True enough. Hopefully someday there will be someone in the "management" that is smart enough to figure that out. Until then, we'll keep the burners lit.;-)
I wasn't considering Dan Simmons as a prophet. I was looking at him as a "reasonable" human being. Anyone that thinks computers will or can solve all problems, cure all diseases, end world hunger, etc. is really not being realistic. My mentioning of Dan Simmons was purely based on the symbolism that he manages to achieve while still keeping it "real" enough to say, "Some things just aren't solvable." That's something that more writers of sci-fi should consider. Too many think science will ultimately lead to a solution to everything. If we solved everything, what would be the point of continuing existence? It would be pretty boring to know it all. I enjoy exploration (both physical and mental) and would rue the day that we solve that last problem.;-)
Anything can be a religion. All it takes is blind faith and turning a deaf ear to anyone that dares to question your belief (or tries to get you to question yourself).
I say, question everything. There may be some great predictability goin on at times, but question it. If you accept it blindly, you are no better than the cultists that think they need to kill themselves because their messiah says so. You may think that's harsh, but reality is harsh.
There is only one thing that I never question, and that is the love that my wife and I share. Everything else is suspect in my book.
They would never get rid of Katz. You know why? Because, even though he pisses a lot of people off, or perhaps because he pisses a lot of people off, he generates a huge number of page hits. He does occasionally say something that is interesting, but he quickly follows that up with something that is so unbelievable stupid or obvious (or obviously flawed) that you can't help but respond. Lots of people read his articles now just so that they can find a way to slam him, and others read the threads just to read the slams.
Someone that generates that kind of intensity isn't going away anytime soon. No matter how much of a hack/dumbass/moron/etc. he may be. He goes for the obvious, and pisses people off. That's just what the slashbots ordered. (He got me to respond.)
The limitless potential power of computing has all kinds of implications for technology, education, culture and politics. We do need to know more about what's realistic. This splash of cold water is welcome, and more than a little shocking.
Apparently it's only shocking to Katz and to other true believers of the one faith of computers©. Anybody involved with computers that has any semblance of sanity realizes that computers are not capable of solving every problem/question humanity has ever formulated. And the chances are that they never will. Even people that are into far-future sci-fi style writing usually keep a realistic stance about such things. Dan Simmons, a great author of many styles, wrote of a future with AI (autonomous intelligences, not artificial) computer units that were so intellectually superior to humans that most humans could not even fathom the depths of their 'minds', yet even these great beings couldn't answer some of the most fundamental of questions. Who are we? Why are we here? Who else is out there? How do we do...?
The whole premise of pure (and completely unfounded) belief in the abilities of machines is just as laughable as any religiously clung to belief. If you believe without question, then you lose your ability to see reality. If Katz sees this as a splash of cold water, then perhaps he needs to regain some perspective.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that Katz has shifted gears over the past few weeks from the "computer people are the smartest, bestest, wonderfullest, most misunderstood" to "computers suck, and they are damaging our society beyond repair"? I wonder if he just had a major system crash a few weeks ago?
Stupid people tend to reproduce much more quickly, but the bright side is that the smart ones end up being "in charge". Except in the case of large corporations, where how high up the ladder you climb is directly opposite of how intelligent you are (or how much pride you have, could be either I guess);-).
As far as the teenager bashing goes, I find the the most intelligent teenagers are the ones that say at the drop of a hat that they are stupid. They usually know far more than the "know it all" types of teens (which unfortunately are the vocal majority).
I don't feel I was that stupid as a teen. I was never drunk, never did drugs, escaped the "smoking is cool" crowd and managed to avoid ever doing something stupid enough to be arrested. I never thought of myself as an "intelligent" person as a teenager, but I think that was probably because I had some serious self-esteem problems then (heh, who doesn't). But, looking back I can definitely see that I was a lot smarter than I gave myself credit for, but a lot dumber than I wanted to be. And I feel the same way about myself now.
I would rather be that way than one of those that is so convinced of his own superiority that there is no way I'm gonna learn anything new. I've known too many of those types in my life already, and it seems they are everywhere.
That's a good theory, but I wonder how you would explain one of my personal favorites. Even if the average is remaining constant, how do you explain what seems to be the increasing gulf between the "most" intelligent human and the "least" intelligent human alive? I mean, in my opinion, this seems to be increasing at an exponential rate (the smartest to dumbest ratio). Unfortunately, it seems at any one moment that the stupidest person alive is in charge of one of the mega-corps and they tend to switch off who is the stupidest on a weekly, if not daily basis.
anyway the point is that intelligence per se is never going to be related to evolution (not for ages anyhow) so that you can't expect people to 'get smarter' over time.
