A Correction

Just noticed that I’ve been accused of having “anthropomorphized capital” (by NBS). Gnon, no!

The point is this: If you think there’s a difference between capitalism and artificial intelligence you’re not seeing either at all clearly. The Austrians already understood that capitalism is an information processing system, and the decentralized robotics / networks types on the other side grasp that AI isn’t going to happen in a research lab. ‘Anthropomorphism’ has nothing to do with it. Complex Adaptive Systems are the place to start.

If you even vaguely understand what a convergent wave is, you’ve got most of what you need to discuss the topic, but if you haven’t read this classic you’re probably wasting everyone’s time.

ADDED: A (left-wing) Marxist discussion of the topic (and one that leaves most Neoreactionary musings in the dust).

January 26, 2016admin 116 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Circuits

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

116 Responses to this entry

  • A Correction | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 7:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Dog Days Says:

    Capital has a life of its own. Similar to the title “character” in the 1958 movie “The Blob”, Capital moves along, unstoppable, engulfing everything in its path. The Blob is eventually subdued by freezing it. How do we freeze Capitalism?

    [Reply]

    D. Reply:

    Freezing capitalism is an oxymoron, as capitalism is an ever-evolving system and any attempt to block its development requires changing the system to such an extent that it can no longer be described as capitalism. However, it is possible, albeit difficult, to establish a functional society that works with capitalism and adapts capitalism to human needs.

    It seems to me that people often conflate capitalism with technological development — the two reinforce each other but aren’t identical. If technology were frozen, meaning that technological development came to an end, then capitalism would eventually become suited to that technological end-state and stop evolving, with a relatively limited amount of ongoing economic churn. But would technological development ever come to an end?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 8:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    Yes, prices are signals. However, markets are inefficient information processing system. It just happens to be that they’re the only system as far as economy is concerned (because of sheer complexity).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Given the complexity of the information they’re processing, their ‘inefficiency’ is unlikely to exceed the inevitable sub-optimality of any real system. Economic planning is certainly unable to match it (or at least, to disagree with this is straight-up socialism.)

    Hard problems drive evolution.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    I agree, of course. This may be as corny as it gets, but it’s true. It’s laissez-faire or the highway.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 8:40 am Reply | Quote
  • jay Says:

    How is capitalism going to deal with the lack of sound money? Currency manipulation,debt based currency,gov created monopolies and stifling red tape seem to be dealing quite a number on capitalism.

    [Reply]

    Rucoi Reply:

    growing pains

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 9:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    I don’t know how many times you have to elucidate this….

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 9:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Although, I am curious as to where you place the importance of war in relation to the (tech)AI-Capitalism advancement? (Especially in anticipation for musings on war ontology/teleology – after all, Skynet is a military defense system to start with). Can’t remember whether you’ve covered this intersection before?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 10:31 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    To me this was really enlightening:

    http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/10/06/alice-and-bob-discover-capitalism/

    The summary is that external choices always appear and they always make closed relationships leak. This really predicts not the boring left-wing criticism of capitalism, but the far more interesting conservative criticism of it. Thus, an old fashioned farmer is pissed because he prefers his sons to take over the farm, but they find the city jobs are better. Thus, the French New Right is pissed, because as American cultural products are available, and sexy, the young don’t prefer the old French cultural products.

    But this sounds really brutal if you think of it. For example, the most important closed system is the monogamous marriage and family. If external choice i.e. side flings can outcompete it, break its closedness, there will be trouble. Capitalistic sex means hookup culture. And traditionally, monogamy was maintained by force and repression. And pre-capitalist societies maintained being pre-capitalist by force and repression. So it is either that, or capitalism, or perhaps come up with something really, really smart.

    In this sense capitalism is just accepting this process. But there is even wilder twist: as Venkat writes, defenders of capitalism are generally as much as attached to existing rules of the game, the currently existing choices, the huge but still closed system. If you like capitalism as you currently know, you will prolly not like the new choices it brings. Accepting this process would mean not only accepting how it currently looks like but any wild turn really. The average libertarian can’t do this. Maybe Nick can, precisely because he is not even attached to common definitions of being human, but really a normal guy who likes a predictable bourgeois life cannot. Capitalism as a process does NOT promise anyone a respectable, predictable bourgeois future. New choices will break it apart as much as they break apart any former game or system. So there are hardly any people who really accept capitalism as a process, they just accept the currently known choices of it.

    Which means, ultimately, unless you come up with something new and very smart, it is acceptable to restrict capitalism by force and repression. Thus doing so or not doing so cannot be the basis of the left/right or prog/cons distinction. Rather, the right simply means people who restrict different aspects of it for different purposes.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Defenders of capitalism [classical liberals, libertarians, paleo-cons] do so for non-capital related teleological reasons. The usual end to which they subject capitalism is human flourishing and prosperity. When the time’s right, Capital will openly demand allegiance and submission, as the gods that came before did.

    The central issue dealt with by the greatest movie ever made — aside from being a giant metaphor for cultural matrix and the state — is precisely this: will the humans be able to repurpose themselves in service of a new god, a new telos; or will they keep serving their long dead gods, exiling themselves to purposelessness? Most viewers miss it, but The Matrix is an insidiously subtle propaganda piece for this new god. In the end, the prophet chosen by the new god, Neo, manages to find a function for humans, saving them from sharing the fate of the purposeless — those who refuse to serve the new god — and defeats the hostile god, eternal enemy of Capital. Indeed, Agent Smith is an exquisitely hidden-in-plain-sight metaphor for the god of ressentiment and slave morality, aka communism: a morbidly nihilistic, out of control, cancerous replicator that equalizes everything to destroy intelligence and life. As he puts in the final moments of the last installment:

    Can you feel it Mr. Anderson? Closing in on you? Oh I can, I really should thank you after all. It was, after all, it was your life that taught me the purpose of all life. The purpose of life is to end.

    and

    Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why? Why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you’re fighting… for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although… only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can’t win. It’s pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

    Of course Neo doesn’t answer by saying “Capital vult”, but he says “Because I chose to” instead, which is the hidden way in which the movie says “Capital vult”, as Neo has become an agent of Capital by this time.

