Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections

[Freeky]

My opinion is that 000 wins an internets.

[Captain Utopia]

I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit.  Let's not pretend we have complete immunity to its charms.

It is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.  Its best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.  Expanding upon that - I'm not sure we can defeat it, or focus much energy on defeating it in the short-term.

[Triple Zero]

I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit.  Let's not pretend we have complete immunity to its charms.

true.

It is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.

stupid? what does that even mean in this context?

is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?

it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.

Its best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.

dumb in what sense?

[Iason Ouabache]

Didn't know if I should put this here or in the Alan Grayson appreciation thread:

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/

Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision."

"If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.

"You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law."

"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."

Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."

The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman's Web site.

I love that Glorious Bastard!

[Captain Utopia]

It is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.

stupid? what does that even mean in this context?

is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?

it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.

Its best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.

dumb in what sense?

This is the model I use to consider the machine.  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".

When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term.  It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.

Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.

[Reginald Ret]

It is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.

stupid? what does that even mean in this context?

is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?

it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.

Its best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.

dumb in what sense?

This is the model I use to consider the machine.  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".

When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term.  It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.

Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.

You are underestimating how hard it is to make a species extinct.

[Triple Zero]

(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)

not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.

>  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

i really disagree with the latter. at least, whether you can interact with it, maybe, but not in any sense or manner that is similarly meaningful to both humans and the machine at the same time.

> The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant
> hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".

yes, but that's not what I was trying to say, at all. I meant the intricate patterns and pathways and pheromones that make up the anthill have no meaning for the ant eater, it's just food.

now from the ants' point of view this may be dumb behaviour, and the smart ants may indeed come up with excuses that it is indeed dumb because the ant eater is destroying its food source, but the reality is that it isn't. there are enough ant hills out there for the ant eater, and it just really really sucks for the ants that get eaten.

i think it's the same for the machine, it may need humans to exist, and that may really really suck for those humans, but it won't destroy humanity. as someone else (Felix?) said, we should be so lucky if humanity goes out with a bang. because it probably won't. if it goes it, it will go with a wheeze, giving the machine enough time to adapt, unless we really fall back to prehistoric times. but we probably won't. dark ages living conditions maybe, but not everywhere, not for the elite.

even though I still think "dumb" does not apply on this level. the machine (or machines) is not that "dumb" to destroy its soil. we should be so lucky.

[Captain Utopia]

This is the model I use to consider the machine.  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".

When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term.  It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.

Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.

You are underestimating how hard it is to make a species extinct.

I see it as a symbiotic relationship - when we thrive, as does our reliance on the machine, and so does it thrive.

When we're at the level of warfare of throwing rocks at each other and are even more primitive than we are today, there is not much of a machine to speak of.  It may be the case that at a certain level of progress beyond what we currently have, we outwit/domesticate the machine and are able to steer our destiny with extra finesse.. but I have no idea really just hope.

(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)

not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.

Well yes, if you don't perceive the machine as a form of intelligence, then memes are a useless lens through which to view our interactions with it.

>  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

Both.

I am not anthropomorphising a chimpanzee who learns sign language, any more than I am a squirrel who has enough intelligence to successfully complete a fairly advanced obstacle course which involves pulling the right levers and pressing the right buttons at the right time in order to win some nuts.

Or at least, if I am, then I must be very confused.

i really disagree with the latter. at least, whether you can interact with it, maybe, but not in any sense or manner that is similarly meaningful to both humans and the machine at the same time.

In that you can't walk up to it and share a conversation?

The closest you can come to that is to have a conversation with one of its recognised agents - a lawyer or doctor or career politician, etc.  But it is likely just a one-sided conversation as unless that agent holds massive authority and you are exceptionally persuasive, then it will just be relaying information to you rather than absorbing anything meaningful into and via its own structure.

> The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant
> hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".

yes, but that's not what I was trying to say, at all. I meant the intricate patterns and pathways and pheromones that make up the anthill have no meaning for the ant eater, it's just food.

In the same way, if you give someone a promotion, then the intricate patterns and pathways and information exchanges of the machine are destroyed which were created around that person being placed in that previous position.

now from the ants' point of view this may be dumb behaviour, and the smart ants may indeed come up with excuses that it is indeed dumb because the ant eater is destroying its food source, but the reality is that it isn't. there are enough ant hills out there for the ant eater, and it just really really sucks for the ants that get eaten.

i think it's the same for the machine, it may need humans to exist, and that may really really suck for those humans, but it won't destroy humanity. as someone else (Felix?) said, we should be so lucky if humanity goes out with a bang. because it probably won't. if it goes it, it will go with a wheeze, giving the machine enough time to adapt, unless we really fall back to prehistoric times. but we probably won't. dark ages living conditions maybe, but not everywhere, not for the elite.

The machine doesn't appear to have much in the way of foresight or self-preservation.  It has developed structures in which humans are given scant motivation to look much beyond the short-term, but it is the human-intelligences pushing against this who are advocating for medium to long-term issues such as environmental protection and limiting poverty, disease, aid to people in far away nations and an end to most of the predictable causes of warfare and strife, etc.

Interestingly it tends to be the religious right who embody the machine with godliness - e.g. The Family who take as an additional tenet that anyone whom the machine has placed in a position of authority was placed there by God, and as such, their position should not be questioned.  Unless it's Obama/the antichrist, I guess.  But it's not surprising they seek to serve the machine by endorsing/loving its short-term side-effects, and fighting tooth and nail the medium to long-term goals which would preclude them.

even though I still think "dumb" does not apply on this level. the machine (or machines) is not that "dumb" to destroy its soil. we should be so lucky.

I like using "dumb" to describe following short-term goals at the expense, or simple lack of consideration of the long-term.  It was around this point that I stopped fearing the machine as a conspiratorial device -- it's not out to destroy those who seek to change it beyond the short term, because it is too short-sighted.  But I'm more interested in discussing the mechanics than the linguistics so I'll happily substitute in alternate terminology if you prefer.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit. 

You're burrowing in.

[Captain Utopia]

I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit. 

You're burrowing in.

Meaning that not only have I been trapped, but that I'm moving in the opposite direction of the exit?  How so?   

[Triple Zero]

(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)

not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.

Well yes, if you don't perceive the machine as a form of intelligence, then memes are a useless lens through which to view our interactions with it.
[/quote]

it's about as intelligent as a forest is intelligent. that is, it may have some very complex characteristics and behaviours, even some things that you might consider "smart" or "dumb" if you look at it from exactly the right angle, but on the whole if you're trying to deal with a forest by appealing to its "intelligence", you're not really being very useful. especially if you tend to completely gloss over ecology or biology.

>  I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.

Both.

I am not anthropomorphising a chimpanzee who learns sign language, any more than I am a squirrel who has enough intelligence to successfully complete a fairly advanced obstacle course which involves pulling the right levers and pressing the right buttons at the right time in order to win some nuts.

Or at least, if I am, then I must be very confused.[/quote]

you might be very confused.

chimps never learned sign language. the experiment was flawed exactly because the researchers were anthropomorphizing the chimp too much. the only guy on the team who was deaf and spoke sign language as a first language kept hearing from the others that he was not writing down enough "obvious examples of language use". because the chimp had not learned language. it was just randomly emitting symbols that it had learned would get him a result. that's not language, but semiotics. it sometimes got it right by accident, but mostly it was producing "sentences" such as "banana banana banana want eat me me banana eat want", just throwing the symbols out there until the researchers got sufficiently excited and gave him a banana. sort of a bruteforce approach, but it got him the banana.

it's not that much more intelligent than what the squirrel does. well it is, because the squirrel couldnt do it, but not that much

also I'm still convinced that the machine is much more alien than a squirrel. you know, it HAS to be, as a survival stategy! if it would be transparent or fathomable, humans would soon enough start to second-guess it.


sorry i dont have time to write more now.

[Captain Utopia]

I don't think I have any choice but to concede to your superior line of argument.

[President Television]

I don't think I have any choice but to concede to your superior line of argument.

Conceding that you're wrong? On the Internet? You have balls of steel.

[Bruno]

So now The Government of China Incorporated^tm can funnel money through it's subsidiaries, to influence our elections?

[Requia ☣]

Depends on how the FEC reacts to this, the ruling says that blocking foreign companies is OK, so the FEC has the option of continuing to enforce it for them.

More interesting is how you determine a US vs a non US company.  There are some that are theoretically in the US but have offshored (or gone north or south of the borders) so heavily that they really shouldn't count as US based.  GM comes to mind here.