As is unfortunately obvious if you read slashdot.;-) It's a joke, really.
In actuallity I would say that intelligence in the general population will continually decline while the overall 'knowledge' that the human race as a whole has grows. People specialize more and more, and certain people are brainiacs, but in general, the more people we have the lower the average IQ seems to be. That can be kind of scary when you see population projections, until you realize that as a slashdot reader you are in the upper echelon of intelligence.;-) (that's a joke too.)
That's the really funny thing. It isn't that these people are necissarily more fertile than the rest of us. It's just that they are too stupid to try and work their way around their fertility.
So, does that mean that humanity will eventually be composed a bunch of drooling idiots that are capable only of reproduction and little else (maybe the few smart ones left will make machines to take care of the 'necissities of life')? Or will there be a disease (as you've implied slighty) to sort of 'clean things up'?
Conversations like this usually disturb too many people as they start delving into possible massive deaths in the 'clean up' of humanity. But, it is possible that there will be these sorts of problems as we cram more humanity into smaller areas. Anybody ever worked with livestock? Whether it's fish in aquariums or cows in a stock yard, if you put too much biomass into too small an area strange things start happening. Whether it is a break down in the immune systems of the individuals involved, or the development of diseases within the population that are easily spread (because of population density) or a combination is usually unknown (but not always). But with large cities growing upward and filling with people I would think at some point we would run into some disease or other problem that is far beyond the ability of modern medicine to combat. I hope I'm wrong, but it's an interesting idea.
Oh, and for the nit-picking people, I'm not saying that humans are just livestock, just pointing out that we are all part of the same environment. And basically, we are all made up of the same stuff. Organic life-forms are organic life-forms. We may have bigger brains, but we are still the same sort of creatures.
Re:Most of the Katz 'articles'...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
I've often thought that Mr. Katz is a paid troll. He is payed to write an article. And the more inflamatory the article, the more people will respond with "oh god, Katz suck!". So, the more he can piss people off, or just rant without making any sense at all, the "better" he has done (because he has generated more page hits from people calling his bluff).
Of course, the fact that I realize this and still read his stuff speaks volumes of my nature. As much as I dislike stupidity, the behaviour of people that are acting stupid is endlessly fascinating to me. Reading a thread attached to a Katz article is like watching Jerry Springer in reverse. In this case, the host is the one that seems crazy, and all the people responding seem to make sense when they say, "maybe you should get some help?"
Pardon the flamebait.
Re:"Fittest" does not mean "best"
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
I always thought that strongest and fitness to survive were kind of tied up together. Of course, strongest in this sense would mean the features that are most important are strongest. Perhaps a large strong creature, with sturdy limbs would be physically stronger than a lithe well-coordinated creature with skiny and not-so muscled limbs, but the "less" strong creature would have developed the "strongest" ability to glide through the treetops in the rain-forest.
Of course, in that case, strong becomes a judgement call based on the surroundings. But I think that's kind of what Darwinism is all about. Maybe not strongest in the traditional sense, but strongest as in "adapted best" (has the most strength in the right areas).
Of course, I'm probably off-topic as I am talking about biological systems, and Katz was talking about information as a biological system.
Those that can't find a suitable mate are some of the most gene prolific people on the planet.
Then men that can't find women that they consider "suitable" typically end up sleeping with as many women as they can, leaving a trail of pregnancy behind them. The reason? Because the women they end up sleeping with are the female side of this equation. They cannot find a suitable mate, so they assume that it is in their best interests to use their sexuality to pull in as many men as possible.
I personally know three women and two men that live this way. They are never happy with relationships, yet they always end up creating a new life during those relationships, however short they are. Between these five individuals, there are thirteen new children, each of which are added to the gene pool, whether we like it or not.
There is no selection test for pregnancy. I'm not sure there should be, but people should learn to be more careful. It seems the stupider you are, the more likely you are to have children young and often. Somehow, that doesn't seem very Darwinian to me.
Re:Information *IS* Darwinian
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
Information is Darwinian in the fact that the strong (popular) ideas survive, and the weak (unpopular) ones die off.
I'm not sure I totally agree. You are right in that the most popular ideas survive (at least temporarily) and the least popular ideas die off (or seem to), but rarely are the most popular ideas the strongest. Of course, if you apply that to information you come up with the concept of the good will survive, so perhaps you are right.