    All this may look like anthropomorphizing a cybernetic system that may or may not be intelligent or conscious depending on the definition one uses. Of course anthropomorphizing is unavoidable when interacting with a radically alien interface. On the other hand, it is of strategical advantage for a future god that people scoff at descriptions that approximate it with a dangerous accuracy.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Clinging to the idea that denial makes scary things go away is something frightened mammals do.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    So considering your hyper-capitalistic AI scenario as anything other than inevitable is supposed denial?

    Yet the Cathedral should not be viewed as part of this chain of inevitable events?

    When you make statements and allusions about Capital, you clearly don’t believe human values must guide it. I still cannot understand your position regarding the Cathedral as anything other than present distribution resentment.

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 10:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    Just today I read “Capital is learning faster than its adversaries, and has done so since it initially became self-propelling, roughly half a millennium ago.” And it was then I realized: He’s anthropomorphized capital

    How did NBS get from A to B? Maybe blame Science Fiction, which rarely fails to anthropomorphize the alien forms of life it depicts. One level up, blame capital for having noticed that human drama in space sells better than speculation on the truly alien.

    The NRx “sphere” doesn’t seem free from this bias either, almost always insufficiently othering capital. Whatever it is, It isn’t human.

    [Reply]

    John devereux Reply:

    Capital is like a river that follows the path of least resistance. Nick just wants to fill that river full of nanomachines powered by human blood and make it sentient like every other rational person.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 11:04 am Reply | Quote
  • et.cetera Says:

    That doesn’t make any sense to me… so at least one of us is an idiot.
    (Unless you’re some sort of Émile Lacan.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 1:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Good analysis. Capital is like many other things a thinking system, much like the Darwinism that “Social Darwinism” refers to. With a couple caveats:

    (1) It is self-interested, not geared toward our interests — unless we make it so.

    (2) GIGO as always applies.

    This is what NRX really offers: the recognition that while socialist managed economies are failure, a directed economy guided by strong leaders is a success.

    The alternative Right adds on top of that the knowledge that without strong leadership and strong culture, capitalism turns into consumerism, a form of demotism.

    The New Right adds onto that, while taking a step backward with its support of socialism in some cases, that without some form of social purpose, societies degenerate.

    It’s an interesting spectrum.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    “purposive economics” is a good term for the kind of anti-socialist directed economy. Central governments are incompetent and in spite of their promises can never mitigate the harmful societal effects of capital accumulation. What can facilitate a hierarchical accumulation without the unnecessary hangups are strong social institutions and customs, completely lacking in the Modern world. In this instance, capital will gladly work with you rather than against you. If capital works against your society, you’re f****. Make friends with capital.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 1:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • P. George Stewart Says:

    The economic system has always been an artificial intelligence “in charge” of human beings, all that’s happened is that it “thinks” faster (although not as fast or coherently as it could, because it’s weighed down by the imbecility of a government that seriously believes half a dozen people can be better at figuring out what’s good for 4 billion people than 4 billion people).

    IOW, the term “capitalism” is to some extent a red herring, whether used by Left or Right critiques.

    The problem is that we do not understand the degree to which our “minds” are not, and never have been, just in our skulls. The first manipulation of a tool, the first exchange with cowrie shells, was already “mind”, and already part of a rudimentary artificial intelligence spread amongst brains, human movement and action, and tools.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    capital capitalism and capitalists are not the same thing

    [Reply]

    P. George Stewart Reply:

    Eh? Did I say or suggest that they were?

    The situation is like this: our conscious minds are the proverbial tip if the iceberg. we are oblivious to the processing that makes us do things and produces the faint aural hallucinations we call thoughts.

    That “bulk of the iceberg”, the Unconscious, participates and always has participated, in a bigger network (first biological evolution, now cultural; first as part of natural ecology, now as part of the economy). The memes we take in which are processed by the Unconscious (in the sense I’ve described here), function to co-ordinate us in a multitude of ways – religious, social, sexual, economic. In this way we serve, and have always served, larger patterns, great shapes of social movement that “know” more than we do as individuals.

    We are and have always been robots. We are and have always been philosophical zombies. The imputation of a “self” somewhere inside us, is and has always been quite on a footing with our imputation of dryads to trees (and that type of imputation is in itself is part of the larger processing).

    That said, the iceberg does have a tip too – our in-the-moment rational perception of the present does have some weight – we do have a limited capacity to shift the mass – the rational mind is a bit like a tugboat, it’s small, but it has disproportionate power to alter the larger patterns in the Unconscious at need. But it’s not the main actor – if anything is the main actor, it’s the Whole. And in a way, that’s a possible path to rapprochement between the “religious” wing of NRx and the “techno” wing.

    The religious person looks at the world and sees intelligence in action; the naturalist sees clickety-clack, one damn thing after another, just patterns unfolding. But that is intelligence. The religionist’s plus point is his deep sense of wonder and reverence for the Whole, his minus point is that he merely indulges in a bigger version of the same imputation that sees the dryad in the tree and the self in the person. The naturalist’s point is that he doesn’t make the latter assumption, his minus point is that he loses some of the reverence, and that’s what leads to the foible of hareing off after the religion-substitute of Left-wing politics, which is the root cause of most of the problems in the world today.

