I was waiting for the joke but it never came. Thanks for educating me on this though, there are so many currencies, it’s hard to keep up with and it’s always nice to learn about the ones rooted in a deeper kind of vision.
As with many new technologies, I worry about the potential for certain bodies to use this kind of information against us, but I’m sure those bodies are already working on technology for keeping track of everyone’s opinions and, more troubling, using it to decide who is “good” and who is “bad”. I guess we might as well have it in a coin out in the open attempting to use the technology for the betterment of all. What a wacky time to be alive.
I would argue that humans could achieve this on their own but have not been raised in or had a chance to culture (due to intervention) a culture of peaceful, free and autonomous communities so it’s auite hard to propagate organically.
I (along with some friends) will be working on the organic version in the meantime. I don’t suppose we will be able to manifest a new societal model ready to be implemented before this Tau really takes off but maybe we can show people it is possible.
under Tau, the data will be up to you to provide directly, and it will be available to everyone to access if you choose so, rather than sort of syphoned from you and sold like how it works today
but cf my first post on tau, data itself isn't crucial, it's the rearrangement of data into knowledge that is far more valuable. So far, we've mostly just relied on our heads to do this step, but Tau will be the machine that will help us create knowledge by deducing it from everyone's data. It can speed up human progress tenfold.
opinions are impossible to track at the moment because the logic under current systems just track the syntax (words), not the semantics (relationships). Tau uses a rigorous self defining, decidable logic system to do this.
That sounds nice, and I will probably invest in some, and keep an eye out for its future developments. Still, I do think this notion of “progress” is just as imperfect and human as some of the issues we hope to overcome by means of it. I would like to promote the technology as long as we do not stray too far from our own humanity. By that I mean assuming that we NEED this technology in order to be somehow “better” than we are now. It’s one thing to utilize something for your benefit, it’s another to become completely reliant up it to the point of defining humanity entirely in relation to technology (see the comment below this one for an example of what I mean, I don’t really know how to reply to it).
The problem is 'organic' indeed. Humans do not scale. Humans are stronger in 'upload' than in 'download'. The limitations are neurological, hardware ones. Bandwidth bottleneck. Now we add up humans up to 5, over that number command hierarchy needed to handle the network traffic. And because humans are narrow bandwidth, they are weak switches. A network can't be 'geodesic' if switching cost vastly exceeds the links cost. "As we are" can not be scaled. To change organically humans to fit is unacceptable for many reasons. Still human collectives are strong network computers if connected efficiently. ALL we observe now in human societies is product of this inability. As trafalgar noted - this shapes our entire civilization. I'd say, just like the penguins inability to fly makes their societal structure. Tau transcends these limitations. Tau is THE 'vires in numeris' for real.
I am reacting on a seven months old comment of yours:
Is what you are saying that what we face now as a human species in being inferior to what we created can only be met by either transform human organisms into super-human-organisms or - because this could be unethical or undesirable or not feasible - must be met by connecting the human species to a machine which ensures to stay being able to decide on things?
As the world is being seen dominated by a large scale technology is therefore the logic conclusion to meet this scale in an even or even larger scale to meet respectively reduce complexity?
Would you say that from this point of view there is no way back to reduce large scale solutions and for de-growth, for example cut back locomotion, form local communities (even within large cities), change the concept of life towards earning a smaller income and substitute the cut back of money with more self sufficient attempts like repairing things, using them to a longer lifespan, exchange goods and services based on a barter concept? Have you heart of a post-growth economy? Because, after all, this (end of growth) also could happen while tau or other technologies are in development ...
Or are you talking about governance?
For what I think, tau is a concept or idea with the biggest adaptation towards technology. As radical as it may be seen I also think that the desire to have something like tau is partly a lack of trust and the inability to live with a certain amount of uncertainty. And, if not that, probably also a matter of convenience. As we are not having a tau right now, the hopes (and dreams) towards solving problems through a technology like tau, fly very high. Kind of over enthusiastic for my taste.
I ask myself: Can't people already strive towards consensus within their local realm of action? There, I have no bottleneck and bandwidth-problem at all.
Tau could also be seen as an extend of governance - a much more sophisticated one, but still a form of relying on a man-to-machine-to-man translator. Where I put trust into code instead of man. Though I see the seductive logic in that, I have a great belly rumbling with this idea. Not because it's bad but because I am skeptical if something like tau is possible to what it's promising and that the enthusiasm and ideological ideas about will create a depression if not fulfilling it's promises
... like so often this happened in the past.
I see also the need for having a translator in order to keep up with complexity. Clearly, a computer scientist has difficulties to talk to a kindergarten carer and the unit A at an airport to the Unit Y in the very same company.
The most important question I have in mind is if a tau really would lead to form consensus-ruled communities and will support them in the things have to be decided. Like how to manage water, soil and energy to sustain organic life.
tau goes towards a global world. ... Whereas I think the human species has to accept that a global world is impossible to be managed by humans. If so, we need even more than tau. It creates the scenario that people altogether must give up their roles in governing and hand it over machines. Then we would maybe have a machine planet which very well might lead into the decision that organic life itself is inferior upon inorganic life. In my whole dealing with this I always asking myself: do people actually hate themselves? Does humans think of themselves as a species which has to be erased from the surface of the planet? Sometimes, when I do have a pessimistic outlook on life, I indeed think that. But whenever I talk in my physical reality to humans my whole view changes and I can clearly see the goodness in them.
I'll pay attention to your questions in the next couple of days ...
thanks for letting me know.
Sorry, for the delay again, too busy. organic growth in the sense of ''from within'' capitalization, real demand and sales and in NO CASE cut back to smaller and more local. Note that subject if the Moore's laws is the entire known universe, the Earth at present yet. The more the better. The more with less = efficency.