As an example: The boy band of the month is wildly popular, and held onto by all the little teeny boppers. Yet, when the next boy band comes along, most will forget the previous band. However, in time, the stuff that seems the most obscure today will probably come to the forefront while the boy-bands will fade into obscurity.
Do you think the classical composers that are popular and well-known now were in their lifetime? Some were, but many were poor, barely able to afford to live, but did what they did out of love and respect for their music. Those have stood the test of time. And I would bet that in time, many of the popular bands in rock-n-roll will fade away, but what will be left will be the best of the crop.
So, perhaps you are right. But the idea that popular and strong go hand in hand doesn't seem quite right. Popular now doesn't necissarily mean strong (when it comes to ideas). But I suppose that long-term popularity would mean strong. Hmm, interesting thoughts anyway.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read here!
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
If exponentiality is fatality, as one writer suggests, then information is creating a new kind of ecosystem that violates natural laws of selection and survival. Modern media have no predators, and are not subject to biological or Darwinian-style selections -- the Regulon. Thus media can proliferate eternally, overwhelming coherence and reality. There is no Regulon in the Semiosphere, is one new theory about information.We could use some help from physicists and biologists here.
Hhehehe, this coming from Jon Katz is about enough to make a guy want to roll on the floor with laughter. And when I saw the part where he started complaining about "gasbags" on the internet I spewed more liquids onto my laptop than I ever have before as the laughter peeled forth.
Now, granted, Katz does have a point. But seeing one of the main proponets (and abusers) of the "Information wants to be free" mantra do a complete about face and say that freedom of information is a terrible evil is just too much to take.
For better or for worse, information has been freed. I don't think that having all this information available is a bad thing. It's the totally uncontrolled distribution of mis-information (like the scare tactics used in this article) which should be looked at with fear, or maybe pity. But having Jon Katz complain that "gasbags" are producing too much "information" is just about enough to make a person choke to death.;-).
I look forward to the day when there is enough human activity "out there" (in space) that there are similar stories of c-space craft breaking the speed of light by slingshotting around huge gravity wells (large planets, or black holes) but I am quite aware that that won't happen in my lifetime.
But, if we don't wipe ourselves out, or do something equally stupid that prevents us from going further into space (or actually living permanently in space), I hope that these stories are the precursors, in whatever era they take place, of controlled faster than light 'flight' through space.
Everything is just a matter of time, as they always say. Sorry I equated sound-barrier to light barrier, but I still think the same basic philosophy applies to both. Someday, when the light-barrier is broken, there will be similar stories about both. As I said, it was an example of a mental barrier, more than of a real one.
To the scientists that question whether it is possible or not to travel faster than light I say 'bravo!'. To those that succomb to the idea that it cannot be questioned (which probably aren't really scientists at all, but fundamental propogandists posing as scientists) I say things that aren't tolerated in polite conversation.
...humans could not travel faster than sound. The latter was not scientifically grounded, but rather supported by "common sense."
Perhaps you meant "common knowledge"? I think the two (common knowledge and common sense) get mixed up too often. As to Einstein's axioms and equations, you can assume just one little fundamental idea just slightly incorrectly and completely mess up any axiom/theory. He was a brilliant mind, perhaps born in the wrong time (but what would we be at without him at that time?), but he was human. Even the most brilliant make mistakes. Common sense would say that the "light barrier" would fall just as the "sound barrier" and the totally imaginary "breathing barrier" (at 30 mph). Common knowledge however dictates that it will always be impossible because it is impossible now. A slight crossing of wires and you accept a theory as a proof.
That's the problem with the scientific process. It depends on us poorly equipped humans to make judgement calls about valid and invalid theories/data/equations/whatnot. And if you poor enough money into something you can convince a lot of people that you are right, whether you can scientifically "prove" it or not.
Nothing against your analysis, just pointing out that no matter how well thought out a theory is (even Einstein's), it is very possible that with more knowledge that theory will be blown into nothing more than the dreams of a past era. Perhaps a beautiful, well-thought out dream, but not really meaningful in reality.
True enough, but you can pour blood, sweat and math into a project and "prove" something that is one hundred and twenty-five percent wrong if you do not use common sense along the way as well. Common sense seems to be seen as a great evil a lot of the time anymore. It isn't evil, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that think it is (because, common sense often leads in directions that aren't instantly profitable. And everyone knows that the "instant" part is a lot more important than the "profitable" part. Never mind if your path will lead to bankruptcy in four years, we need money today!)
