Re: [NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[ruth catlow]

Hi Annie, Edward, Alan and Rob

Many many thanks to you all as always for your help processing this stuff.

Some thoughts in no particular order:

Annie, I share many of your misgivings. Like many blockchain projects 
Plantoid asserts all kinds of equivalences between living and machine 
systems that need to be challenged.


I also share your annoyance with the "conservatism" of equating voting 
with payments (or market processes) with deliberative democratic 
processes (this  chimes with a prevalent argument in the UK that all 
culture should be crowdfunded).


With our book  
are seeking out potential of interactions with blockchain technologies 
for art (and artists and all those who want art to continue to exist in 
the world). We want to continue to explore how commons and communality 
can be grown as cultural resources in the context of blockchain 
environments.


The exploration is full of uncomfortable perversities - including a dive 
into difficult technical and financial abstractions (which can be felt 
as a distraction from immediate and pressing political concerns).  
However we think it's worthwhile and necessary because financial 
services make up 20% of the total gross domestic product in developed 
economies .And while the Web is the Internet of messages, and 
communication, the blockchain is the Internet of programmable money 
(think computer viruses with wallets in their pockets - and money to 
spend and to bank). And  also, as Rob suggests, critical artistic 
appropriation of blockchain techs might make these otherwise invisible 
forces and effects more perceptible and accessible for more people.


Finally the ongoing assertion by many promoters of blockchain that 
because the code of smart contracts deployed across blockchains are 
incorruptible by humans, they are an automatic improvement on all human 
institutions, rings really oddly to artists ears. I think that this is 
because artists (especially those that have worked with network media) 
agree that corruption of meaning, intention and outcomes often occur 
through decontextualisations. Rob's comparison of smart contracts with 
spirographs rather than stormbringer (worth a trip to wikipedia 
) is helpful - but I'm sure 
it is possible to imagine good done with stormbringer and evil done with 
spirographs ;)


Hope to continue this conversation because this stuff is really hard to 
disentangle.


warmly
Ruth

On 29/09/17 05:01, Alan Sondheim wrote:


It depends, doesn't it, on what is meant by 'infallible'? They're 
corruptible in terms of value and in terms of use; it's the old 
use/exchange value conundrums here. They're corruptible because 
they're not ideal; a prime number isn't corruptible, but protocols 
are. What if a "distortive intervention" comes in the form of nuclear 
war?


You're postulating an ideality somewhere between engineering and 
Godel's neo-platonism I think and I'm not sure that position would 
hold. These models exist in a real world of interactions after all.


How are we freed from deceit and usury when blockchains are used for 
ransomware payments? There's a difference as well between the "meant 
to" in terms of usage of blockchain, and the reality?


The anthropocene desert you describe is brutal in my opinion, allied 
to Kristeva's clean and proper body; without ecosystems in depth, 
without the dirt of the world, the cleansed future (or so I read it) 
frightens.


Did you mean Labanotation? That's a good example; the interstice 
between Labanotation and the real/grit world of dance is fascinating, 
amazing!


I'm the first to admit here I don't really know what I'm talking about 
since the details of blockchain elude me, as do the claims made for 
it. That side, I've been reading what I can; I just don't hold to the 
utopian vision that seems to accompany it.


Best!, Alan, and apologies for my ignorance

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Rob Myers wrote:


Entities of code and rules are incorruptible and infallible (so it
is said), they are not subject to distortive interventions by
debased human institutions. They have no soul, it is true, but
they also do not weigh on ours. They are Spirographs, not
Stormbringer.

The blockchain's metronymic, reified, transactional model of human
relations is meant to free us from deceit and usury. We are
already homeostats in socioeconomic networks whose restrictions we
notice about as much as a fish notices water. Code at least makes
this explicit.

Plantoid is a way of paying for the creation and exhibition of art
- a difficult and worthwhile problem - in a creative way. If it is
too successful it will end up as the economic-aesthetic equivalent
of grey goo. The anthropocene desert will be filled not with
triffids but with plantoids and the artisans hired by their code
to create their offspring. Maybe these offspring will mutate into
relational artworks that choreograph 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[Alan Sondheim]

It depends, doesn't it, on what is meant by 'infallible'? They're 
corruptible in terms of value and in terms of use; it's the old 
use/exchange value conundrums here. They're corruptible because they're 
not ideal; a prime number isn't corruptible, but protocols are. What if a 
"distortive intervention" comes in the form of nuclear war?


