It’s hard because he jumps around so many different topics without clearly talking about any particular topic. However, what he says is usually correct and often also insightful. I think he enjoys thinking and talking at a level of abstraction where he can jump around and tie things together abstractly. It can be frustrating though when you want something pinned down and concrete. Also, without allowing yourself to be pinned down you can’t know the consequences of your assumptions or whether what you think is actually meaningful though it might feel stimulating and exciting without looking at it a in depth. Like with magic tricks, all imagined things can disappear into simple and disappointing illusions or slights of hand when you get to the root of them. He is by no means the worst offender and as somebody is actually implementing these things I hope it is meaningfully realised in software.
Cognition is extremely important, all beings have cognition. However, an open cognition as an open source, without any restriction is not good or profitable. The United States' started experiencing economic crisis because of that. There might be a lot ethical issues involved. Imagine having lenses for eyes, speakers for ears, and a chip in the brain that connects the brain's neuro network;[***I can't even hear my own thoughts anymore***] . . . then some top notch guy decides to sell you out for entertainment and profits, and you don't get any of the profit. Imagine having all rights to privacy abolished because of some top notch guy. I don't like that.
Think for just a second, who do you think knows more about this topic? You, who probably just watched a TH-cam video and thought about it for 12 seconds, or a man who has spent his entire adult life studying it? Next time you feel like commenting that someone doesn’t understand something maybe you should do some self reflection. Also, neurons exist in other organisms than just humans, it seems like you were confused about this as well.
Marxism, particularly classical Marxism, is philosophically the anticipation and qualification of what a maximally humanistic society must be in its deliberate social and material organization, which is something we apparently began with the various European enlightenment traditions approaching or fashioning notions of democracy. Consequently, it is the material or substantial realization of those purported aims (of liberty, happiness, etc), as opposed to the merely legalistic provision of freedom and happiness provided by liberalism (say that the king or state won't ostensibly legally block our pursuit of these things), which in so far as these could ever be considered reliable or binding (which we can't really bc primitive accumulation was obviously always a thing), we still see withering by the day before our eyes. With Marxism the idea is very much that we *can* anticipate what that society must be like in order to adequately justify and ground itself both theoretically, and in its own embodied operations or actual thriving. We don't have to appeal to increasingly abstract and vanishing conceptions of freedom in a social and material world that is increasingly closing its jaws on us and allowing financialization/market ***'value'*** prospecting to pervade and trivialize virtually every dimension of human life. You can say it's unrealistic, and indeed the common and valid criticism of Marx is that he focused more on this necessary humanistic basis for free and volitional intentionally organized societies (to the furthest extent or degree that that can be possible) and he largely succeeds. The moment we can do what we want for work or self-realization on any given hour or hours of the day to the next, is essentially a key measure by which our society is free. Universal access to the real ways that we apply and realize ourselves in all the registers or dimensions of our humanity can be the only measure by which we are free, and not shallow legalisms and tacit appeals to controlling the 'unwashed masses' which is utterly pervasive in liberal societies. And this explains why liberal societies are constantly punctuated by economic crises, and why they always seem to observe a pattern of predictably/inevitably approaching fascism, if not entirely collapsing into it, in relatively short order. Liberal societies are exceedingly vulnerable to fascism because it involves dissonant or contradictory values wherein despite speaking of things like equality and opportunity, multiple exploitative hierarchies are enacted across things like class, domestic racism and other forms of prejudice within the polity, colonial/global privilege (living in the global north vs the south), etc, etc. It's all just the hegemon dividing the masses of people against each other to ensure the continued exploitative extraction of wealth from them and the planet. So, like, idk, it seems that capitalism is pretty unrealistic. It can never define what freedom is in a consistent way that doesn't eventually lead to like ethnic cleansing or genocide or something (hello Israel and Canada and other settler colonial states etc). It's constantly trying to recover from its own self created crises and keeping people afraid of and 'policing' each other to consolidate its own considerable power even further, to the point that much of discourse has been so polluted that hardly anyone even knows what socialism or communism even means and unions become synonymous with corruption and class traitors etc. We're cooking our own atmosphere by producing loads of unnecessary crap to make best theoretical use of a cost/returns analysis that apparently presumes that both material resources and room for economic growth are infinite, purely because there exists no social mechanism for forcing compliance on these big entities and ensuring they don't seek to externalize all their costs to the rest of us! We apparently *'can't* maintain this level of industrial and social sophistication in a way that won't brutally exploit and impoverish the global south (Hello Bill Gates and Covid Vaccine IP rights!) We can't even make it purposeful or deliberate enough to not poison ourselves via pollution. But yeah it's Marxism that's unrealistic, not the idea that we could ever reform or control the beast that has utterly driven us to this wretched point already despite all our supposed claims that we were really competently handling these things for the sake of humanity lol. Like sorry dude, but to look at the practicality or value of Marxism you only have to look at the catastrophic failures of the current system and its basis and continuation in necessarily hegemonic social and material structures producing all this as the only conceivable possible result.