The theories you mention have remained unquestioned by modern science for a long, long time. Unfortunately, the common misconception is that if a theory isn't "proven" wrong in a few days/weeks/years, then it must be a fact. There is probably a good reason why those theories are not proven wrong, there is no one questioning them.
(Well, except for Evolotion, which is only questioned by the hard-line, militant, christian propogandists, and thusly, the only people questioning it are dismissed as "wackos". Pity really, even the wackos have a valid point sometimes. I happen to disagree with their conclusions, but I don't mind listening to their arguments.)
Everyone has done bad things, that in a "perfect world" probably could have been avoided, and of course we must take responsibility for these actions, but because we doesn't live in this perfect world we didn't manage to avoid them.
My point exactly. And you're right, the fundamental problem is a misunderstanding of the original theories themselves. And of course, lawyers love to use the misunderstanding of those theories to their client's advantage. It's funny how the law allows "insanity" as a "not guilty" plea. In my mind, admitting to insanity just means you are guilty, and you are fucked up. Instead of saying, "Oh you poor baby, we should really pamper you.", we should say, "Well, you screwed up, and we understand that you aren't mentally capable of realizing why you screwed up. So, you are sentenced to mental care."
I realize that happens more often than what TV dramas would want you to believe, but I think the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is the start of the misunderstanding of the basic theories.
I see things like that throughout history and I just keep wondering how many "modern truths" will be proven as ridiculous as the "modern truth" in that time that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.
For instance, the "modern truth" that people that are way too angry and take that anger out on others are somehow victims themselves. That one kills me. It seems the modern science of psychology says that we are all victims. Even the guy that picks up a gun, carries it in his car, and shoots people at random is a victim. He's suffering from "road rage". It seems that the "modern truth" of psychology is that no one is responsible for their own actions. At least, that certainly seems to be the case, and people embrace that thought because it is a wonderful thought that no matter what you do, no matter how misbehaved you are, you are not responsible for your own actions. You are a victim.
Then there is the "modern truth" of c-space. It is impossible to ever pass the speed of light. Just like it is impossible to pass the sound barrier? Or just like humans won't be able to breath when the pass 30 miles per hour? I don't know, I think it is ridiculous to assume that just because we haven't found a way to do something, that automatically means it is impossible.
Of course, I'm not one of those "science can cure all ills" people that thinks of science as the modern religion. I don't ask for blind faith, but common sense would suffice. If a theory is just a theory it should not be accepted as truth. If a "truth" is proven wrong, easily and verifiably, why beat the person that has proven it into a mental shell?
Of course, in today's society, the possibility that science will continue to move forward seems to be dwindling as well. Science in the wrong hands may be better than science in no one's hands. But, in the "money is all that matters" society of today, even that seems unlikely. Advancement for the sake of advancement would be an interesting proposition, but I think we are a long way off from the "Star Trek" version of humanity, where money ceases to be a concern, and scientific discoveries become paramount.
This whole "virtual" community thing seems a little over the top, even for our esteemed Mr. Katz.
Seriously, there is a reality that you can have a virtualized (not a virtual) community in any online forum or chat room or message board or BBS or etc. But, that community is not stronger, no better, no weaker, or no more real than any "meat space" community. And it seems throughout this series of articles that is the one theme that Mr. Katz has failed to truly touch upon.
When talking about the Virtual Community © Jon has placed more promise, hope, and reality into the world "virtual" than into the word "community". Doesn't he understand that no matter how virtualized any place of meeting may be it is still just a community made up of real people (even the ones pretending to not be real people are still backed by real people. It isn't just a made up fantasy land). The problem is that in the early days of fantasizing about how great the virtual community could be, no one stopped to think that it is just as easy, maybe even easier, for the idiots, morons, mental midgits and freaks of the real world to interfere with the virtual world. Nobody stopped to think that through in the early days, because it wasn't so easy to jump online. But, now we are faced with the reality of that statement. People are coming online at an increasing rate, and acting as idiotic as any drunken brawler. And the virtualized community that was supposed to be this great utopia was not.