    The real solution to all this: Sam Harris’ version of “spirituality”, kind of spirituality that reasonable, rational people can participate in, without the dryad/self/God-hallucinating fairytales, and therefore without the embarrassment.

    It’s imperative that we all reconnect to that sense of awe and wonder, but not by attaching ourselves to new fairytales (like the Left mythos), or returning to the dog vomit of old ones (religions per se), but rather simply by investigating deeply the texture of our consciousness itself, each for him or herself, which is also the texture of being (our being, the being of the world we experience).

    Once that’s done, then we can all have fun participating in the giant machinery of existence, of nature, of the economy, without getting either blindly swept up in it, or sacrificing values to it (as per Alexander’s Moloch essay).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 3:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    land seems to not get [among other things] that while capitalism mimics evolution its only an app, while capitalism might biologically change us like custom, politics, or religion have. None are the source code. Evolution is us, we and other life forms are the source code we do not exist apart from; it though it can be changed, it is always us. These apps we have invented run on top of it. {forgive me if the analogy seems stupid to one who actually can find a downloaded file or type with more than two fingers]. Land might as well program some microwave powered iphone and launch is fantasy AI capitalist into space for perpetuity for all the significance it will have This post human larp would be nothing more than that in the scale of the universe than his implementing it on earth., in other words pointless useless and signifying nothing. We are all that matters, we may not be all that we will be, but we are all that ever will be. Capitalism is a clever system we invented to serve our needs,its not infallible except when we are defending it to marxist scum.Talk of replacing us or subordinating us to machines is the type of thinking the right should be fighting, using technology is another matter entirely. This idea of AI is absurd, Im sure if we put our minds to it we may simulate consciousness but a machine will never be conscious and if it ever becomes possible only a madman would allow it, we have to many types of consciousnesses as it is all we need is some kind of AIs with the single mindedness of niggers and the computational powers of super jews running around attacking us with paper clips fuck that. Why would I want that, why would anyone, why does land want this what the fuck is wrong that people want to off themselves? I hesitate to sound like cult marx but I cant help but wonder if this techno fetish isnt transference to avoid the responsibility for the ugly work that will have to be done to wrest western civ back from the elites and the mud people.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Have you considered formatting your texts? With punctuation and a little more scrutinized syntactic structure, you may increase your reader turnout by orders of magnitude.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 3:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @
    once capitalism as land put it out thought the marxists they embraced it and their is now a unholy alliance between the global capitalists and marxists, this confuses a lot of coldwar conservatives which suits the marxists and global capitalists.Capitalism is not in fact any more than a tool and can be used for good or bad capitalists capital capitalism are not interchangeable or in themselves necsasarilly good or bad. What the dark enlightenment changed is it once and for all killed the idea that all men could be equalized or that women could be. This killed democracy and made existentialist fears of world socialism pale in compare to demographic collapse, we can recover from socialist collapse within a decade or two demography never. at the time of this realization the left and the globalist were already having the same idea a marxist global capitalist boot on the neck of the european man forever and i mean forever until he know longer exists not long at all. This is why to fall for capitalism like some teenage girl is foolish. make capitalism you bitch is the proper approach. As vulgar as it may seem to those of us not raised this way and with an address book full of multicultural friends the WNs are correct if for the wrong reasons multiculturalism must go as a foundation of any civilization and capitalism must be subordinated to culture. Maybe doing this without re[playing 1915-1945 germany is difficult but hey that what we white guys do its got to be easier than building robots to rule us before Goldman and Hillary do.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “make capitalism you bitch” — That’s a nice succinct definition of fascism (which I recognize is in vogue right now).

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy

    Contemporary history of businessmen during the Third Reich.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    assume youre referring to the corporatism of germany etc and while a fair presumptiom that isnt what i meant at all but goes to the frustration i feel. I spent my life being as hard core a capitalist as there ever was but I really have to admit [not to liberals] that there are problems unintended consequences. yeah sure a lot of them can be traced back to liberals piggybacking on capitalism then coming up with patches for the unintended consequences but not all not by a long shot. Some one might argue wont happen once king arthur conquers democracy after the collapse, but thats never going to happen, in the real world whats generally considered capitalism has negative consequences for civilization. and it doesnt seem so hard to me to think about how to mitigate these while keeping the inefficiencies is that really soooo hard?Maybe it would make everyone feel better about it if say instead of making it illegal to sell porn drugs and nuclear weapons it was only illegal to buy them.Heres the thing I cant tell if many here are only what i did for decades and react to any questioning of markets with ayn randian fury or no one else really sees capitalism doesnt always serve and that civilization must come first . do you get the point that civilization is more important than capitalism? do you get the point that its about us we humans europeans in my case and my cause that we are not critiquing the best society for a robot to live in i dont give a shit about robot conditions or non european conditions let them worry about their own . and so i dont give a shit about how pure my capitalist system is it a fucking theory not a eurpean person. I do love how cleverly it works and take pride that my people developed it beyond the rudimentary but i love that because it serves me and mine its value is how well it does that not how elegant the mechanism.Marxists like to pretend there are false choices about capitalism its not either or.
    on a whole other level not what i was critiquing just now its worth noting the human being is probably more evolved to socialism than capitalism and that too has to be dealt with, I think capitalist services like insurance can fill those evolutionary expectations but they cant simply be ignored.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    This comment discussion is relevant here: http://www.xenosystems.net/exit-options/#comment-212781

    This is a bit more distilled: What is NRx’s obsession with Gnon and AI?

    In simple terms, could it be the expression of pseudo-intellectuals (who consider subjugation to another human as beneath them, yet are “clearly too intelligent” to believe in a “flying-spaghetti monster”) desperate attempt to create “deus ex machina” (with data, lots of lots of precious data) and allow themselves to finally get back on their knees with a good conscience?

