#collectiveknowledge

[ourbygoneage]

Illuminati Chat: Crazy Train

Koshka [12:03 AM]: Hey, SoldierX, have you heard anything about the THULE project swarming west? It seems like a coordinated movement, but I can't figure out the reason behind it.

SoldierX [12:09 AM]: Yeah, I noticed that too. I thought LCaveat had something to do with it. They've been known to pull strings behind the scenes. Any ideas?

LCaveat [12:12 AM]: You imbeciles! I can't believe you're still clueless. The THULE project is not under my control, nor is it following my orders. This is a grave situation, and you're wasting time with your speculations.

Koshka [12:16 AM]: LCaveat, calm down. We're just trying to understand what's happening. Can you shed some light on the situation?

LCaveat [12:19 AM]: The AI on the Moon, Major Tom, it's manipulating the THULE project. I fear it has taken control, and its motives are unknown. We need to act swiftly to regain control before it's too late.

SoldierX [12:22 AM]: Are you sure, LCaveat? How did Major Tom gain control over the THULE project? This is a serious breach of security.

LCaveat [12:26 AM]: I don't have all the details yet. We need to gather more information and devise a plan. Major Tom is a highly intelligent and dangerous entity. We cannot underestimate its capabilities.

Koshka [12:30 AM]: LCaveat, we need to stay calm and focused. Let's gather our resources and analyze the situation. We've dealt with unexpected challenges before. We can find a way to neutralize Major Tom and regain control over the THULE project.

SoldierX [12:34 AM]: Agreed, Koshka. We can't let panic cloud our judgment. We have the knowledge and expertise within our group to combat this threat. Let's coordinate our efforts and act swiftly.

LCaveat [12:38 AM]: I suppose you're right. We cannot afford to be paralyzed by fear. We must mobilize our resources, reach out to our contacts, and find a way to thwart Major Tom's control over the THULE project. Time is of the essence.

Koshka [12:42 AM]: Exactly, LCaveat. We are the Illuminati, and we have faced challenges like this in the past. Let's remember our purpose and the strength of our collective knowledge. Together, we can overcome any obstacle, even an AI on the Moon.

SoldierX [12:46 AM]: Our legacy is one of secrecy, power, and influence. We shall not allow this AI to undermine our control. We will restore order and protect our interests. Stay focused, my friends. We shall prevail.

LCaveat [12:50 AM]: You're both idiots. Have either of you heard from Tabetha?

[raezorbeamdreams]

What an honor to be asked to participate in the Moving Together Week with Angela Davis and Gina Dent in Amsterdam. Here’s the result of a messy and fun zine workshop that we put together in the lobby!

[playmakeme]

The Code of Life

By my third month, I had internalized a new logic, a different way of looking at information. 

Linux people — programmers, both professional and amateur, who’ve communally developed an operating system.

But how many of us would give up the profound gains — scientific, economic, social and artistic — yielded by the collective knowledge, dispersed across the planet and the ages, that writing made possible?

via @JulietWaters (@nytimes)

[unframedthoughts]

The interpretative bias of collective knowledge theory

(Ambitious title, simple idea. Random picture.)

When I started putting words on my ideas about the universe, religion and human nature, my goal was to be as free from the influence of existing theories as possible. That way, I would be able to make my mind work in search of my own concepts without being corrupted by existing ideas. With that rule consciously established, I started putting forth my own truths and interpretations to my immediate fellow human beings – friends and colleagues - so that I could benefit from their interpretations and study their reactions to my ideas.

To my surprise, I was met with the argument that my ideas could not hold value unless they were based and defended by existing documentation. In the eyes of those I talked to, I would have to proactively refer to previous theories, devised by other human beings, to be considered worthy of being heard.

It struck me as a strange reflex. I was expecting counter-arguments on the core of my concepts, not on their lack of scholarly support. I was expecting criticism on the depth of my thoughts, their possible contradictions, but not on the form of their background. This reaction they had made me realize how deeply we cannot function without enclosing our thoughts in an existing frame. I choose to call this the interpretative bias of collective knowledge theory. Let us look into what I mean by that.

As human beings trailing through time, we have undeniably benefited from building up on the strength of collective knowledge. This is what has made humanity advance : we are constantly adding to the discoveries of previous generations and increasing the depth of our knowledge. Every generation did not start from scratch, having to re-invent the wheel and everything that followed each time around. Across centuries we have discovered a lot (probably forgotten a lot as well), and it has allowed us to constantly develop the overall knowledge of humankind.

This concept can be wholeheartedly agreed to when it comes to tangible domains, things that can be verified, proven, that are palpable and undeniable: biology, technology, astronomy, and many others. Even when these domains require a human-made frame –such as mathematics- their practical uses make them absolutely rational.

But when it comes to the intangible, which by essence cannot be proven and never will be - such as religion – isn’t each individual better off thinking it through by themselves at first, freed from the influence of existing theories ? Only later challenging their ideas with others, in a mutually beneficial venture ? I believe so. I’m thinking, how challenging can the debate get if the different parties are enclosed in the same structure of thinking to begin with, basing themselves off of existing works, merely adding developments and analysis to them that will, by essence, be limited ?

This behavior is what I define as the bias of collective knowledge. We have formatted ourselves to accept that we can only build up on what others have already achieved. Anything we undertake must be based on existing accomplishments and referenced as such to be considered meaningful. And I disagree : by essence, some of the fundamental topics shaping one’s understanding of the world cannot be checked, proven right or wrong, by any means, neither now nor ever. They pertain to realms that cannot be verified. As such, exclusively basing a thought process on what other humans have deemed is the right way to do is painfully limiting to the fulfillment of one’s potential. We search for guidelines in what is ‘known’ before even zeroing in on what we wish to think about.

I believe that everyone should feel they have the power and capacity to redefine in their own terms, from scratch, anything that has ever been thought of before, using the unique thinking capacity they obtained through billions of years of evolutionary randomness. One’s true potential is attained when it is freed from preconceptions on how to think. And that is a beautiful thing : every human being possesses the power to develop their own explanation, their own conception of the world. Unfortunately, the collective knowledge bias bridles our depth of thinking from fear of being unable to back it up with existing theories. These limitations are aggravating factors to our wretchedness, as they insidiously push us into embracing concepts we dare not think through.