Simply looking at the development of real community through the ages will allow you to understand that there is a huge parallel between meat space and virtualized space. How many generations of "communities" were made up of ravaging, raping, pillaging barbarians? It took time to develop our communities into the realitively polite and modernized society we have today in meat space (where all of the rape, ravage, pillaging, stealing and other garbage happens behind closed doors where we aren't supposed to look). In time, the online communities that survive whatever shakeout will come will find a way to deal with the miscreants just as the real world has learned to deal with criminals. The idea of a virtual jail is appealing for the humor value alone, but not so unrealistic. Perhaps, if tracking is made more sophisticated (as it is bound to be), creating an area that miscreants and rebels are "locked" into is a very real possibility. A frightening one, as many people that are not really a threat to anyone but the powers-that-be would be thrown into these virtual jails, but a possibility none-the-less.
In time, we will see what really happens. But it isn't as bleak as some people seem to think, and it isn't as cheery as the original framers of the "virtual community" idea wanted to believe. Reality, as usual, lies somewhere in between.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough. Hopefully someday there will be someone in the "management" that is smart enough to figure that out. Until then, we'll keep the burners lit.;-)
Nice reference.;-)
I wasn't considering Dan Simmons as a prophet. I was looking at him as a "reasonable" human being. Anyone that thinks computers will or can solve all problems, cure all diseases, end world hunger, etc. is really not being realistic. My mentioning of Dan Simmons was purely based on the symbolism that he manages to achieve while still keeping it "real" enough to say, "Some things just aren't solvable." That's something that more writers of sci-fi should consider. Too many think science will ultimately lead to a solution to everything. If we solved everything, what would be the point of continuing existence? It would be pretty boring to know it all. I enjoy exploration (both physical and mental) and would rue the day that we solve that last problem.;-)
Anything can be a religion. All it takes is blind faith and turning a deaf ear to anyone that dares to question your belief (or tries to get you to question yourself).
I say, question everything. There may be some great predictability goin on at times, but question it. If you accept it blindly, you are no better than the cultists that think they need to kill themselves because their messiah says so. You may think that's harsh, but reality is harsh.
There is only one thing that I never question, and that is the love that my wife and I share. Everything else is suspect in my book.
They would never get rid of Katz. You know why? Because, even though he pisses a lot of people off, or perhaps because he pisses a lot of people off, he generates a huge number of page hits. He does occasionally say something that is interesting, but he quickly follows that up with something that is so unbelievable stupid or obvious (or obviously flawed) that you can't help but respond. Lots of people read his articles now just so that they can find a way to slam him, and others read the threads just to read the slams.
Someone that generates that kind of intensity isn't going away anytime soon. No matter how much of a hack/dumbass/moron/etc. he may be. He goes for the obvious, and pisses people off. That's just what the slashbots ordered. (He got me to respond.)
Apparently it's only shocking to Katz and to other true believers of the one faith of computers©. Anybody involved with computers that has any semblance of sanity realizes that computers are not capable of solving every problem/question humanity has ever formulated. And the chances are that they never will. Even people that are into far-future sci-fi style writing usually keep a realistic stance about such things. Dan Simmons, a great author of many styles, wrote of a future with AI (autonomous intelligences, not artificial) computer units that were so intellectually superior to humans that most humans could not even fathom the depths of their 'minds', yet even these great beings couldn't answer some of the most fundamental of questions. Who are we? Why are we here? Who else is out there? How do we do
The whole premise of pure (and completely unfounded) belief in the abilities of machines is just as laughable as any religiously clung to belief. If you believe without question, then you lose your ability to see reality. If Katz sees this as a splash of cold water, then perhaps he needs to regain some perspective.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that Katz has shifted gears over the past few weeks from the "computer people are the smartest, bestest, wonderfullest, most misunderstood" to "computers suck, and they are damaging our society beyond repair"? I wonder if he just had a major system crash a few weeks ago?
Stupid people tend to reproduce much more quickly, but the bright side is that the smart ones end up being "in charge". Except in the case of large corporations, where how high up the ladder you climb is directly opposite of how intelligent you are (or how much pride you have, could be either I guess);-).
Well, the CEO statement was more of a joke.
As far as the teenager bashing goes, I find the the most intelligent teenagers are the ones that say at the drop of a hat that they are stupid. They usually know far more than the "know it all" types of teens (which unfortunately are the vocal majority).
I don't feel I was that stupid as a teen. I was never drunk, never did drugs, escaped the "smoking is cool" crowd and managed to avoid ever doing something stupid enough to be arrested. I never thought of myself as an "intelligent" person as a teenager, but I think that was probably because I had some serious self-esteem problems then (heh, who doesn't). But, looking back I can definitely see that I was a lot smarter than I gave myself credit for, but a lot dumber than I wanted to be. And I feel the same way about myself now.
