I applaud your attempt to expand out to the forest layer! But I still think you're being overly specific about our disagreement. My summary about dissimilarity as the common cause for the communication illusion and tool abuse failed to capture the core disagreement, I suppose.
So, I'll try again, as brief as I'm capable of: Inter-individual variation causes everything we've talked about in this thread. Your acceptance of the singularity rhetoric places you in one bin (axiom of choice) whereas I'm in another bin. The same is true of gun control, 3D printers, and the eschatological thinking behind our fear of climate change (on the "left") and the New World Order (in the whackjob bin). The same variation causes varying bins surrounding free will and which tools/traits each of us expresses. It all boils down to the history dependent, context controlled ontogeny of each individual. That's how it's been for the history of life on the planet and won't change any time soon. But what has changed is our density. We are flat out more likely to have most of our context controlled by others with the same physiology and morphology as our self. And that implies that we (all of us) are much much more alike today than we have ever been in our entire history. Our inter-individual variation is disappearing at an ever increasing rate. That means we're all much more likely to fall into some (illusory) gravity well, nearby in "thought space". No matter how skeptical you might think you are, it's inevitable. You'll succumb to some cult-like group think. As I age, I like to think that old people, with longer hysterical processes, can better resist their local gravity wells. But the more one's _self_ is defined by thought and culture, the more likely they are to cross the event horizon and stop being capable of thinking differently. Only the lone wolves hiding in the forests have a chance of preserving our biological diversity. Steve Smith wrote at 01/16/2013 10:16 PM: > Glen - > > I'll save you and the rest of the list my long-winded point by point > response (written but ready for delete) and try to summarize instead: > > I understand now your connection between communication and tool (mis)use. > > I think we disagree on a couple of things but I am sympathetic with what > I think you are reacting to here. I react to it with others myself: > > I honestly don't agree that we *are* our extended phenotype, but accept > that you do. It is an important difference and may explain much of our > other disagreements. > > I accept that we *might not* have as much choice as I suggest about the > development and use of our tools, but I think our choice is maximized by > seeking to exercise it, even if it is limited. > > We do disagree about the relative rates of change. Biological evolution > (scaled at thousands of years) of humans may have kept pace with > technological evolution right up to the neolithic. Sociological > evolution (scaled at tens or hundreds of years) might have kept pace > with technological evolution until the industrial or perhaps the > computer revolution. I honestly believe that significant technological > change is happening on the scale of years or less. > > I agree that our perception of both technological change and it's > effects is *amplified* by how the very same technology has shrunk the > world (through communication and transportation). > > I agree that we have fetishised tool acquisition and possession and that > this does not equal facility much less mastery with the tools. But I > claim this aggravates the situation, not alleviates it. > > I am sympathetic with the feeling that there are many Chicken Little's > about shrieking the end of the world with the thinnest of evidence > sometimes. I may sound like that to you. I'm trying to pitch my voice > an octave below that, but I may be failing. > > I honestly believe that we have reached a scale of technology that risks > self-extermination and that this is exacerbated by the introduction of > new technology faster than we can come to sociological grips with it > (much less biological adaptation). The stakes are high enough that I > would prefer to err on the conservative side. I accept that you do not > agree with me on this general point. > > I share your experience that many people who _think_ they are competent > at handling dangerous things (such as guns) are not. Fixing that > (acknowledging the incompetence and acting on it by forgoing the > privilege or by becoming competent) is the only answer. Attempts at gun > control seem to aggravate the problem. I believe Australia's success > in this matter might be a reflection of their readiness as a culture to > embrace the first solution. We seem to be some distance from that. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
