_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
In the great project, registering something in the blockchain will be
weighted by relation to the discussion of ontology, and the rules
stipulated when buying reproductions. A Plantoid has for me the rules
and logic of the blockchain. The blockchain doesn't anchor its being or
propositions. The data that claims us is not the same as having a sense
of witness. Axiomatic proxies still work better than the blockchain's
consensus rules. Even Darwinism changed a lot over time, which is not
the same as mutation! People are mouths. They contribute their will to
the smart contract that rules us. Where does our ontology go if its use
could be correct? In the great project, simple value transactions
reflect the material substrate. Everything depends on what is bound up
in cars or houses. Contributors can vote the code, an intervention in
the basic terms of existence, something I don't understand. Plantoid is
done by humans, within the rules and logic, for us to see, to
conceptualise. The Plantoid continuously monitors its own blockchain.
Something about being outside the chain, the network of rules and
registered objects, existence outside of the process, the evolution of
Plantoids following underlying smart contract code. A building can
realize something, a bitcoin calculation, in terms of discretion.
Information is linked, coupled, that's all. Lots of questions. All text.
We can only validate certificates of authenticity for conceptual art
recorded on Ethereum. Technology is very evident and poses a question,
whether the heat death of person X placed a record on the substrate.
Grrrrrr, automatised cissions, grrrrr, anything can lie. And has it any
basis that such ontology and rules trigger an action in me speaking?
It's moot, it is misleading, selling our own physical properties to
register existence as a proxy for them. We cannot validate the work.
Conceptual art made of code and rules is in the DNA of every network.
All the logic and rules deployed on a blockchain come from sending
micro-transactions to make clear the implications of the blockchain
itself. GRRR, winners and losers, GRRR determined but not understood,
GRRR immateriality and inexistence. Those are just words. Blockchain
based networks exist, but they are stupid to the soul. I feel that
unless we agree the scope of creativity and the use of money we will
only serve to initiate the ontology of mathematical objects. I tend to
the view that a particular threshold has been crossed when buying and
selling conceptual art by calculation: the rule seems to be, participate
and become slaves; conservative living, not existence. For these
entities come out of such a thing as logic, they don't exchange inside
it, they reinforce the characteristics they started with: we are
claiming they exist inside or outside of their descendants, with whom
their day to day use may include certain distinctive aesthetics.
Plantoids are part of no conscience as far as I can see. Adaptation to
the environment caused them to come into existence, and that seems to be
impossible. Even a Darwinist approach .... Grrrrr, no discussion, the
winner is already known, GRRR, growth and reproduction, that's what I
can't govern, they sent it to person Y. Contractually bound to the
blockchain, I cannot deviate. In the great project, artists will have to
make physical commitments, inextricably connected to their ancestors,
the same way they can for a Plantoid. I vigorously disagree with the use
of it and the process of it to establish a winner, let alone a loser.
With a guarantee of execution, by person Y, of person X, by heat death.