I would rather be that way than one of those that is so convinced of his own superiority that there is no way I'm gonna learn anything new. I've known too many of those types in my life already, and it seems they are everywhere.
It seems I'm rambling. Sorry, it's late here.
That's a good theory, but I wonder how you would explain one of my personal favorites. Even if the average is remaining constant, how do you explain what seems to be the increasing gulf between the "most" intelligent human and the "least" intelligent human alive? I mean, in my opinion, this seems to be increasing at an exponential rate (the smartest to dumbest ratio). Unfortunately, it seems at any one moment that the stupidest person alive is in charge of one of the mega-corps and they tend to switch off who is the stupidest on a weekly, if not daily basis.
As is unfortunately obvious if you read slashdot.;-) It's a joke, really.
In actuallity I would say that intelligence in the general population will continually decline while the overall 'knowledge' that the human race as a whole has grows. People specialize more and more, and certain people are brainiacs, but in general, the more people we have the lower the average IQ seems to be. That can be kind of scary when you see population projections, until you realize that as a slashdot reader you are in the upper echelon of intelligence.;-) (that's a joke too.)
That's the really funny thing. It isn't that these people are necissarily more fertile than the rest of us. It's just that they are too stupid to try and work their way around their fertility.
So, does that mean that humanity will eventually be composed a bunch of drooling idiots that are capable only of reproduction and little else (maybe the few smart ones left will make machines to take care of the 'necissities of life')? Or will there be a disease (as you've implied slighty) to sort of 'clean things up'?
Conversations like this usually disturb too many people as they start delving into possible massive deaths in the 'clean up' of humanity. But, it is possible that there will be these sorts of problems as we cram more humanity into smaller areas. Anybody ever worked with livestock? Whether it's fish in aquariums or cows in a stock yard, if you put too much biomass into too small an area strange things start happening. Whether it is a break down in the immune systems of the individuals involved, or the development of diseases within the population that are easily spread (because of population density) or a combination is usually unknown (but not always). But with large cities growing upward and filling with people I would think at some point we would run into some disease or other problem that is far beyond the ability of modern medicine to combat. I hope I'm wrong, but it's an interesting idea.
Oh, and for the nit-picking people, I'm not saying that humans are just livestock, just pointing out that we are all part of the same environment. And basically, we are all made up of the same stuff. Organic life-forms are organic life-forms. We may have bigger brains, but we are still the same sort of creatures.
I've often thought that Mr. Katz is a paid troll. He is payed to write an article. And the more inflamatory the article, the more people will respond with "oh god, Katz suck!". So, the more he can piss people off, or just rant without making any sense at all, the "better" he has done (because he has generated more page hits from people calling his bluff).
Of course, the fact that I realize this and still read his stuff speaks volumes of my nature. As much as I dislike stupidity, the behaviour of people that are acting stupid is endlessly fascinating to me. Reading a thread attached to a Katz article is like watching Jerry Springer in reverse. In this case, the host is the one that seems crazy, and all the people responding seem to make sense when they say, "maybe you should get some help?"
Pardon the flamebait.
I always thought that strongest and fitness to survive were kind of tied up together. Of course, strongest in this sense would mean the features that are most important are strongest. Perhaps a large strong creature, with sturdy limbs would be physically stronger than a lithe well-coordinated creature with skiny and not-so muscled limbs, but the "less" strong creature would have developed the "strongest" ability to glide through the treetops in the rain-forest.
Of course, in that case, strong becomes a judgement call based on the surroundings. But I think that's kind of what Darwinism is all about. Maybe not strongest in the traditional sense, but strongest as in "adapted best" (has the most strength in the right areas).
Of course, I'm probably off-topic as I am talking about biological systems, and Katz was talking about information as a biological system.
Unfortunately you are not quite correct.
Those that can't find a suitable mate are some of the most gene prolific people on the planet.
Then men that can't find women that they consider "suitable" typically end up sleeping with as many women as they can, leaving a trail of pregnancy behind them. The reason? Because the women they end up sleeping with are the female side of this equation. They cannot find a suitable mate, so they assume that it is in their best interests to use their sexuality to pull in as many men as possible.
I personally know three women and two men that live this way. They are never happy with relationships, yet they always end up creating a new life during those relationships, however short they are. Between these five individuals, there are thirteen new children, each of which are added to the gene pool, whether we like it or not.