You're postulating an ideality somewhere between engineering and Godel's 
neo-platonism I think and I'm not sure that position would hold. These 
models exist in a real world of interactions after all.


How are we freed from deceit and usury when blockchains are used for 
ransomware payments? There's a difference as well between the "meant to" 
in terms of usage of blockchain, and the reality?


The anthropocene desert you describe is brutal in my opinion, allied to 
Kristeva's clean and proper body; without ecosystems in depth, without the 
dirt of the world, the cleansed future (or so I read it) frightens.


Did you mean Labanotation? That's a good example; the interstice between 
Labanotation and the real/grit world of dance is fascinating, amazing!


I'm the first to admit here I don't really know what I'm talking about 
since the details of blockchain elude me, as do the claims made for it. 
That side, I've been reading what I can; I just don't hold to the utopian 
vision that seems to accompany it.


Best!, Alan, and apologies for my ignorance

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Rob Myers wrote:


Entities of code and rules are incorruptible and infallible (so it
is said), they are not subject to distortive interventions by
debased human institutions. They have no soul, it is true, but
they also do not weigh on ours. They are Spirographs, not
Stormbringer.

The blockchain's metronymic, reified, transactional model of human
relations is meant to free us from deceit and usury. We are
already homeostats in socioeconomic networks whose restrictions we
notice about as much as a fish notices water. Code at least makes
this explicit.

Plantoid is a way of paying for the creation and exhibition of art
- a difficult and worthwhile problem - in a creative way. If it is
too successful it will end up as the economic-aesthetic equivalent
of grey goo. The anthropocene desert will be filled not with
triffids but with plantoids and the artisans hired by their code
to create their offspring. Maybe these offspring will mutate into
relational artworks that choreograph decorative humanity into
their schemes, multitudes that dance and sway in time to
Lananotation representations of block hashes while wishing that
they hadn't opposed UBI quite so vehemently.

Or perhaps plantoids are simply oases in the contemporary desert
of the real, depicting something of the moment we find ourselves
in between financial crises.

Some of the real plants are in Terra0...

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, at 12:28 PM, Edward Picot wrote:

  Annie,

  I love this response! - and I think you've really
  latched onto something here. 'Being made of code and
  rules is not the same as having a soul... Plantoid
  seems to be conservative, reinforcing the
  characteristics it started with...' There's a real
  sense of claustrophobia and frustration about some of
  the Blockchain-based artworks, unquestionably
  brilliant though they are, in that although they seem
  to be offering a commentary on the shortcomings and
  limitations of the Blockchain, they seem at the same
  time to be binding us to those shortcomings and
  limitations, freezing us into that world, suggesting
  that we are all going to be subject to this new
  version of reality and unable to escape from it. Yes,
  this stuff is creeping into every aspect of our
  culture. Yes, we are all going to be touched by it and
  influenced by it, directed by it, shaped by it, just
  as we are by capitalism, mass marketing and mass
  media. But no, it doesn't define us or completely
  contain us. We can still be human in spite of it. At
  least I hope we can: and I hope that along with
  Blockchain art and the like, we can still have an art
  that celebrates and explores the bits of existence
  that the Blockchain and the like can't comprehend.
  Beyond the plantoids there are still real plants.

  Edward


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






New CD:- LIMIT:
http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3=138
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uw.txt
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[Rob Myers]

Entities of code and rules are incorruptible and infallible (so it is
said), they are not subject to distortive interventions by debased human
institutions. They have no soul, it is true, but they also do not weigh
on ours. They are Spirographs, not Stormbringer.
The blockchain's metronymic, reified, transactional model of human
relations is meant to free us from deceit and usury. We are already
homeostats in socioeconomic networks whose restrictions we notice about
as much as a fish notices water. Code at least makes this explicit.
 Plantoid is a way of paying for the creation and exhibition of art - a
 difficult and worthwhile problem - in a creative way. If it is too
 successful it will end up as the economic-aesthetic equivalent of grey
 goo. The anthropocene desert will be filled not with triffids but with
 plantoids and the artisans hired by their code to create their
 offspring. Maybe these offspring will mutate into relational artworks
 that choreograph decorative humanity into their schemes, multitudes
 that dance and sway in time to Lananotation representations of block
 hashes while wishing that they hadn't opposed UBI quite so vehemently.
Or perhaps plantoids are simply oases in the contemporary desert of the
real, depicting something of the moment we find ourselves in between
financial crises.
Some of the real plants are in Terra0...