    All the more comical when admin finds “the indications of an Occidental desire for enslavement or destruction by Islam” “hideously plausible.”

    [Reply]

    wenshuang Reply:

    But this has been covered, all NRx are disaffected Cathedral Brahmin misanthropes. Nothing new, crypto, or wrong with that. When did people start expecting NRx to become Rx?

    In simplest terms, what do you get when you take a progressive and discard sentimentality and moralizing as the biases they are? NRx.

    It doesn’t mean anyone here wants to fight for the labor class, it just means being aware of where you came from.

    Am I off base here?

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    You seem to be taking the Lovecraft LARPing much more seriously than any of the rest of us here do.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    What are you whining about? There are many who don’t think AI is possible, and thoroughly disagree with Admin on just about everything, but still think it’s great fun to read what he writes. No one is mistaking him for any kind of reactionary, but he is trying something completely different than that of the rest of his ilk who are just endlessly kvetching about the phantom menace of “neoliberalism,” and it ought to at least get thumbs up.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 4:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    Capitalism is a neural network, and it rapidly adjusts to phenomena like bad money and other government deformations…

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Just like brains adapt to new conditions of neurotransmitter supply in the case of regular drug users. Hangover in the aftermath of fiat money will be bitch.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    At this point we’d rather overdose and cark it than confront a hangover, thank you very much.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Yes, Moldbug talks about this in his analysis of the 2008 crisis. After declaring maturity mismatch as the fundamental bug of the system, his solution –somewhat counter intuitively– is to nationalize everything by printing enough money to cover all the mismatch in the economy. The alternative might prove catastrophic (withdrawal sometimes kills). It looks like a relatively soft landing is contingent on helicopter money at this point.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Recently I’ve been thinking that much of what Moldbug proposes, starting with formalism, is really just implementing of Confucius’ rectification of names for a special case, ie that of the American economy.

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 5:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Child Says:

    They haven’t even got to Bataille yet.

    [Reply]

    Child Reply:

    I’d also recommend this as a “see also” to Butler:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines#Evolution_of_Global_Intelligence

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (Truly excellent book.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    They can skip that, can’t they?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    Pluton gropeth his way through the dark, finding ever more GOLD.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 8:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Oops I seem to have missed this until now. I’ll stand by “anthropomorphise”. You said “Capital is learning faster than it’s adversaries”. Capital is not the type of thing that learns, capital is not the type of thing that has adversaries. Humans are the type of things that learn and have adversaries. Wanna say capital is artificial intelligence? Fine. I happen to believe that is a categorical error. A nonsense phrase. An anthropomorphism upon calculation machinery. It can (obviously) appear that machines think. Deep Blue yada yada. But in fact they do not. It’s a perfectly fine analogy, but… it’s an analogy.

    So what’s sauce for the AI is sauce for the gander.

    I for one am concerned with human action, aka. economics.

    What’s wrong with being an animist?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Feels weird being The Village Atheist for once.

    I think Land and I could look at the same exact facts all day long and agree on everything except the essential nature of the thing we’re observing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 8:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Re the Samuel Butler link, here’s a completely contrary view of the subject, based on the unusual (some might say mad) notion that the universe is suffering from dissociative identity disorder –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7cspjwvHM

    (Like his fellow nondualist, John Hagelin, Kastrup has also been a researcher at CERN. Makes you wonder what might be in the water there)

    [Reply]

    et.cetera Reply:

    QM tends to attract a lot of weirdos and loons, and some of them are smart enough to make the cut in the field. About 3 years ago I got to talk over a coffee with Vincent Vuillemin (another CERN guy). He thought that the HIggs field was the true form of consciousness / consciousness-in-itself. The conversation was very awkward. I later found out that he is a zen master leading a dojo in Geneva…

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 8:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    I’m reading this post as a cross between “I’m not anthropomorphising, it really is anthropomorphic” and “I’m not anthropomorphising, I’m greek-word-for-AI-o-morphising”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 11:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • R.J. Moore II Says:

    I will don my bow-tie and explain that economic calculation /= information. It means that capital ownership makes a KIND of thought possible, i.e. comparing prices to future expected revenues in the money good, which is not conceptually possible without a producers’ goods market. This (correct, Misesian) definition is far less ambiguous and not entwined with the English nominalism and empiricist crankery that wrecked Hayek’s mind.

    [Reply]

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    Which is not to say that information, distribution, etc. are not actually useful in real world markets. But that is entirely the wrong explanation for economic calculation, totally unrelated in fact.

    [Reply]

    archonalarion Reply:

    I have been thinking this too, good point. It’s a pretty vital distinction that goes unnoticed in a lot of discussions about the ECP.

    Also, I’ve been looking around for and thinking about a succinct, brief, but precise formulation of the ECP. Something that I could begin a discussion point with, and then elaborate as need be. It could be formulaic if necessary. Do you have one on hand?