There is no selection test for pregnancy. I'm not sure there should be, but people should learn to be more careful. It seems the stupider you are, the more likely you are to have children young and often. Somehow, that doesn't seem very Darwinian to me.
I'm not sure I totally agree. You are right in that the most popular ideas survive (at least temporarily) and the least popular ideas die off (or seem to), but rarely are the most popular ideas the strongest. Of course, if you apply that to information you come up with the concept of the good will survive, so perhaps you are right.
As an example: The boy band of the month is wildly popular, and held onto by all the little teeny boppers. Yet, when the next boy band comes along, most will forget the previous band. However, in time, the stuff that seems the most obscure today will probably come to the forefront while the boy-bands will fade into obscurity.
Do you think the classical composers that are popular and well-known now were in their lifetime? Some were, but many were poor, barely able to afford to live, but did what they did out of love and respect for their music. Those have stood the test of time. And I would bet that in time, many of the popular bands in rock-n-roll will fade away, but what will be left will be the best of the crop.
So, perhaps you are right. But the idea that popular and strong go hand in hand doesn't seem quite right. Popular now doesn't necissarily mean strong (when it comes to ideas). But I suppose that long-term popularity would mean strong. Hmm, interesting thoughts anyway.
Now, granted, Katz does have a point. But seeing one of the main proponets (and abusers) of the "Information wants to be free" mantra do a complete about face and say that freedom of information is a terrible evil is just too much to take.
For better or for worse, information has been freed. I don't think that having all this information available is a bad thing. It's the totally uncontrolled distribution of mis-information (like the scare tactics used in this article) which should be looked at with fear, or maybe pity. But having Jon Katz complain that "gasbags" are producing too much "information" is just about enough to make a person choke to death.;-).
I look forward to the day when there is enough human activity "out there" (in space) that there are similar stories of c-space craft breaking the speed of light by slingshotting around huge gravity wells (large planets, or black holes) but I am quite aware that that won't happen in my lifetime.
But, if we don't wipe ourselves out, or do something equally stupid that prevents us from going further into space (or actually living permanently in space), I hope that these stories are the precursors, in whatever era they take place, of controlled faster than light 'flight' through space.
Everything is just a matter of time, as they always say. Sorry I equated sound-barrier to light barrier, but I still think the same basic philosophy applies to both. Someday, when the light-barrier is broken, there will be similar stories about both. As I said, it was an example of a mental barrier, more than of a real one.
Perhaps you meant "common knowledge"? I think the two (common knowledge and common sense) get mixed up too often. As to Einstein's axioms and equations, you can assume just one little fundamental idea just slightly incorrectly and completely mess up any axiom/theory. He was a brilliant mind, perhaps born in the wrong time (but what would we be at without him at that time?), but he was human. Even the most brilliant make mistakes. Common sense would say that the "light barrier" would fall just as the "sound barrier" and the totally imaginary "breathing barrier" (at 30 mph). Common knowledge however dictates that it will always be impossible because it is impossible now. A slight crossing of wires and you accept a theory as a proof.
That's the problem with the scientific process. It depends on us poorly equipped humans to make judgement calls about valid and invalid theories/data/equations/whatnot. And if you poor enough money into something you can convince a lot of people that you are right, whether you can scientifically "prove" it or not.
Nothing against your analysis, just pointing out that no matter how well thought out a theory is (even Einstein's), it is very possible that with more knowledge that theory will be blown into nothing more than the dreams of a past era. Perhaps a beautiful, well-thought out dream, but not really meaningful in reality.
True enough, but you can pour blood, sweat and math into a project and "prove" something that is one hundred and twenty-five percent wrong if you do not use common sense along the way as well. Common sense seems to be seen as a great evil a lot of the time anymore. It isn't evil, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that think it is (because, common sense often leads in directions that aren't instantly profitable. And everyone knows that the "instant" part is a lot more important than the "profitable" part. Never mind if your path will lead to bankruptcy in four years, we need money today!)
The theories you mention have remained unquestioned by modern science for a long, long time. Unfortunately, the common misconception is that if a theory isn't "proven" wrong in a few days/weeks/years, then it must be a fact. There is probably a good reason why those theories are not proven wrong, there is no one questioning them.
(Well, except for Evolotion, which is only questioned by the hard-line, militant, christian propogandists, and thusly, the only people questioning it are dismissed as "wackos". Pity really, even the wackos have a valid point sometimes. I happen to disagree with their conclusions, but I don't mind listening to their arguments.)
My point exactly. And you're right, the fundamental problem is a misunderstanding of the original theories themselves. And of course, lawyers love to use the misunderstanding of those theories to their client's advantage. It's funny how the law allows "insanity" as a "not guilty" plea. In my mind, admitting to insanity just means you are guilty, and you are fucked up. Instead of saying, "Oh you poor baby, we should really pamper you.", we should say, "Well, you screwed up, and we understand that you aren't mentally capable of realizing why you screwed up. So, you are sentenced to mental care."
I realize that happens more often than what TV dramas would want you to believe, but I think the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is the start of the misunderstanding of the basic theories.
Now that I'm completely off-topic....
I see things like that throughout history and I just keep wondering how many "modern truths" will be proven as ridiculous as the "modern truth" in that time that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.
For instance, the "modern truth" that people that are way too angry and take that anger out on others are somehow victims themselves. That one kills me. It seems the modern science of psychology says that we are all victims. Even the guy that picks up a gun, carries it in his car, and shoots people at random is a victim. He's suffering from "road rage". It seems that the "modern truth" of psychology is that no one is responsible for their own actions. At least, that certainly seems to be the case, and people embrace that thought because it is a wonderful thought that no matter what you do, no matter how misbehaved you are, you are not responsible for your own actions. You are a victim.
Then there is the "modern truth" of c-space. It is impossible to ever pass the speed of light. Just like it is impossible to pass the sound barrier? Or just like humans won't be able to breath when the pass 30 miles per hour? I don't know, I think it is ridiculous to assume that just because we haven't found a way to do something, that automatically means it is impossible.
Of course, I'm not one of those "science can cure all ills" people that thinks of science as the modern religion. I don't ask for blind faith, but common sense would suffice. If a theory is just a theory it should not be accepted as truth. If a "truth" is proven wrong, easily and verifiably, why beat the person that has proven it into a mental shell?
Of course, in today's society, the possibility that science will continue to move forward seems to be dwindling as well. Science in the wrong hands may be better than science in no one's hands. But, in the "money is all that matters" society of today, even that seems unlikely. Advancement for the sake of advancement would be an interesting proposition, but I think we are a long way off from the "Star Trek" version of humanity, where money ceases to be a concern, and scientific discoveries become paramount.
Ah, the beauties of modern science.
This whole "virtual" community thing seems a little over the top, even for our esteemed Mr. Katz.
Seriously, there is a reality that you can have a virtualized (not a virtual) community in any online forum or chat room or message board or BBS or etc. But, that community is not stronger, no better, no weaker, or no more real than any "meat space" community. And it seems throughout this series of articles that is the one theme that Mr. Katz has failed to truly touch upon.
When talking about the Virtual Community © Jon has placed more promise, hope, and reality into the world "virtual" than into the word "community". Doesn't he understand that no matter how virtualized any place of meeting may be it is still just a community made up of real people (even the ones pretending to not be real people are still backed by real people. It isn't just a made up fantasy land). The problem is that in the early days of fantasizing about how great the virtual community could be, no one stopped to think that it is just as easy, maybe even easier, for the idiots, morons, mental midgits and freaks of the real world to interfere with the virtual world. Nobody stopped to think that through in the early days, because it wasn't so easy to jump online. But, now we are faced with the reality of that statement. People are coming online at an increasing rate, and acting as idiotic as any drunken brawler. And the virtualized community that was supposed to be this great utopia was not.
Simply looking at the development of real community through the ages will allow you to understand that there is a huge parallel between meat space and virtualized space. How many generations of "communities" were made up of ravaging, raping, pillaging barbarians? It took time to develop our communities into the realitively polite and modernized society we have today in meat space (where all of the rape, ravage, pillaging, stealing and other garbage happens behind closed doors where we aren't supposed to look). In time, the online communities that survive whatever shakeout will come will find a way to deal with the miscreants just as the real world has learned to deal with criminals. The idea of a virtual jail is appealing for the humor value alone, but not so unrealistic. Perhaps, if tracking is made more sophisticated (as it is bound to be), creating an area that miscreants and rebels are "locked" into is a very real possibility. A frightening one, as many people that are not really a threat to anyone but the powers-that-be would be thrown into these virtual jails, but a possibility none-the-less.
In time, we will see what really happens. But it isn't as bleak as some people seem to think, and it isn't as cheery as the original framers of the "virtual community" idea wanted to believe. Reality, as usual, lies somewhere in between.