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, at 12:28 PM, Edward Picot wrote:
> Annie,


> I love this response! - and I think you've really latched onto
> something here. '*Being made of code and rules is not the same as**
> having a soul... **Plantoid seems to be conservative, reinforcing the
> characteristics it** started with...' *There's a real sense of
> claustrophobia and frustration about some of the Blockchain-based
> artworks, unquestionably brilliant though they are, in that although
> they seem to be offering a commentary on the shortcomings and
> limitations of the Blockchain, they seem at the same time to be
> binding us to those shortcomings and limitations, freezing us into
> that world, suggesting that we are all going to be subject to this new
> version of reality and unable to escape from it. Yes, this stuff is
> creeping into every aspect of our culture. Yes, we are all going to be
> touched by it and influenced by it, directed by it, shaped by it, just
> as we are by capitalism, mass marketing and mass media. But no, it
> doesn't define us or completely contain us. We can still be human in
> spite of it. At least I hope we can: and I hope that along with
> Blockchain art and the like, we can still have an art that celebrates
> and explores the bits of existence that the Blockchain and the like
> can't comprehend. Beyond the plantoids there are still real plants.> Edward


> 


> _
> 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

[NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[Edward Picot]

Annie,

I love this response! - and I think you've really latched onto something 
here. '/Being made of code and rules is not the same as//having a 
soul... //Plantoid seems to be conservative, reinforcing the 
characteristics it//started with...' /There's a real sense of 
claustrophobia and frustration about some of the Blockchain-based 
artworks, unquestionably brilliant though they are, in that although 
they seem to be offering a commentary on the shortcomings and 
limitations of the Blockchain, they seem at the same time to be binding 
us to those shortcomings and limitations, freezing us into that world, 
suggesting that we are all going to be subject to this new version of 
reality and unable to escape from it. Yes, this stuff is creeping into 
every aspect of our culture. Yes, we are all going to be touched by it 
and influenced by it, directed by it, shaped by it, just as we are by 
capitalism, mass marketing and mass media. But no, it doesn't define us 
or completely contain us. We can still be human in spite of it. At least 
I hope we can: and I hope that along with Blockchain art and the like, 
we can still have an art that celebrates and explores the bits of 
existence that the Blockchain and the like can't comprehend. Beyond the 
plantoids there are still real plants.


Edward


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

Re: [NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[Annie Abrahams]

hi Antye, it wasn't, but it is now (quick post)
https://aabrahams.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/understanding-block-chain/

hugs to you
Annie

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:36 PM, AG Forever  wrote:

> annie is this letter somewhere online ?
> i have a few blockchain folllowers on twitter like to send them
>
> hugs
>
> sound & curation
> AGF: @poemproducer / .com
> sound wave : antyegreie.com
>
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2017, at 19:07, Annie Abrahams  wrote:
>
> This email is there to try to pen down some of my very visceral negative
> reactions to *Plantoid - The Birth of a Blockchain-Based Lifeform* (p 51
> -61)in *Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain* https://
> liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/products/100826
> 
>
> Let me first say that Plantoid is a great project, because it makes some
> implications of the Blockchain technology very evident and poses a lot of
> questions.
>
> P 54 "All code deployed on a blockchain comes with a guarantee of
> execution, by engaging with a Plantoid, people are contractually bound to,
> and cannot deviate from the rules stipulated into the underlying smart
> contract code."
> Building a Plantoid is done by humans, of course they can deviate ... and
> if not, they are stupid to participate and become slaves... (maybe there is
> something I don't understand here)
>
> P.55 "The Plantoid continuously monitors its Bitcoin balance and whenever
> it realizes, that a particular threshold has been reached, the Plantoid
> will be able to use this money to initiate it's own reproduction"
> A Plantoid has no conscience as far as I know, so I don't think it can
> realize something - It's  calculation and rules that trigger an action - a
> Plantoid isn't living. Being made of code and rules is not the same as
> having a soul.
>
> p 58 " Indeed, the DNA of every Plantoid, that is, all the logic and rules
> that govern its growth and reproduction are recorded on the Ethereum
> blockchain. These may include certain distinctive aesthetic or physical
> requirements . that will affect the scope of creativity and the room
> for discretion left to the artists commissioned to produce the next
> Plantoid."
> So Plantoid seems to be conservative, reinforcing the characteristics it
> started with.
>
> Artists will have to make propositions for the next level Plantoid within
> the rules and logic on the blockchain. Contributors can vote the for these
> by sending micro-transactions to the Bitcoin blockchain of their choice.
> All will be weighted by the amouths contributed and the smartcontract will
> process it and establish a winner.
> Grr, automatised decissions Gr anything can come out of such a
> thing Gr, no discussion, the winner is not necessary what is wished for
> ...
>
> P 59 " the reproduction process, the evolution of Plantoids follow a
> Darwinist approach" 
> Does it? Darwinism changed a lot over time.
> The essential concept of "mutation" (for evolution) doesn't seem to have a
> place in the Plantoid blockchain project. Mutation would mean a change of
> code, an intervention in the basic rules and logic of the blockchain and
> that seems to be impossible  Adaption to the environment is not the
> same as mutation!
>
> p60 "Each Plantoid is forever and inextricably connected to both its
> ancestors and its descendants, with whom it can communicate through a
> shared blockchain-based network."
> I vigorously disagree with the use of the word "communicate" here. Even if
> it's use could be correct, it is misleading because of our day to day use
> of the word. The block-chain based network exists for us to see, to
> conceptualise, but a Plantoid can not communicate inside it. Plantoids are
> part of a chain, network of rules and logic, they don't exchange inside it.
> Information is linked, coupled, that's all.
>
> GRRR
> winners and so losers, determined by calculation only
> conservative
> not living at all
> GRRR
>
> That's what I understood
>
> Best
> Annie
>
>
> --
> *The Laboratory of Networked Behavior* Article by Randall Packer :
> randallpacker.com/the-laboratory-of-networked-behavior/
>
> ___
> 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
>



-- 

*Qu'est-ce et pourquoi agency art ?* 12/10 18h Conférence, festival Mèq
*, *hTh,
Montpellier.

#PEAE = #Participatory #ethology in #artificial environments #ethnological

Re: [NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[AG Forever]

annie is this letter somewhere online ?
i have a few blockchain folllowers on twitter like to send them

hugs

sound & curation
AGF: @poemproducer / .com
sound wave : antyegreie.com



> On 25 Sep 2017, at 19:07, Annie Abrahams  wrote:
> 
> This email is there to try to pen down some of my very visceral negative 
> reactions to Plantoid - The Birth of a Blockchain-Based Lifeform (p 51 -61)in 
> Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain 
> https://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/products/100826
> 
> Let me first say that Plantoid is a great project, because it makes some 
> implications of the Blockchain technology very evident and poses a lot of 
> questions.
> 
> P 54 "All code deployed on a blockchain comes with a guarantee of execution, 
> by engaging with a Plantoid, people are contractually bound to, and cannot 
> deviate from the rules stipulated into the underlying smart contract code."
> Building a Plantoid is done by humans, of course they can deviate ... and if 
> not, they are stupid to participate and become slaves... (maybe there is 
> something I don't understand here)
> 
> P.55 "The Plantoid continuously monitors its Bitcoin balance and whenever it 
> realizes, that a particular threshold has been reached, the Plantoid will be 
> able to use this money to initiate it's own reproduction"
> A Plantoid has no conscience as far as I know, so I don't think it can 
> realize something - It's  calculation and rules that trigger an action - a 
> Plantoid isn't living. Being made of code and rules is not the same as having 
> a soul.
> 
> p 58 " Indeed, the DNA of every Plantoid, that is, all the logic and rules 
> that govern its growth and reproduction are recorded on the Ethereum 
> blockchain. These may include certain distinctive aesthetic or physical 
> requirements . that will affect the scope of creativity and the room for 
> discretion left to the artists commissioned to produce the next Plantoid."
> So Plantoid seems to be conservative, reinforcing the characteristics it 
> started with.
> 
> Artists will have to make propositions for the next level Plantoid within the 
> rules and logic on the blockchain. Contributors can vote the for these by 
> sending micro-transactions to the Bitcoin blockchain of their choice. All 
> will be weighted by the amouths contributed and the smartcontract will 
> process it and establish a winner. 
> Grr, automatised decissions Gr anything can come out of such a thing 
> Gr, no discussion, the winner is not necessary what is wished for ...
> 
> P 59 " the reproduction process, the evolution of Plantoids follow a 
> Darwinist approach" 
> Does it? Darwinism changed a lot over time. 
> The essential concept of "mutation" (for evolution) doesn't seem to have a 
> place in the Plantoid blockchain project. Mutation would mean a change of 
> code, an intervention in the basic rules and logic of the blockchain and that 
> seems to be impossible  Adaption to the environment is not the same as 
> mutation!
> 
> p60 "Each Plantoid is forever and inextricably connected to both its 
> ancestors and its descendants, with whom it can communicate through a shared 
> blockchain-based network."
> I vigorously disagree with the use of the word "communicate" here. Even if 
> it's use could be correct, it is misleading because of our day to day use of 
> the word. The block-chain based network exists for us to see, to 
> conceptualise, but a Plantoid can not communicate inside it. Plantoids are 
> part of a chain, network of rules and logic, they don't exchange inside it. 
> Information is linked, coupled, that's all. 
> 
> GRRR
> winners and so losers, determined by calculation only
> conservative
> not living at all
> GRRR
> 
> That's what I understood
> 
> Best
> Annie
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Laboratory of Networked Behavior Article by Randall Packer :
> randallpacker.com/the-laboratory-of-networked-behavior/
> ___
> 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