I can't understand a word being said but just listening makes me feel intelligent
Matthias Walker 😂
Hahaha
It’s hard because he jumps around so many different topics without clearly talking about any particular topic. However, what he says is usually correct and often also insightful. I think he enjoys thinking and talking at a level of abstraction where he can jump around and tie things together abstractly. It can be frustrating though when you want something pinned down and concrete. Also, without allowing yourself to be pinned down you can’t know the consequences of your assumptions or whether what you think is actually meaningful though it might feel stimulating and exciting without looking at it a in depth. Like with magic tricks, all imagined things can disappear into simple and disappointing illusions or slights of hand when you get to the root of them. He is by no means the worst offender and as somebody is actually implementing these things I hope it is meaningfully realised in software.
Bruh I can't even keep up, i'm already obsolete
How would the OPEN COG software function/operate without access to an online network like the SINGULARITY NETWORK for instance?
To be quite honest, I don't really like the idea of open cog.
Cognition is extremely important, all beings have cognition. However, an open cognition as an open source, without any restriction is not good or profitable. The United States' started experiencing economic crisis because of that. There might be a lot ethical issues involved. Imagine having lenses for eyes, speakers for ears, and a chip in the brain that connects the brain's neuro network;[***I can't even hear my own thoughts anymore***] . . . then some top notch guy decides to sell you out for entertainment and profits, and you don't get any of the profit. Imagine having all rights to privacy abolished because of some top notch guy. I don't like that.
OPEN COG IS EQUIVALENT TO EXPLOTATION.
Ben, you obviously don't comprehend cognition layout, and the power it requires to perform onto the open source.
When you include technical terminology such as #neuro-network, neuro-whatever; you are talking about HUMAN BEINGS.
Beings that have physiology and feel pain, fatigue among others things; regardless of their symbiotic relationship to the artificial aspect of life.
Think for just a second, who do you think knows more about this topic? You, who probably just watched a TH-cam video and thought about it for 12 seconds, or a man who has spent his entire adult life studying it? Next time you feel like commenting that someone doesn’t understand something maybe you should do some self reflection. Also, neurons exist in other organisms than just humans, it seems like you were confused about this as well.
Marxism, particularly classical Marxism, is philosophically the anticipation and qualification of what a maximally humanistic society must be in its deliberate social and material organization, which is something we apparently began with the various European enlightenment traditions approaching or fashioning notions of democracy. Consequently, it is the material or substantial realization of those purported aims (of liberty, happiness, etc), as opposed to the merely legalistic provision of freedom and happiness provided by liberalism (say that the king or state won't ostensibly legally block our pursuit of these things), which in so far as these could ever be considered reliable or binding (which we can't really bc primitive accumulation was obviously always a thing), we still see withering by the day before our eyes. With Marxism the idea is very much that we *can* anticipate what that society must be like in order to adequately justify and ground itself both theoretically, and in its own embodied operations or actual thriving. We don't have to appeal to increasingly abstract and vanishing conceptions of freedom in a social and material world that is increasingly closing its jaws on us and allowing financialization/market ***'value'*** prospecting to pervade and trivialize virtually every dimension of human life.
You can say it's unrealistic, and indeed the common and valid criticism of Marx is that he focused more on this necessary humanistic basis for free and volitional intentionally organized societies (to the furthest extent or degree that that can be possible) and he largely succeeds. The moment we can do what we want for work or self-realization on any given hour or hours of the day to the next, is essentially a key measure by which our society is free. Universal access to the real ways that we apply and realize ourselves in all the registers or dimensions of our humanity can be the only measure by which we are free, and not shallow legalisms and tacit appeals to controlling the 'unwashed masses' which is utterly pervasive in liberal societies. And this explains why liberal societies are constantly punctuated by economic crises, and why they always seem to observe a pattern of predictably/inevitably approaching fascism, if not entirely collapsing into it, in relatively short order. Liberal societies are exceedingly vulnerable to fascism because it involves dissonant or contradictory values wherein despite speaking of things like equality and opportunity, multiple exploitative hierarchies are enacted across things like class, domestic racism and other forms of prejudice within the polity, colonial/global privilege (living in the global north vs the south), etc, etc. It's all just the hegemon dividing the masses of people against each other to ensure the continued exploitative extraction of wealth from them and the planet.
So, like, idk, it seems that capitalism is pretty unrealistic. It can never define what freedom is in a consistent way that doesn't eventually lead to like ethnic cleansing or genocide or something (hello Israel and Canada and other settler colonial states etc). It's constantly trying to recover from its own self created crises and keeping people afraid of and 'policing' each other to consolidate its own considerable power even further, to the point that much of discourse has been so polluted that hardly anyone even knows what socialism or communism even means and unions become synonymous with corruption and class traitors etc. We're cooking our own atmosphere by producing loads of unnecessary crap to make best theoretical use of a cost/returns analysis that apparently presumes that both material resources and room for economic growth are infinite, purely because there exists no social mechanism for forcing compliance on these big entities and ensuring they don't seek to externalize all their costs to the rest of us! We apparently *'can't* maintain this level of industrial and social sophistication in a way that won't brutally exploit and impoverish the global south (Hello Bill Gates and Covid Vaccine IP rights!) We can't even make it purposeful or deliberate enough to not poison ourselves via pollution. But yeah it's Marxism that's unrealistic, not the idea that we could ever reform or control the beast that has utterly driven us to this wretched point already despite all our supposed claims that we were really competently handling these things for the sake of humanity lol. Like sorry dude, but to look at the practicality or value of Marxism you only have to look at the catastrophic failures of the current system and its basis and continuation in necessarily hegemonic social and material structures producing all this as the only conceivable possible result.