on the surface, is a rebellion against the “terminally unimaginative” asystemity — cheap, cheating, “organic” (derisively), unworthy of a mind; systemitys quest for “honest intelligence” and complete top-down understanding (no heuristics, no emergence) may be a typical reaction (“always on the rise but never winning”) or “new conservatism” (curiously inverted: old conservatism idealized organismal complexity, scolded mechanistic civilization) but also a reminder of things itd be unwise to forget. ■    “World has betrayed what made it what it is”: were past being able to reproduce much of our ancestors' technology — a lot of the systemic tool stacks, neglected, have decayed beyond repair. Even the best systemic contraptions look amazingly crude and simplistic to us (ironically so, as systemity claims to be “synonymous to complexity on its meaningful side”); whatever unevolved ware remains in use is seen as more limited and unreliable than it is — or, worse, as a contagion to avoid (a single systemic tool you compile triggers others to service it).  ■    Systemity wants to anchor to a solid foundation with unbreakably inferable, verifiable, understandable chains — but foundations drift, and links that are strong today are doubted to dust tomorrow: rigidity spells doom. One answer to this is head-on eschatology: admittedly we cant connect all the systemic dots yet but thats because we still know too little, our understandings a mess of crude shortcuts; in some sudden future clarity, dots will connect themselves into a framework so transcendingly rigid as to reveal a true paradoxal freedom.

< superintelligence  |  teach >

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License