more
                  durable than the objects.


                  > But I'm twisting the
                  > original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                  > keeps seeping out into the real world.


                  Here is an example of seeping --

                  I have been playing historical American music on guitar*. I learn it
                  from scans of sheet music in historical archives at sites like the
                  Library of Congress' and Duke University's. These archives contain
                  primary sources intended for professional historians of music. They
                  aren't for musicians to use in an everyday context, they are for the
                  same people who also travel to go to specialized music libraries. I'm
                  not one of those people. I'm using these resources to make music in
                  places like bars and coffeehouses.

                  I wouldn't go to a specialized music library to find stuff to play. I
                  did try a couple times, but both times the work was way out of line with
                  the goal. You need a series of appointments in-person, plus permission
                  and equipment to make copies.

                  There's nothing about my playing which is digital. It's as analog as I
                  can make it. But this real world activity is only possible because of
                  the internet. The compositions were long forgotten, usually lost to
                  non-historians for at least a hundred years, and they showed few signs
                  of life. And even if the sheet music were still in circulation in book
                  stores, the practice of reading music is not very common.

                  It only becomes possible for this music to be reanimated when the
                  internet makes the archives available to enough eyeballs that they meet
                  up with ordinary musicians who are able to read music and willing to
                  play hopelessly obscure material. It's an internet solution to a
                  physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                  historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                  nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.

                  And it's not an internet solution in the sense in which email is an
                  incremental improvement on snail mail. The internet created the
                  critical mass to enable peer production.

                  -Lucas

                  * see http://blog.gonze.com/category/mymusic/ for examples
                • Mike Dierken
                  ... But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc) ideas are not. That s the exists I was referring to. The statement that
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                    > It's an internet solution to a
                    > physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                    > historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                    > nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                    >
                    But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                    ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                    The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                    indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                    actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                    change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                    change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                    sounds like intellectual puffery.
                  • Julian Bond
                    Mike Dierken Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52 ... You re right of course. It s one of those trolls that sounds deep but doesn t actually say very
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                      Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52
                      >But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                      >ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                      >The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                      >indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                      >actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                      >change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                      >change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                      >sounds like intellectual puffery.

                      You're right of course. It's one of those trolls that sounds deep but
                      doesn't actually say very much. We've been having this debate at least
                      since Negroponte's atoms vs bits and the philosophical underpinnings go
                      back much further than that. But there does seem to be a qualitative
                      change when so many of us make a living from manipulating symbols in the
                      virtual world which then allows us to buy shiny toys in the real world.

                      When an SUV driver blindly follows their GPS into a river and gets
                      stuck, apart from being stupid, isn't that a failure to distinguish
                      between the world of ideas and the world of things? Or is it just the
                      same thing we've been doing for centuries in mistaking lines of ink on a
                      map for real divisions between humans. Or a classic example of a 21st
                      century behaviour; placing blind faith in technology before the evidence
                      of our own senses and intelligence.[1]

                      [1]Easy Travel To Other Planets. Ted Mooney. Two new emotions appeared
                      in the 20th century. The feeling of being entirely alone in a crowd. The
                      feeling of running as fast as possible without going anywhere.

                      --
                      Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                      Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                      Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                      *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                    • Miles Fidelman
                      ... More to play devil s advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else... Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa? Ideas are often
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                        Mike Dierken wrote:
                        >> It's an internet solution to a
                        >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                        >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                        >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                        >>
                        >>
                        > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                        > ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                        > The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                        > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                        > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                        > change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                        > change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                        > sounds like intellectual puffery.
                        >
                        More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                        Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                        Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                        behavior. Consider:

                        - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                        printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                        - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                        one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                        effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                        - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                        what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                        and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                        bloodstreams.

                        Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                        being agitated?

                        And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                        interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).
                      • Scott Feamster
                        In the middle, it s people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and intangibles (thoughts and emotions). In the end, it s the intangibles that give our lives
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                          In the middle, it's people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and
                          intangibles (thoughts and emotions).

                          In the end, it's the intangibles that give our lives meaning; e.g., love.

                          Love is energy created by matter.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
                          Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:36 AM
                          To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                          Physical World


                          Mike Dierken wrote:
                          >> It's an internet solution to a
                          >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                          >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                          >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                          >>
                          >>
                          > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber,
                          > etc) ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to. The
                          > statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                          > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                          > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect
                          > people and change their behavior and mass digital media has increased
                          > that rate of change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are
                          > indistinguishable sounds like intellectual puffery.
                          >
                          More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                          Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                          Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                          behavior. Consider:

                          - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                          printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                          - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                          one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                          effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                          - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                          what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                          and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                          bloodstreams.

                          Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                          being agitated?

                          And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                          interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).


                          Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                          http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • cjenscook
                          Hi Scott Although I m based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots) I m not Scottish myself, just a mongrel. ... family, angel, or venture
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                            Hi Scott

                            Although I'm based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen
                            of Scots) I'm not Scottish myself, just a mongrel.

                            --- In decentralization@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Feamster" <sf@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and
                            family, angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will
                            continue to provide the costliest investment dollars; debt will
                            continue to provide the cheapest investment dollars.
                            >

                            The "who" is immaterial.

                            It's the "how" of this new form of Equity that is entirely novel
                            (although, as I said, Canadian "Income Trusts" come close).

                            This is not "Equity" as in a Limited Company, and is a lot less
                            risky, albeit the returns MAY be less than those from Equity in a
                            Corporation, so are the risks.

                            Investors receive a proportional share of the revenues from the
                            property financed (whether Real property or IP) BEFORE the
                            management gets its hands on them.

                            If there are any revenues, of course.

                            In other words, in this model Labour works WITH Capital not FOR it,
                            and you don't get the "Principal/Agent" problem which
                            all "Corporations" have, and which is why there is a huge body of
                            Company law, and that famous oxymoron, "Corporate Social
                            Responsibility".

                            This "Open" form of Capital is an entirely new and simple
                            (unlike "mezzanine", convertibles, warrants etc etc) middle ground
                            between conventional "Debt" and "Equity", and in my experience comes
                            in a lot less expensive than conventional "Equity", but more
                            expensive than "Debt" wwith potential of a much greater return.

                            There cannot be a default, because it is not a "cost" or
                            an "overhead", but rather a "pre-distribution".

                            This is something entirely new, and it does take a bit of getting
                            your head around, for sure.

                            Best Regards

                            Chris
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.