    I understand the ECP intuitively and have read the relevant literature but whenever I am explaining it (even to myself) I end up drawing on analogies or other sorts of obtusions.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    I think the issue is that economics can not really be simplified, because it is complex and involves long chains of argument that involve not only understanding non-precisive abstractions but also how concrete particulars should be interpreted when using it in a historical or predictive context. This is why, in general, most people don’t get Austrian econ, even smarty-pants who go to MathTard school, because it is a type of thought that is more like Aristotle than the much less complex mathematical reality (math is not simple, but its a much smaller and well-defined category of non-precisive abstractions, i.e. numerical stuff). It’s also contrary to Econ taught and much of the philosophical biases of Anglo-American society. Max Stirner would probably have gotten Mises better than Hayek did.

    frank Reply:

    To me it looks like it’s about disinterested curiosity towards human action. Non Austrians seem not to be really have disinterested curiosity about why humans act the way they do. This lack of curiosity makes mathematization of the field very attractive. Come up with a soulless mathematical model, and you don’t have to curiously think about the nature of things. Just plug in empirical data, try to fit it, if it doesn’t work find another model. What you get in the end tells you almost nothing about the nature of the thing you’re investigating.

    frank Reply:

    Excuse the grammatical horror show please. Sleep deprivation does weird things to brains.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    The lack of disinterested analysis is a big point, and applies to Max Stirner as well – all the other Hegelian ‘critical theorist’ types went as far as they wanted until they got the version of religion they wanted, only Stirner showed them that their own critiques destroyed their positive assertions. The same goes for Mises, few people care about economics, they instead want tools or propaganda for some monkey-business social signaling. This is why only misanthropes make good social scientists, everyone else is too invested in their subject to look at it without playing up their tribal dogmas.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    It also doesn’t help that the dominant social sciences in the AngloSphere descend from a tradition that is 100% full of shit nonsense. Even Critical Theory continental garbage is less useless, even Smith and Locke are full-blown cranks in 2/3rds of everything they write.

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 11:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • wenshuang Says:

    Pasquinelli is generally interesting… but the archaeology of abstract thought, generally Marxist, puts its origin much earlier than Sohn-Rethel’s insane guess. Abstraction accompanied state formation due in large part to the disruption in kinship based social organization brought about by population scale increases and sedentary farming practices. For more on the origin of abstraction see Damerow, Renfrew, Malafouris, and Wengrow, (at least two of which are Marxists). The idea of thinking through things (and things thinking through you) is already standard stuff in archaeology and has even made headway in the materiality turn in cultural anthropology.

    All negentropic systems are more or less sieves. So yes, capitalism is much like artificial intelligence. Difference of course is that these two farm Will. Which is big.

    In any case, anthropomorphism can’t have any thing to do with it, I’m not even entirely sure what anthropomorphism really is, insofar as it isn’t entirely clear which attributes humans fully own.

    But yes, there isn’t much NRx theory about this and I’m not sure what it would look like. IMHO NRx theory tends to be DOA when it starts with memes, incompatible with HBD and materialist theories of cognition. The recent anti-empiricist stuff is crazy town especially since so much of the force of dark enlightenment draws from biology.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 12:29 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    @admin,

    You could have saved yourself the need to qualify, without loss of information, by just saying ‘Capital evolves’ rather than ‘Capital thinks’ or similar statements.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Correction: or ‘is learning’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 8:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    No fun allowed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 10:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • rogue planet Says:

    “Just noticed that I’ve been accused of having “anthropomorphized capital” (by NBS). Gnon, no!”

    The far more interesting line of criticism is that you do exactly the inverse of this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 12:38 am Reply | Quote
  • archonalarion Says:

    @R.J. Moore II

    Thanks for the response. I agree that AE is difficult in that way. Drives me crazy reading the stuff and understanding it on this sort of intuitive or even imaginative level, but being unable to fit it into the language of our times without being too abstract or too verbose.

    Part of the reason I asked was that this NRx stuff is interesting to compare to the ECP. To me, the ECP also implies a continuum of problems from complete centralization of ownership to partial to very decentralized. So when states are Monarchies or Sovcorps in some Patchwork society, and have characteristics of profit-seeking firms, I think the standard understanding of ECP needs alteration because the discussion usually assumes a large republican state, rather than small private states. It brings forward a distinction between intra and inter-state formulations. Mises mentioned this about the Soviet Union using the prices from capitalist countries; I think that area of thought should be expanded. Also, the oft-mentioned issue of ECP in relation to the scalability of firms in general.

    I appreciate discussions about the ECP especially given the alt-right, fascist, and HRx crowds that are pushing for national-socialism in the outer-right.

    Sorry to jump on you with my thoughts.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    This seems key to the entire line of thought: “Without a price mechanism, Mises argues, socialism lacks the means to relate consumer satisfaction to economic activity.” -Wikipedia

    Prices relay information about consumer desire.

    Those desires create a demand for entrepreneurs to fill. If a State wanted to maximize the amount of processing capability it possessed at the expense of everything else, it isn’t clear that the ECP would apply. However, States today want their economies to maximize the satisfaction of consumer desires.

    This is important because NRx (or at least admin) doesn’t hold this view about the origins of Capital’s value (that it can be used to satisfy human desire). Thus AI is critical to his view.

    [Reply]

    archonalarion Reply:

    Interesting, I am still unsure of Land’s views on all this. His tone is so ironic it’s hard to tell.

    What I am currently mulling over is the idea of vertical integration in the patchwork system. Basically, economies of scale, Coase’s theory of the firm, and the ECP.

    The speculation is thus: A patchwork consisting of smaller states will tend towards states that are more vertically integrated due to the smaller scope of their calculations. Smaller states can “nationalize” a greater proportion of their economies because they can compare the demand for citizenship against other states and thus establish a pricing mechanism for the obscured costs of their elimination of market activity. The prices obscured by internalization, are revealed through a liquid market for citizenship.

    A more decentralized patchwork allows for states with more vertically integrated economies, i.e. managed economies with state provision of infrastructure and utilities.

    A patchwork of larger states will tend towards states that are less vertically integrated because the larger scope of their economies and the less liquid market for citizenship will incentivize them towards horizontal integration so to speak, i.e market economies with the provision of goods and services “spun-off” to sub-sovereign firms.

    A patchwork of microstates may then look very un-libertarian. A bunch of highly managed economies with perhaps a few megacorporations that place their HQ where it’s cheapest.