[NetBehaviour] I hate blockchain plantoids by O’Khaos - that's probably why they are great

[Annie Abrahams]

This email is there to try to pen down some of my very visceral negative
reactions to *Plantoid - The Birth of a Blockchain-Based Lifeform* (p 51
-61)in *Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain*
https://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/products/100826


Let me first say that Plantoid is a great project, because it makes some
implications of the Blockchain technology very evident and poses a lot of
questions.

P 54 "All code deployed on a blockchain comes with a guarantee of
execution, by engaging with a Plantoid, people are contractually bound to,
and cannot deviate from the rules stipulated into the underlying smart
contract code."
Building a Plantoid is done by humans, of course they can deviate ... and
if not, they are stupid to participate and become slaves... (maybe there is
something I don't understand here)

P.55 "The Plantoid continuously monitors its Bitcoin balance and whenever
it realizes, that a particular threshold has been reached, the Plantoid
will be able to use this money to initiate it's own reproduction"
A Plantoid has no conscience as far as I know, so I don't think it can
realize something - It's  calculation and rules that trigger an action - a
Plantoid isn't living. Being made of code and rules is not the same as
having a soul.

p 58 " Indeed, the DNA of every Plantoid, that is, all the logic and rules
that govern its growth and reproduction are recorded on the Ethereum
blockchain. These may include certain distinctive aesthetic or physical
requirements . that will affect the scope of creativity and the room
for discretion left to the artists commissioned to produce the next
Plantoid."
So Plantoid seems to be conservative, reinforcing the characteristics it
started with.

Artists will have to make propositions for the next level Plantoid within
the rules and logic on the blockchain. Contributors can vote the for these
by sending micro-transactions to the Bitcoin blockchain of their choice.
All will be weighted by the amouths contributed and the smartcontract will
process it and establish a winner.
Grr, automatised decissions Gr anything can come out of such a
thing Gr, no discussion, the winner is not necessary what is wished for
...

P 59 " the reproduction process, the evolution of Plantoids follow a
Darwinist approach" 
Does it? Darwinism changed a lot over time.
The essential concept of "mutation" (for evolution) doesn't seem to have a
place in the Plantoid blockchain project. Mutation would mean a change of
code, an intervention in the basic rules and logic of the blockchain and
that seems to be impossible  Adaption to the environment is not the
same as mutation!

p60 "Each Plantoid is forever and inextricably connected to both its
ancestors and its descendants, with whom it can communicate through a
shared blockchain-based network."
I vigorously disagree with the use of the word "communicate" here. Even if
it's use could be correct, it is misleading because of our day to day use
of the word. The block-chain based network exists for us to see, to
conceptualise, but a Plantoid can not communicate inside it. Plantoids are
part of a chain, network of rules and logic, they don't exchange inside it.
Information is linked, coupled, that's all.

GRRR
winners and so losers, determined by calculation only
conservative
not living at all
GRRR

That's what I understood

Best
Annie


-- 
*The Laboratory of Networked Behavior* Article by Randall Packer :
randallpacker.com/the-laboratory-of-networked-behavior/
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour