Re: [NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Rob Myers]

On 05/05/16 10:46 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:
> Serenity below sounds like IP VLAN address allocation? you manage your
> allocated ranges assigned to you by an organization, which fit in with
> the whole global IPv4/IPv6 range. IPv6 being the expanded range as IPv4
> is running out of spares.

Yes, with the numbers long enough to represent programs. :-)

(Or at least their account balances).

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Rob Myers]

On 05/05/16 10:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> as it seems to be in Sellars 

Cavell, not Sellars. I will get all the names right in one of these...

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Kath O'Donnell]

Serenity below sounds like IP VLAN address allocation? you manage your
allocated ranges assigned to you by an organization, which fit in with the
whole global IPv4/IPv6 range. IPv6 being the expanded range as IPv4 is
running out of spares.

On 6 May 2016 at 15:25, Rob Myers  wrote:

>
> > Rob can you say more about the Casper algorithm?
>
> Oops I meant Serenity (so. many. codenames.). Here's a technical
> description:
>
> https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/53
>
> The problem it addresses is that, as any Bitcoin hater will tell you,
> "the blockchain doesn't scale". Rather than try to make it quicker or
> more efficient to fetch and store all the information needed to keep
> track of the state of the entire world('s worth of transactions) every
> ten seconds, Serenity makes it so that you only have to keep track of
> the subset of the world('s transactions) that you are interested in for
> your own security.
>
> These subsets of the world('s transactions) are known as "shards", a
> term taken from traditional databases. Each shard, and the code and
> value within it, is isolated from the others unless it takes special
> measures to access them. This means that you only need the data for the
> shard you are working within, not any others.
>
> If the classic blockchain looks like a post-relativistic universe with a
> unified/God's-eye view of the information it contains, a sharded
> blockchain looks very much relativistic with local frames of reference.
> Local rather than global truth. But the information contained within
> each shard must ultimately be reconcilable with the global state. Where
> communication takes place across shards, it cannot contradict the state
> of the contents of either shard.
>
> So I may be overreaching, but I think this is a nice example of a system
> that is locally specific but globally reconcilable. Which obviously
> relates to philosophy of science and to neo-rationalism.
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Rob Myers]

On 04/05/16 12:18 PM, erik zepka wrote:
> 
> Your point earlier about the problematic nature of normativity I think
> can be approached via a notion of combining normativity with agency. 
> That is, if the Brandomian normativist is also a norm-creator
> normativity becomes a rational construct that a subject works to invent,
> modify and redact.
>
> Between these I think the validity of the norm is found in its
> constant revision - likewise the defense of new rationalism and its
> ties to accelerating the means of both resistance and production
> might lie less in the sort of Adornian critique of instrumental
> rationality (and the move then to poetics and the like) but to a
> pluralization of rationality in the most scientist way possible.

Yes I think Negarastani's essay in The Accelerationist Reader addresses
some of this (and their talks at The New Centre definitely do). But
Malik's essay in Collapse VIII raises the problem of contemporary "Risk
Society" being corrosive to social norms, although I haven't had time to
really look into that.

Pluralistic rationality is very, very far from Twentieth Century
logicism. This is a non-monotonic/defeasible reason.

> I think between Feyerabend and Stengers there might be a nice complement
> to the Peirce/Sellars/Brandom pragmatist continuum - in it we progress
> from rationalism to its revisions to their explosion.  Both (Feyerabend
> and Stengers) having been branded (as always, by enemies) as
> irrationalists, they might be the most persistent exponent of a plural
> rationalism.  Feyerabend at every moment demands debate and overturning
> of the precepts of any rational construct of experimental endeavour
> (having himself - somewhat comparably to Putnam - evolved through
> different positions that he would then come to "refute"/disagree with
> (empiricism, rationalism, eliminativism, anarchic disagreement,
> democratization, abundance), while Stengers evolves directly from the
> laboratory construct to ecology, politics - in a sense skipping
> traditional rationalism to the applied effects of activities.  

Reading about Feyerabend here what immediately interests me is the idea
of (in)commensurability.

> For me this is a strong area of accelerationist tendencies - questions
> like: what would a rationalist ecopolitics look like - how is
> revisionism, plurality and alterity connected - how can technological
> discourse evolve to a rationalist otherness that disagrees in essence
> with the progress of bureaucratic vagueness.

Very yes to all of this. :-)

One of the things I don't understand in neo-rationalism is the scope of
revision. I assume we wish our mistaken and unjust beliefs (and
self-images) to be revised, but is identity ring-fenced as it seems to
be in Sellars and if not where is that kind of limit identified? Would
alterity be normatively revised? If so surely not towards majority
norms. But if away from them then, again as with Sellars, how do we
avoid a consumerist/(neo)liberal demand that people be ever more like
themselves?

> Rob can you say more about the Casper algorithm?

Oops I meant Serenity (so. many. codenames.). Here's a technical
description:

https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/53

The problem it addresses is that, as any Bitcoin hater will tell you,
"the blockchain doesn't scale". Rather than try to make it quicker or
more efficient to fetch and store all the information needed to keep
track of the state of the entire world('s worth of transactions) every
ten seconds, Serenity makes it so that you only have to keep track of
the subset of the world('s transactions) that you are interested in for
your own security.

These subsets of the world('s transactions) are known as "shards", a
term taken from traditional databases. Each shard, and the code and
value within it, is isolated from the others unless it takes special
measures to access them. This means that you only need the data for the
shard you are working within, not any others.