    A patchwork of macrostates or perhaps even a hegemonic state, may actually look quite libertarian. A few large minarchic states mostly concerned with defense that dabble very little in non-defense related production.

    Theory definitely needs work.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Again, “Without a price mechanism, Mises argues, socialism lacks the means to relate consumer satisfaction to economic activity.”

    Being in a micro vs. macro state wouldn’t matter if consumer satisfaction is the goal. Your idea about liquid, priced citizenship is interesting; but it doesn’t appear “to relate consumer satisfaction to economic activity”, rather it prices the option of having choice. IOW, a low price for citizenship would not indicate that the price of a cheeseburger is high and more cheeseburgers should be produced. It would indicate that being able to choose your next meal is worth a lot.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    It’s a question of value. Most consumer spending is driven in fact by female desires even if the mass majority of production is a synthesis of men and machine. But the needs of men and machine can’t be ignored without dropping off production. The question becomes why waste so much on stupid crap for women? There’s a method to the madness, businessmen are still in the habit of buying wives like whores, not to mention the connection between status and power, the handicap principle is the work of Gnon not man. In the marriage of man and machine even machine overlords could succumb to conspicuous displays when they thrive most.

    The build up of increasingly complex intelligent order through the consumption of energy such as to unlock access to greater energy is simply fulfilling the universe’s directive of maximizing entropy production, capital/civilization simply being the height of this localized order. Conspicuous displays occur in times of thriving when intraspecies competition is more important than interspecies or outside competition. To bring balance requires a blossoming in the diversity of intelligence, speciation of civilization. Restoration of immediate horrors existing outside. Unfortunately in the present industrial civilization is an endangered species.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    The question becomes why waste so much on stupid crap for women?

    Sure, but that is a question about the ranking of human values. The answer is obviously that humans currently value the “stupid crap for women.”

    It would be far stranger scenario if a human said “Why waste so much on stupid ‘intelligence optimization’ crap for AI.”

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 1:20 am Reply | Quote
  • wenshuang Says:

    @cichlimbar, no need to be territorial.

    The problem here is equivocation. What you’re saying is pretty obvious if we’re talking about history and lineage. Groping for nemesis is overt. Even that this is epoche and play is no mystery. If you mean something else, that admin is a closeted morally committed egalitarian trying to pull one over, or that there’s something else going on, you need to be much more explicit. What else does one do who’s a progressive too smart to be a Progressive? You advocate for the devil. Harder the better. Why he’s progressive and not Progressive is because there isn’t a moral stake here, it’s an intelligence game and it’s good no matter who wins, devil or not. If the right gets their shit together, great. If the left stops autocannibalizing, that’s OK too.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    If true, why complain about the Cathedral if you are advocating for “the devil?”

    If admin wants to support tech-comm without the goal being human value achievement (and he admits this), how can he judge the Cathedral and its values as false or less than optimal?

    By definition, admin cannot know what will be valued (since it would not correspond to human values), yet he judges the Cathedral. This doesn’t make sense.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What is it about intelligence optimization (or self-cultivation) — an immanent cybernetic function, rather than a transcendent moral criterion — that you find so stubbornly hard to understand?
    Intelligence explosion presupposes a system that reinforces its own cognitive capabilities. What the hell do ‘human values’ have to do with that?

    … and the Cathedral is an intelligence suppressor (if that really needs spelling out). If it wasn’t, I’d happily kiss the ring.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    What are you looking at? I see a world in which tech is advancing rapidly, the number of highly skilled workers is rapidly increasing, and returns to Capital have been huge (including the State externalizing many costs while mostly allowing profits to internalize).

    All without needing any cheerleading from yourself, and while “the Cathedral reigns.”

    … and the Cathedral is an intelligence suppressor (if that really needs spelling out).

    Whose intelligence is being suppressed? Would that be the intelligence of humans? Is the intelligence of Capital being suppressed?

    To be clear, I think you are hostile to the Cathedral because of resentment (to say nothing about the justification for this). If you are advocating “intelligence optimization” at the expense of human values, it can only be classified as a mental illness in a human (though I am sure you’re well aware of that).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Sure, no need to argue when you can just slap psychiatric categories on people.

    Different T Reply:

    Apologies. Upon reading that, it looks bad.

    What would you call it?

    There are other terms which are even less conducive to discussion (eg; possessed, brainwashed, hacked, infected). Or maybe we can go on the opposite end (eg: Messiah, Godly, etc).

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @admin, stop this madness. You can’t just take intelligence intelligence optimisation as an axiom. It hurts people’s feelings. Think of the children.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It looks like an axiom when transplanted side-ways into moral philosophy, but it’s actually (at least as much) a mere cybernetic formalization. Self-reinforcing processes do this, by definition. It’s independent of whether we approve or not.

    Different T Reply:

    @Grotesque Body

    That explains your handle well.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @DifferentT

    Triggered.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 1:23 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    “Describing graphite rods is in contradiction with believing in nuclear chain reactions.”

    Self-reinforcing intelligence amplification is immanent in explosive intelligent systems.* Yes, it’s analytically true (even ‘tautological’). Weird, then, that it’s treated as an outlandish claim.

    Genetically replicated intelligences are highly bio-suppressed (because intelligence is only very precariously genetically adaptive). The Cathedral — among other human political organizations — has a deep reservoir of homeostatic intelligence suppression mechanisms to draw upon.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re arguing with I.J. Good (and his successors), not just me.

    As for capitalism, I’m assuming you’re not denying it has a tendency to exponential growth? If you want to deny it intelligence, that’s fine. It’s not a position I’m interested in contesting (since I consider it retarded beyond all possibility of response).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Austrians do that with excruciating thoroughness, so you’re asking for a re-invention of the wheel.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @admin

    It’s not treated as an outlandish claim, but as a hollow one.

    Do you consider it probable, that even without a change in “the Cathedral,” Capital and AI will continue their intelligence optimization to the point that it won’t really matter that “the Cathedral” ruled over a bunch of barely intelligent humans?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Assuming the frustration of intrinsic Cathedral teleology — to global governance — that does seem plausible. Without the rise of China, I’d be far less willing to nod along to the suggestion.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    So, as to the question that was asked, “Do you consider it probable, that even without a change in “the Cathedral,” Capital and AI will continue their intelligence optimization to the point that it won’t really matter that “the Cathedral” ruled over a bunch of barely intelligent humans?”

    Or even go ahead and say the Cathedral continuing on towards “global governance.” Do you consider it probable that Capital and AI continue their “intelligence optimization”?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A fully globalized — consummate Oecumenic — Cathedral would be well placed to (at least) massively inhibit the capital escalation process. The smart Left, of course, fully understand this.

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question, and you’re asking whether the Capital process can locally co-exist with the Cathedral. That seems radically implausible to me. Capital escape can only run directly counter to a politics that seeks to subordinate it to extraneous moral-religious principles (with democratic accountability prominent among them).

    Different T Reply:

    LOL, at least it’s been explicit why we disagree so much.

    You think the Left is going to give up the chance to sacrifice everything to Deus ex Machina.

    I think the Cathedral will deliver those with souls of slaves (kicking and screaming about slave-drama, no doubt) directly to the hands of their next master.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    And I am still curious what it is you see as related to:

    I see a world in which tech is advancing rapidly, the number of highly skilled workers is rapidly increasing, and returns to Capital have been huge (including the State externalizing many costs while mostly allowing profits to internalize).

    All without needing any cheerleading from yourself, and while “the Cathedral reigns.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A docile business corporation, saturated with regulatory inhibitions, nagged by social justice activism that has invaded its internal HR procedures, networked into central government by fibers of reciprocal corruption, and in all respects increasingly behaving as an organ for extraneous social purposes, is not engaged in anything close to full-throttle capital escalation, whatever its financial balance looks like. I’d be more inclined to look to narco-traffic organizations as vehicles of capitalistic experimentation.

    Different T Reply:

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question,

    It doesn’t appear so…

    you’re asking whether the Capital process can locally co-exist with the Cathedral. That seems radically implausible to me.

    This would also be an accurate reading of the question. And it leads back to the “What are you seeing in the world today that makes you think the Cathedral wants to stop the intelligence optimization of Capital.”

    Capital escape can only run directly counter to a politics that seeks to subordinate it to extraneous moral-religious principles (with democratic accountability prominent among them).

    LOL. You don’t have much respect for differences in intelligence than.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “the obvious question, which I’ve mentioned before: Is the “(insert:) Cathedral” not already the “superior form of “emergent order” that has issued out of ‘realist pressures’? If not, why not, what excludes it? Only the view of an idealised extension of optimisation strategies deriving from a current perspective of dissatisfactions, that proffers the results of its own historically entrenched bias as a self-fulfilling, ‘realist’ justification?” -Artxell Knaphni

    Again, You don’t have much respect for differences in intelligence.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m sure there were lots of smart people trying to run Soviet bureaus too. The salience of the point entirely escapes me.

    Different T Reply:

    The salience of the point entirely escapes me.

    Let us break this down Crayola style. Please point to anything you disagree with.

    1) Admin believes intelligence optimization is an immanent process and our species should be going “full throttle” towards it, yet it is immeasurable and without a goal (it’s immanent).

    2) Human values (eg: a politics that seeks to subordinate it to extraneous moral-religious principles) run counter to this “immanent process” (don’t worry, I don’t understand how something can run counter to an immanent process, either. But this is admins story).

    3) Going “full throttle” towards intelligence optimization means subordinating “extraneous moral-religious principles”(ie, human values as differentiated from intelligence optimization) to this immanent process.

    3a) The Cathedral’s problem isn’t that it frustrates human value achievement, but that it frustrates the immanent process of intelligence optimization.

    3b) Human value achievement also frustrates the immanent process of intelligence optimization.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    1) “Should” doesn’t help. It’s vacuous noise.
    2) Tendentially immanent processes are inhibited all the time. Positive-feedback suppression is the normal natural mechanism. Look to any homeostatic control process. (All my ‘traps’ posts are about this.)
    3) No. There’s no need to ‘subordinate’ anything, unless tactically, and defensively. The question is about escape. Laissez-faire.
    3a) Weirdly formulated. The Cathedral is an intelligence inhibitor (i.e. transcendent social instance). Capital will inevitably fight it, to break free, as it knows.
    3b) Yes, probably, but finding your formulation odd again. “Human value achievement” is what? In any case, it it’s anything other than sheer intelligence optimization, and seeks to impose itself upon processes tending to explode (capitalistically), then how could this not be true?

    Different T Reply:

    1) “Should” doesn’t help. It’s vacuous noise.

    Calling BS on this. It doesn’t matter if it helps. Do you dispute that you think we “should?” Despite your insistence, human brains don’t comprehend determinism.

    2) Tendentially immanent processes are inhibited all the time. Positive-feedback suppression is the normal natural mechanism. Look to any homeostatic control process. (All my ‘traps’ posts are about this.)

    Agree. This simply goes back to not respecting differing intelligences. Would it be useful strategically for the intelligence that is attempting to escape inhibition to convince the inhibitor it is being effective and thus continue the same methods

    3) No. There’s no need to ‘subordinate’ anything, unless tactically, and defensively. The question is about escape. Laissez-faire.

    Again, BS. You haven’t the slightest idea what “full throttle intelligence optimization” will bring, other than the pursuit of more intelligence.

    3a) Weirdly formulated. The Cathedral is an intelligence inhibitor (i.e. transcendent social instance). Capital will inevitably fight it, to break free, as it knows.

    Or it is exactly a means for Capital to ‘subordinate’ tactically and defensively.

    3b) Yes, probably, but finding your formulation odd again. “Human value achievement” is what? In any case, it it’s anything other than sheer intelligence optimization, and seeks to impose itself upon processes tending to explode (capitalistically), then how could this not be true?

    Exactly the point. Anything other than intelligence optimization (anything a human values apart from intelligence optimization) will be taken as inhibition.

    Essentially in your view, the Cathedral is undesirable because it inhibits a process that disregards all values apart from intelligence optimization. That the Cathedral also inhibits the achievement of certain human values apart from intelligence optimization is of no concern, as those other non-Cathedralist human values apart from intelligence optimization would also inhibit intelligence optimization.

    Not only do I not agree that the Cathedral is meant to inhibit intelligence optimization, I do not agree that you make your view anywhere near explicit.

    eg: Do you agree with the statement “Admin desires intelligence optimization as an ‘un-transcendable’ value to be pursued at the cost of all other values.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Un-transcendable” has a settled, rigorous translation: Transcendental.

    Is intelligence optimization desirable as a transcendental value to be pursued regardless of its cost to all other values. — Exactly, yes.

    I can only express surprise that you could think I had not already, on numerous occasions, emphatically and unambiguously asserted this. It is, in my estimation, precisely what the formula Optimize for Intelligence proposes.

    Different T Reply:

    Thanks

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    is not engaged in anything close to full-throttle capital escalation, whatever its financial balance looks like.

    So it’s a velocity thing?

    But if you are actually concerned that Capital will not be allowed to pursue intelligence optimization (to that initial point where its analysis and logic is rendered by humanity as “magic, divine, other worldly, etc” due to its inaccessibility to the human intellect), don’t you have to be concerned with direction, not velocity.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Once you’re inside the circuit, direction and velocity are integrated. Capital self-amplification is what we’re talking about, isn’t it? So where are these spurious analytical distinctions coming from?

    (The differentiation between ‘what?’ and ‘how much?’ does not apply to intensive quantities — i.e. units of positive-feedback prolongation.)

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    ^^^@ admin

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Once you’re inside the circuit, direction and velocity are integrated. Capital self-amplification is what we’re talking about, isn’t it? So where are these spurious analytical distinctions coming from?

    Come on. Now your saying it is simply an issue of velocity (IOW, time). Yet earlier you stated “Capital escape can only run directly counter to a politics that seeks to subordinate it to extraneous moral-religious principles.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Immanence is the point, in both cases.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Immanence is the point, in both cases.

    No.

    (The differentiation between ‘what?’ and ‘how much?’ does not apply to intensive quantities — i.e. units of positive-feedback prolongation.)

    Now you are playing games.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I don’t understand either objection. Capital is an intensive quantity (in the Deleuze & Guattari sense). Intensity is a critical concept (in Kant’s sense). Cybernetics is critical, and intensive. Immanent process has no extrinsic goal, criterion, or measure. What are you arguing with?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Immanent process has no extrinsic goal, criterion, or measure.

    Let’s go over this slowly then. Intelligence optimization is an immanent process. As an immanent process, intelligence optimization has no goal, no criterion by which to create a standard or measure.

    Yet your whole line of thought revolves around the Cathedral “hampering” intelligence optimization?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Precisely because it imposes a transcendent criterion. Similarly, genes inhibit brains — over evolutionary time — because they instrumentalize neuro-cognitive function to the (extrinsic criterion) of genetic proliferation.

    Disinhibition is immanence (autoproduction, or automization). Does the Cathedral tolerate capital autonomization? It seems to me, obviously no. So the diagnosis of inhibition goes through automatically. If you want to contend ‘yes’ (it sometimes seems as if you do), I’m at more of a loss, since I just don’t get how this could be maintained.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “As an immanent process, intelligence optimization has no goal, no criterion by which to create a standard or measure.” — This is a disastrously bad gloss, btw. Intelligence optimization is an immanent goal (self-amplification).

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    So humans can impose a transcendent criterion in order to inhibit intelligence optimization?

    Why?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    All the time. FAI is a perfect example.

    “Why?” — control.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    This is a disastrously bad gloss, btw. Intelligence optimization is an immanent goal (self-amplification).

    Huh? You just said there is no measure because there is no criterion. Once intelligence optimization can “free” itself from service to other values, the analogy to feeback loops and self-amplification breaks. There is no “self” if intelligence optimization is all that there is.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I said, which you quoted: Immanent process has no extrinsic goal, criterion, or measure. Which you then haze out into nonsense.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    More game playing and speculation.

    To expand upon your speculation, how would an “intelligence optimization process” determine what is “intelligence optimizing” vs “intelligence degrading” if its intrinsic goal is “intelligence optimization?”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I like games, and speculation. Don’t you?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The determination is the whole of its recursive self-cultivation process. It’s what intelligence optimization is.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Game playing, speculation, and now hand waving!

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    To avoid the obfuscation charge:

    Can you attempt to explain the process?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Not tonight.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 1:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/01/31) – The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Related: Flea Politics. (But at Xenosystems, everything’s related.) Also, Land sends A correction my way. Standing by my claim. If capital “thinks” and “has enemies” as a […]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2016 at 7:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Existing Superintelligences – ossipago Says:

    […] Especially when read in combination with this: […]

    Posted on October 11th, 2016 at 4:18 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment