Continued from. Maybe some enticing warning.**
Let me* take a moment to convince us both that ‘no opposition’ was the way to go. Obviously, we can’t prevent people thinking we were doing the wrong thing and trying to stop us, people in general were out of our control. But we could choose not to have anyone who opposed us have motives of money or social or political prestige, those are motives that have the power to screw up your future in an environment that is largely people.
We were annoying some people who thought engineering Tessels was against God’s will. OK, nice people, I have talked to some of them myself, both personally and in polite email exchanges on the topic in which we both understood each other’s povs and disagreed with a fundamental value. They state their case as they wish, we state ours, some people listen to both side, others not. We all agree to allow others to sin, however much we hate the sin, it is between them and their gods, their full rights to go straight to hell by judgment of any god they please is guaranteed by our respect as equal citizens in the mutual control system we jointly inhabit and operate. Normal social friction, normally not a big deal, low-level thermal noise of a functioning system.
Our every move so far was designed to avoid opposition that had skin in the game. We doled our research budget out widely, in small amounts (MIC taught us that strategy : all the big progressives now have investments in armaments and vote for jobs for their districts). We spread the research across as many labs as possible. We shared data and materials and ideas as freely as possible, precisely so nobody interested would have reason to disapprove, thus no professional opposition of alarmist nature. Alarm sells and is amplified by the media, which is itself a filter and frame, so there is normally no context in stories of science alarmism, they end many lines of research still too fragile of promise to stand the heat. Between that and ridicule, the sprouting idea to approved publication transit has many failures.
This was a long-term game, life works for many, we had no reason not to do everything right. E.g. the training and publications of all the studies, so we had statistics on replications, knew what technologies were hard and what were easier, so we knew where experiments were likely wrong and how to fix the many problems. It is really quite extraordinary what looking at raw data across laboratories has told us : The best best practices are quite a bit better than average and nobody has nothing to learn, as we find every time anything new is measured.
Designers of impressive systems get all the kudos, but what makes them work are the guys fixing the bugs, working through the statistics of what went wrong and why. The failure analysis people, the accident investigators. Researchers have to deal with the gritty details of how data is extracted from reality, analyzed and interpreted. and it turns out to be pretty much the same one that every group has evolved to allow people to work together, assume as much trust as doesn’t cost you too much money.
The cost of creating, moving, storing and processing information has fallen orders of magnitude dramatically. The standard journals and standard publications are too-costly to allow the amount of information that now needs to flow in the process of science. The failures to replication that have been revealed by Ioannidis were a result of too-expensive publications fostering a mandarin class that big pharma and other economic and ideological interests have hijacked.
What our Tessel project is part of is an open-source replacement for the current edifice of science and technology. Email lists through open publications had already been allowing anonymous comments on papers, the process of threshing away the chaff is part of science and science training. Scientific meetings and poster sessions and presentations in sub sub sub specialties, in addition to being one side of the intellectual world’s edge in humanity’s mating game, was an essential part of the exchange of information, lab to lab and discipline to discipline.Those and the other high-bandwidth, distributed, information exchanges, were what made science work. Open lab books and open trials and open publication processes are now the lowest-cost and the fastest way to understanding experiment’s differences, science’s version of Linus’s Law “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”.
But, note : the channels that work are all 2-way communications that allow interactions and challenge. When the author can comment on a critique, and when enough people trying to grasp reality do that, people tend to converge on what the facts and questions are. The fact that convergence is rare in discussions of politics and philosophy should not obscure the importance of feedback from critical discussion in keeping things honest everywhere, keeping minds anchored to the best reality we can generate in them.
Our addition of open funding of individual research projects was another part of that model. Soon there were Kickstarter projects funding individual experiments. Who knew the market for aphrodisiacs and psychodelics with aphrodisiacal effects was that large? That arena of research alone, much less the neuroscience spinoffs of the sensory and hormonal results, nearly transformed our understanding of human nature.
It is all QA Theory : doing it right the first time is cheapest for all, and a decision made at the right level by the right person with the right incentives and right information is more likely to be right than any other possible combination. Who better to fund research than the ones who would like to benefit? Who better to be the initial testers?
The trends to centralization my Reformation was intended to correct had created a very great deal of unnecessary complexity. The more complex things are, the more people have to check more things, as automating dealing with complexity is the same as creating intelligence. There are plenty of things to be interested in, and many people interested in many things, and now information is freely available to follow our interests. We can run the world’s research. We don’t need elites to do that.
Everything has changed as the information handling technology rippled through the meshed systems changing opportunities for everything. Along with a few dozen other major sources of change of technology, information handling has enhanced the efficiency of everything. Not the effectiveness of much from the pov of living daily life, as we still spend as much time in parking lots and stores and checkout lines, now fewer bigger parking lots, bigger stores and longer lines, rather the efficiency of everything, and as measured by the centralizing authority from that authority’s pov, contextual points not often noted.
One pov in epistemology is that reality is defined by its measurements. Our minds are relatively simple things except for our social intelligence. The rolling genetic dice and the fact that no one mind can do all things well forces some to be excellent producers of food and less-facile negotiators in power games, so producers of food are allowed to produce if they provide food for the rulers, who rule by excelling in power games.
The scaling of the world’s mafias and gradual merger with governments, of the transition of intelligence services and special forces to the intelligence and military arms of mafias, and of the police and financial world with both, are examples of the wrong interpretations of measurements driving an entire system crazy and crazily.
The Status Quos of the world had skin the game of world domination. Would I be violating my “no opposition” rule if I acted to remove it? Obviously not, so long as they didn’t oppose me. Achieving that while being scrupulously honest, no mis-direction, was obviously not going to be a problem.
Evolution is not a thing, it is a process of nature. The universe is the hand evolution was dealt and the playing of which on our Earth has produced us, its latest intelligence. That happened, by processes discussed by Wagner wrt gene networks produced by the analog nature of nature, Bijan’s Constructal Law nature’s process evolving in physical systems for efficiency, and Kirschner and Gerhard’s Plausibility of Life showing evolution enhances the mechanisms for further evolution, absolutely inevitably. Evolution is the working of nature, driven by many processes that increase entropy. Bertalanffy long ago said that evolution was driven by energy gradients and worked to increase the rate of entropy production. Given chemical gradients and access to carbon, energy storage and life arise.
Whereupon life takes over evolving as above, inevitably intelligence working to increase their opportunities, and from that variety of their futures societies arise and culture evolution begins happening. Inevitably, culture influences genetics and vv, and factors such as social cooperation act on individual selection through the group as an environment.
Were I an evolutionary historian, I would label that the beginning of the thinking that would finally recognize and study the coevolution of the modern intellectual classes and the ideas that empower the Status Quo. So similar to Catholic clergy and accessories in the early Middle Ages, you would have thought it would be more widely noted than it has been. And now empowering the next, of course.
No intelligence can guide itself in an infinitely-complex universe without good heuristics. The heuristic of trying out a lot of points of view in every situation seems intelligent to me, given all of this history.
For instance : Humans are the universe’s means of increasing entropy? So each of us is a genetic and cultural throw-of-the-dice recombinant opportunity for increasing the rate of production of entropy via intelligence? And we were doing our bit by making things more complex in the arenas of memes and genes co-evolving? Tessels were our species doing that in a new way.
With or without Tessels, making things simple by destruction increases the rate of entropy produced explosively, of course.
Did nature expect the next increases to be random walk? Generally-positive-sum dissipation of entropy because that is best long-term sustainable relative to cosmic time? Or a mix, as we might conclude from all of the wars? Distribution type? Entropy increases via sudden simplification, or gradual increase in complexity?
Was I opposing the universe’s goals if I tried to bias reality to gradual positive complexity?
Individuals as nature’s mechanism for increasing the rate of entropy production is both a new basis for free will and pretty much the ultimate rationalization for anything I wanted to do. Like I needed another.
Whatever. I thought I would anyway. As long as I didn’t generate effective opposition, how could I be wrong? Guiding evolution is creating the species that create the conditions that produce the world you want. I wanted a world that could not produce oligarchs because it made the world much more rewarding in daily life for everyone, as judged by their free choice. A world, consequently, which would deprive most oligarchs for reasons and ways to exist in the next couple of generations.
Doing that without arousing opposition and while being scrupulously honest was easy : Tessels were an opportunity for new and different. Random walk is a lot more deterministic than it might seem, given enough trials. Oligarchs make wrong bets, the world is not still run by the Carnegies, the influence of the politics and foundations they funded have waned. It takes perhaps 100 years, but evolution produces much more optimal systems, I think we should wait.
And Tessels were merely the first of the possibilities for changing our world to one that could not produce nor support oligarchs nor a power structure of concentrated wealth and social influence. Every one would initially appear to be just another technology, another business, another social fad, an internet meme. They couldn’t anticipate their effects.
They saw Tessel intelligence as just another resource to be exploited. “Maybe”, was my opinion. I wasn’t done yet. Neither were Tessels. Neither was the process that was the research wave in front of the Tessels. Nor of insurance via stem cells and stem cell research. Seemed to me, this thing was just getting going, that opportunities for optimizations == businesses producing wealth, were everywhere.
It seems to me that the essence of directed evolution is connecting a source of energy to new genetics. If you want to change everything, you make those very new genetics. Or memes. ‘Open’ is antithetical to any power structure, political or economic.
‘Open’ was still at the beginning of its changes for society. Every successful OSS-style organization took time, attention and money from some portion of the relatively-more closed Status Quo. Relatively-closed means their management cannot be as effective as an OSS organization, because it is more based on power relationships, less on teamwork, and therefore more centralized, less caring of people as individuals. Less caring for people means less caring from people. That means they have larger costs for checking for honesty, less quality, fewer things done right the first time. That is an intrinsic advantage to openness, and the reason our democracy worked so well relative to other governments, back in the days when it was.
In addition, mammals can always depend on a meteor to wipe out their huge competition. Black swans happen, mammals were small and distributed. Small and distributed is resilient. Cooperation is resilient, not command. Random walk is a lot more deterministic than might might seem.
In psyops, the message is the op.
*Generalissimo Grand Strategy, Intelligence Analysis and Psyops, First Volunteer Panzer Psyops Corp. Cleverly Gently Martial In Spirit