If the classic blockchain looks like a post-relativistic universe with a
unified/God's-eye view of the information it contains, a sharded
blockchain looks very much relativistic with local frames of reference.
Local rather than global truth. But the information contained within
each shard must ultimately be reconcilable with the global state. Where
communication takes place across shards, it cannot contradict the state
of the contents of either shard.

So I may be overreaching, but I think this is a nice example of a system
that is locally specific but globally reconcilable. Which obviously
relates to philosophy of science and to neo-rationalism.

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[erik zepka]

Or create new separate or superseding norms. The revision of norms over
time, and avoiding local contradictions between them, is a key part of
the sources of epistemic accelerationism - Sellars, Brandom, etc. .

- I like this a lot - I think somewhere between the fallible pragmaticism
of Peirce and the revisionary manifest image of Sellars we have a sober
image of how rationalism can relate to situate error and incongruency.

Your point earlier about the problematic nature of normativity I think can
be approached via a notion of combining normativity with agency.  That is,
if the Brandomian normativist is also a norm-creator normativity becomes a
rational construct that a subject works to invent, modify and redact.

Between these I think the validity of the norm is found in its constant
revision - likewise the defense of new rationalism and its ties to
accelerating the means of both resistance and production might lie less in
the sort of Adornian critique of instrumental rationality (and the move
then to poetics and the like) but to a pluralization of rationality in the
most scientist way possible.

I think between Feyerabend and Stengers there might be a nice complement to
the Peirce/Sellars/Brandom pragmatist continuum - in it we progress from
rationalism to its revisions to their explosion.  Both (Feyerabend and
Stengers) having been branded (as always, by enemies) as irrationalists,
they might be the most persistent exponent of a plural rationalism.
Feyerabend at every moment demands debate and overturning of the precepts
of any rational construct of experimental endeavour (having himself -
somewhat comparably to Putnam - evolved through different positions that he
would then come to "refute"/disagree with (empiricism, rationalism,
eliminativism, anarchic disagreement, democratization, abundance), while
Stengers evolves directly from the laboratory construct to ecology,
politics - in a sense skipping traditional rationalism to the applied
effects of activities.

For me this is a strong area of accelerationist tendencies - questions
like: what would a rationalist ecopolitics look like - how is revisionism,
plurality and alterity connected - how can technological discourse evolve
to a rationalist otherness that disagrees in essence with the progress of
bureaucratic vagueness.


Rob can you say more about the Casper algorithm?

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 29/04/16 06:51 PM, erik zepka wrote:
> >
> > And when the questions, as both Ruth
> > and Alan have effectively talked about, get to a realm of inhuman
> > problematics, ecological, species-threatening, who should advise then?
>
> Deodands:
>
> https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/392/deodands-dacs-for-natural-systems
>
> ;-)
>
> > We could at least say that for every categorical norm (a type of person,
> > a type of organism, a type of biosphere) there's an exception and that
> > considering that exception can help expand the norm.
>
> Or create new separate or superseding norms. The revision of norms over
> time, and avoiding local contradictions between them, is a key part of
> the sources of epistemic accelerationism - Sellars, Brandom, etc. .
>
> The current work on the "Casper" algorithm for Ethereum may end up as a
> realisation in code of this kind of local-within-the-global consensus.
>
> > If we imagined an
> > accelerationist advisory committee (maybe this is one), whatever our
> > question, it might choose to attempt to make accountable whatever
> > accelerationism then meant or did - the advisory committee then itself
> > might be considered normative, but it doesn't subtract from the fact
> > that it might have been a sober move within a given context.
>
> The Manifesto is against *fetishising* democratic proceduralism.
>
> As Ordinaryism points out, sometimes to increase our knowledge we do
> have to listen to other people.
>
> But as Big Data point outs, what people *do* is a better indicator than
> what they *say*. We are increasingly able to reason about both using
> computing machinery. Epistemic accelerationism may ultimately lead to
> the automation of philosophy, although this is not a sufficient or
> necessary destiny for it.
>
> It would be difficult to regard this as impossible at the same time as
> (for example) criticising algorithms for being racist.
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>



-- 

erikzepka.com
x-o-x-o-x.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Rob Myers]

On 29/04/16 06:51 PM, erik zepka wrote:
> 
> And when the questions, as both Ruth
> and Alan have effectively talked about, get to a realm of inhuman
> problematics, ecological, species-threatening, who should advise then? 

Deodands:

https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/392/deodands-dacs-for-natural-systems

;-)

> We could at least say that for every categorical norm (a type of person,
> a type of organism, a type of biosphere) there's an exception and that
> considering that exception can help expand the norm.

Or create new separate or superseding norms. The revision of norms over
time, and avoiding local contradictions between them, is a key part of
the sources of epistemic accelerationism - Sellars, Brandom, etc. .

The current work on the "Casper" algorithm for Ethereum may end up as a
realisation in code of this kind of local-within-the-global consensus.

> If we imagined an
> accelerationist advisory committee (maybe this is one), whatever our
> question, it might choose to attempt to make accountable whatever
> accelerationism then meant or did - the advisory committee then itself
> might be considered normative, but it doesn't subtract from the fact
> that it might have been a sober move within a given context.

The Manifesto is against *fetishising* democratic proceduralism.

As Ordinaryism points out, sometimes to increase our knowledge we do
have to listen to other people.

But as Big Data point outs, what people *do* is a better indicator than
what they *say*. We are increasingly able to reason about both using
computing machinery. Epistemic accelerationism may ultimately lead to
the automation of philosophy, although this is not a sufficient or
necessary destiny for it.

It would be difficult to regard this as impossible at the same time as
(for example) criticising algorithms for being racist.

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour