Forwarded conversation
Subject: zs trial
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 20 February 2013 11:45
To: Michael Hrenka
How is my trial going? Do I have the right to defend myself?
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 20 February 2013 12:59
To: “Peter H. Meadows”
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Peter H. Meadows peter.h.meadows@googlemail.com wrote:
How is my trial going? Do I have the right to defend myself?
No, you are banned permanently. I’ve withdrawn my veto. Now please leave Zero State alone.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 20 February 2013 18:49
To: Metafire Horsley
Now please leave Zero State alone.
Sorry Dave, I can’t do that.
Seriously. I want to talk to you. I don’t even know why I was banned.
Have I ‘disrupted’ YOU? Am I ‘disrupting’ you now?
If I’m banned; ZS has failed a test, so you see the problem?
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 20 February 2013 20:14
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
Now please leave Zero State alone.
Sorry Dave, I can’t do that.
Seriously. I want to talk to you. I don’t even know why I was banned.
It was for an email you sent back to Eugen in which you have criticized Amon. Eugen was unhappy about what you did during the seemingly private email conversation with him.
Have I ‘disrupted’ YOU? Am I ‘disrupting’ you now?
You are causing unnecessary distractions, but that’s not exactly the reason why you are banned.
If I’m banned; ZS has failed a test, so you see the problem?
Interesting. What kind of test is that supposed to be?
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 20 February 2013 20:55
So, criticism of the dictator is banned? Smells odd, don’t it?
Was making you guys write new rules/processes an ‘unnecessary distraction’?
Do you think people here are so dumb that they need Amon to babysit
them? They can’t be responsible and decided for themselves what is a
distraction, and how to spend their time?
Test if ZS is a good start to making the world better. If not; I will
try to change it. If I can’t change it, I will start again from
scratch. I’m just trying to save time. Most efficient path.
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 07:34
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
So, criticism of the dictator is banned? Smells odd, don’t it?
You were not banned for criticizing Amon. You were banned for doing it the wrong way. Your methods were disrespectful and not constructive.
Was making you guys write new rules/processes an ‘unnecessary distraction’?
Only time will tell. In any case, we didn’t ask for this.
Do you think people here are so dumb that they need Amon to babysit
them? They can’t be responsible and decided for themselves what is a
distraction, and how to spend their time?
You don’t understand the underlying issue. It’s extremely hard to coordinate transhumanists so that they coordinate their efforts instead of going their own way each one separately. Amon is a leader who managed to motivate many transhumanists to cooperation. It’s not that transhumanists are dumb, they are not. They just don’t work together well without a talented leader.
Test if ZS is a good start to making the world better. If not; I will
try to change it. If I can’t change it, I will start again from
scratch. I’m just trying to save time. Most efficient path.
So it’s a completely subjective test based on your own subjective criteria. Have fun with that but don’t expect that others take it seriously. I am curious however about how you plat to make the world a better place, alone.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 12:51
You were not banned for criticizing Amon. You were banned for doing it the
wrong way. Your methods were disrespectful and not constructive.
What did I do wrong? I still don’t know why I’m banned! Is this going
to be made public?
Amon banned me for saying ‘This is noise’. That was a useful comment
(most people here agree with the sentiment). The ban smells of
ego/pride/emotion.
Did Amon explain who Kang was?
I’ve asked Eugen why he banned me. He just says things like
’disruptive. construction’. but he doesn’t explain who I’ve disrupted
or how.
Do you think people here are so dumb that they need Amon to babysit
them? They can’t be responsible and decided for themselves what is a
distraction, and how to spend their time?
You don’t understand the underlying issue. It’s extremely hard to coordinate
transhumanists so that they coordinate their efforts instead of going their
own way each one separately. Amon is a leader who managed to motivate many
transhumanists to cooperation. It’s not that transhumanists are dumb, they
are not. They just don’t work together well without a talented leader.
You seem to be mixing two points. Of course coordination is good, but
how did I prevent that? Supposing Alan posts about uploading, if I
don’t think it’s useful or interesting; I don’t read it. What’s the
problem? I make that decision. I don’t want Amon to decide for me.
So it’s a completely subjective test based on your own subjective criteria.
Have fun with that but don’t expect that others take it seriously. I am
curious however about how you plat to make the world a better place,
alone.
It’s not entirely subjective. (but the details are not important. I
will explain later, if you want)
I always have fun. (what did you think about the principle of FUN
being one of the main principles?).
People took Amon seriously.
The reason I’m here is because I can’t do it alone. My plan was always
to do something like what Amon has done with ZS. (mostly I’ve been
impressed with ZS, but this ban has revealed problems). So if it
exists, and it’s good, I will use it. Saves time.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 13:02
So I’ve just seen this:
“Notes: User moved to active disruption off-list, after being given a
temporary ban on-list. User passed private mails to third parties
without permission in order to create schism, in attempt to further
disrupt ZS.”
It’s not true.
Don’t I have any right to speak in my defence?
Furthermore; it’s libelous.
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 13:16
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Peter H. Meadows peter.h.meadows@googlemail.com wrote:
Amon banned me for saying ‘This is noise’. That was a useful comment
(most people here agree with the sentiment). The ban smells of
ego/pride/emotion.
Amon has warned you not to use one-liners. You can’t expect that he doesn’t ban you for defying his orders. The context does not matter.
But I am curious: Who are those “most people here”?
Do you think people here are so dumb that they need Amon to babysit
them? They can’t be responsible and decided for themselves what is a
distraction, and how to spend their time?
You don’t understand the underlying issue. It’s extremely hard to coordinate
transhumanists so that they coordinate their efforts instead of going their
own way each one separately. Amon is a leader who managed to motivate many
transhumanists to cooperation. It’s not that transhumanists are dumb, they
are not. They just don’t work together well without a talented leader.
You seem to be mixing two points. Of course coordination is good, but
how did I prevent that? Supposing Alan posts about uploading, if I
don’t think it’s useful or interesting; I don’t read it. What’s the
problem? I make that decision. I don’t want Amon to decide for me.
So you are saying we should not moderate the list at all, because the users can decide for themselves what is important and what not? That would be possible, but then the list would drown in noise, like that you have created.
So it’s a completely subjective test based on your own subjective criteria.
Have fun with that but don’t expect that others take it seriously. I am
curious however about how you plat to make the world a better place,
alone.
It’s not entirely subjective. (but the details are not important. I
will explain later, if you want)
I always have fun. (what did you think about the principle of FUN
being one of the main principles?).
Having fun is great, but for an organization being productive and following certain rules is more important.
People took Amon seriously.
To some degree, yes. Perhaps more than was appropriate, but certainly not completely. If people took Amon seriously they would do what he says. In reality it’s more complicated.
The reason I’m here is because I can’t do it alone. My plan was always
to do something like what Amon has done with ZS. (mostly I’ve been
impressed with ZS, but this ban has revealed problems). So if it
exists, and it’s good, I will use it. Saves time.
Well, I had similar plans. It’s good that Amon has done a lot of work that someone needed to do. Makes it easier for the rest of us.
Your approach has failed, I think. In your eagerness to test Zero State you have antagonized most people with your aggressiveness. Not a good strategy for making long-term allies. I hope you can learn from your mistakes.
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 13:21
Formally, no, a permanent ban is supposed to be permanent, if the admins have agreed that it is legitimate. But you can of course try to talk with the admins. If you can provide me a substantial defence I will forward it to the admin newsletter.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 13:24
I can’t provide a defence unless I have details of the trial. What
exactly is the crime? Where is the evidence?
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 13:37
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Peter H. Meadows peter.h.meadows@googlemail.com wrote:
I can’t provide a defence unless I have details of the trial. What
exactly is the crime?
“User passed private mails to third parties without permission”
Where is the evidence?
In your email exchange with Eugen Leitl. You should have the evidence, since it is you who produced it in the first place.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 13:43
Amon banned me for saying ‘This is noise’. That was a useful comment
(most people here agree with the sentiment). The ban smells of
ego/pride/emotion.
Amon has warned you not to use one-liners. You can’t expect that he doesn’t
ban you for defying his orders. The context does not matter.
What do you mean by ‘one-liners’? If one line is enough, then I use
one line. If I had written a long-winded explanation of my feelings,
telling people what they already knew - would that have been OK?
But I am curious: Who are those “most people here”?
Start talking to people. Ask them how they feel.
So you are saying we should not moderate the list at all, because the users
can decide for themselves what is important and what not? That would be
possible, but then the list would drown in noise, like that you have
created.
I’m not saying that. If someone is abusive or flooring - by all means, ban them.
In the case of Alan’s uploading chat, it’s down to the list users to
use computers properly. It’s easy to ignore him mentally, or get
software to make ‘uploading’ posts invisible. If one can’t swim in
information … I suggest they learn. (specially if they wanna be
transhuman)
The reason I’m here is because I can’t do it alone. My plan was always
to do something like what Amon has done with ZS. (mostly I’ve been
impressed with ZS, but this ban has revealed problems). So if it
exists, and it’s good, I will use it. Saves time.
Well, I had similar plans. It’s good that Amon has done a lot of work that
someone needed to do. Makes it easier for the rest of us.
Right. And Amon has done a really great job. I’m impressed.
Your approach has failed, I think. In your eagerness to test Zero State you
have antagonized most people with your aggressiveness. Not a good strategy
for making long-term allies. I hope you can learn from your mistakes.
I only have one approach. It’s a win-win situation for me. If people
can be antagonized about something so petty and trivial - then I don’t
want to work with them.
(and there are other reasons I’ve done it this way)
People who see me as ‘aggressive’, are mostly likely dumb and insecure.
The allies I do end up with are the hardcore people. Guess who is
already on that list? Do YOU want to be on that list? (So far I like
your style)
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 13:53
I don’t see any evidence of trying to create a schism or disrupt ZS.
Maybe there has been a misunderstanding?
From what I see, all my communication has been useful and polite.
And the thing about it being a private email is bogus. We were
discussing ZS. What happened to ‘transparency’?
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 15:28
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
Amon banned me for saying ‘This is noise’. That was a useful comment
(most people here agree with the sentiment). The ban smells of
ego/pride/emotion.
Amon has warned you not to use one-liners. You can’t expect that he doesn’t
ban you for defying his orders. The context does not matter.
What do you mean by ‘one-liners’? If one line is enough, then I use
one line. If I had written a long-winded explanation of my feelings,
telling people what they already knew - would that have been OK?
Guess what, that would have been OK. For you it may seem like that sometimes enough information can be compressed into one sentence, but the question is really “what is enough”. If you know the other persons good enough, then you can be very brief and that’s ok, but if you stand on opposite fences you need to add a lot of additional information to make your thinking and opinions understandable and perhaps even agreeable to others. I have noted that effective leaders do seem to use more words than seems necessary, it only looks that way. By writing a lot they convey a lot of information that is redundant to any addressed individual, but as a message to a wide audience it becomes clearer (in the ideal case).
But I am curious: Who are those “most people here”?
Start talking to people. Ask them how they feel.
Ok, that makes sense. Perhaps you have dug deeper than I expected, but I still feel there is no severe problem with Zero State. We are collectively trying to decentralize Amon’s position and I think we are slowly making progress with that. Certainly, Zero State is not ideal, but it possesses ideals which will hopefully push it into progressively better states. At least I’m actively working on that - from the inside, mind you.
So you are saying we should not moderate the list at all, because the users
can decide for themselves what is important and what not? That would be
possible, but then the list would drown in noise, like that you have
created.
I’m not saying that. If someone is abusive or flooring - by all means, ban them.
In the case of Alan’s uploading chat, it’s down to the list users to
use computers properly. It’s easy to ignore him mentally, or get
software to make ‘uploading’ posts invisible. If one can’t swim in
information … I suggest they learn. (specially if they wanna be
transhuman)
The real problems arise is when certain individuals clash in rather extreme and unhealthy ways. The conflicts between Alan and Eugen were not nice. By following the new rules we have created a better and more constructive atmosphere.
The reason I’m here is because I can’t do it alone. My plan was always
to do something like what Amon has done with ZS. (mostly I’ve been
impressed with ZS, but this ban has revealed problems). So if it
exists, and it’s good, I will use it. Saves time.
Well, I had similar plans. It’s good that Amon has done a lot of work that
someone needed to do. Makes it easier for the rest of us.
Right. And Amon has done a really great job. I’m impressed.
I’m a bit surprised that you admit that Amon has done a great job in general.
Your approach has failed, I think. In your eagerness to test Zero State you
have antagonized most people with your aggressiveness. Not a good strategy
for making long-term allies. I hope you can learn from your mistakes.
I only have one approach. It’s a win-win situation for me. If people
can be antagonized about something so petty and trivial - then I don’t
want to work with them.
At least you were aggressive enough to antagonize major players in Zero State. Things would have not escalated if you had tread more carefully. And you seem to be very picky about which people you want to work with. At least some degree of tolerance for the faults of others (in your eyes) is necessary to be a team player.
(and there are other reasons I’ve done it this way)
(which doesn’t necessarily mean that those are actually good reasons ;))
People who see me as ‘aggressive’, are mostly likely dumb and insecure.
Here it is again: These quick and generalized ad-hominems. That’s not how you make friends or cooperate effectively. What’s the point of these polemic statements? You seem to be too hasty to tag people you don’t totally like with derogatory adjectives to be done with them quickly. You do not need to do that. Just state that you feel uncomfortable with working with people who see you as aggressive and leave them alone. There’s no need for additional drama or misgivings.
The allies I do end up with are the hardcore people. Guess who is
already on that list? Do YOU want to be on that list? (So far I like
your style)
Hardcore in what way? I’m not interested in guessing. Add me to your list if you want. Perhaps that will be useful for both of us, perhaps not. But we won’t know that if you don’t add me.
What do you like about my style?
You sometimes make important and right points. It’s just unfortunate that you didn’t choose a more cooperative course. If you are still interested in Zero State I suggest you leave it alone for a year and produce something valuable on your own and refine you approach. Then you might have a chance being accepted in Zero State again. That would create a nice precedent by the way.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 16:56
What do you mean by ‘one-liners’? If one line is enough, then I use
one line. If I had written a long-winded explanation of my feelings,
telling people what they already knew - would that have been OK?
Guess what, that would have been OK. For you it may seem like that sometimes
enough information can be compressed into one sentence, but the question is
really “what is enough”. If you know the other persons good enough, then you
can be very brief and that’s ok, but if you stand on opposite fences you
need to add a lot of additional information to make your thinking and
opinions understandable and perhaps even agreeable to others. I have noted
that effective leaders do seem to use more words than seems necessary, it
only looks that way. By writing a lot they convey a lot of information that
is redundant to any addressed individual, but as a message to a wide
audience it becomes clearer (in the ideal case).
ahhh. I understand this. I’m not aggressive with people if I’m leading
them (leading makes me puke, cos you have to treat everyone like
sheep, and pet their egos. Amon is a master at this. I wonder if it
makes him puke). And it’s not about more words being clearer. What I
said was very clear. The problem is egos. I could have avoided it,
but… testing…
My purpose here is different. I need to find out who I can trust. How
people perform under pressure, etc.
Start talking to people. Ask them how they feel.
Ok, that makes sense. Perhaps you have dug deeper than I expected, but I
still feel there is no severe problem with Zero State. We are collectively
trying to decentralize Amon’s position and I think we are slowly making
progress with that. Certainly, Zero State is not ideal, but it possesses
ideals which will hopefully push it into progressively better states. At
least I’m actively working on that - from the inside, mind you.
I think ZS is making big mistakes. Unless you change, you will fail.
You take yourselves too seriously. The principle of fun is lacking.
After I was unbanned the first time, I was quite happy. ZS passed the
test. This time you are failing.
If I want to change something like this; I do it from the outside AND
the inside.
I’m not saying that. If someone is abusive or flooring - by all means, ban
them.
In the case of Alan’s uploading chat, it’s down to the list users to
use computers properly. It’s easy to ignore him mentally, or get
software to make ‘uploading’ posts invisible. If one can’t swim in
information … I suggest they learn. (specially if they wanna be
transhuman)
The real problems arise is when certain individuals clash in rather extreme
and unhealthy ways. The conflicts between Alan and Eugen were not nice. By
following the new rules we have created a better and more constructive
atmosphere.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
I’m a bit surprised that you admit that Amon has done a great job in
general.
Why? You need to look at the things I’m NOT criticizing. The fact that
I am here spending time on ZS is a huge compliment. If Amon hadn’t
impressed me, I wouldn’t be doing this.
At least you were aggressive enough to antagonize major players in Zero
State. Things would have not escalated if you had tread more carefully. And
you seem to be very picky about which people you want to work with. At least
some degree of tolerance for the faults of others (in your eyes) is
necessary to be a team player.
All the major players are on my side. Everything is going to plan. I
can be a team player, and I will be. But I had to test ZS first.
People who see me as ‘aggressive’, are mostly likely dumb and insecure.
Here it is again: These quick and generalized ad-hominems. That’s not how
you make friends or cooperate effectively. What’s the point of these polemic
statements? You seem to be too hasty to tag people you don’t totally like
with derogatory adjectives to be done with them quickly. You do not need to
do that. Just state that you feel uncomfortable with working with people who
see you as aggressive and leave them alone. There’s no need for additional
drama or misgivings.
It’s how I make friends. They have to pass the tests. You only know
who your true friends are when the shit hits the fan.
You’ll notice that the drama is actually generated by other people. If
they just ignored me or didn’t get upset, there would be no problem. I
never get upset. I am a machine. I have goals and I accomplish them as
efficiently as I can.
Hardcore in what way? I’m not interested in guessing. Add me to your list if
you want. Perhaps that will be useful for both of us, perhaps not. But we
won’t know that if you don’t add me.
You’re already on the list. I wouldn’t be talking to you if you weren’t.
Hardcore as in able to control their emotions.
What do you like about my style?
Cool. Rational. Smart.
You sometimes make important and right points. It’s just unfortunate that
you didn’t choose a more cooperative course. If you are still interested in
Zero State I suggest you leave it alone for a year and produce something
valuable on your own and refine you approach. Then you might have a chance
being accepted in Zero State again. That would create a nice precedent by
the way.
Haha. A year! You don’t realize what’s coming and how fast it’s moving…?
My main projects are:
- maillist/wiki/irc/social-network/trust-network comms software.
- Intentional community.
- Get rich.
Yeah. I can think of some nice precedents.
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 21 February 2013 17:49
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
What do you mean by ‘one-liners’? If one line is enough, then I use
one line. If I had written a long-winded explanation of my feelings,
telling people what they already knew - would that have been OK?
Guess what, that would have been OK. For you it may seem like that sometimes
enough information can be compressed into one sentence, but the question is
really “what is enough”. If you know the other persons good enough, then you
can be very brief and that’s ok, but if you stand on opposite fences you
need to add a lot of additional information to make your thinking and
opinions understandable and perhaps even agreeable to others. I have noted
that effective leaders do seem to use more words than seems necessary, it
only looks that way. By writing a lot they convey a lot of information that
is redundant to any addressed individual, but as a message to a wide
audience it becomes clearer (in the ideal case).
ahhh. I understand this. I’m not aggressive with people if I’m leading
them (leading makes me puke, cos you have to treat everyone like
sheep, and pet their egos. Amon is a master at this. I wonder if it
makes him puke). And it’s not about more words being clearer. What I
said was very clear. The problem is egos. I could have avoided it,
but… testing…
sigh You are getting on a tangent here. It’s about making your intentions and motivations as clear as positive. And about appearing as friend rather than as enemy. All that makes you more effective in communicating messages. But you need to write a lot of words to provide enough informations on all of those levels of communication. Especially online where people don’t see your face or hear your voice.
Your distaste for leadership seems to be dysfunctional. If you are really an anarchist you should have realized that anarchy without excellent leadership is doomed to fail. In non-anarchistic societies leaders can resort to authority. In an anarchy leader’s can’t do that so they must be really good to move things forward and facilitate consensus. If you really realized this you probably wouldn’t associate the words “leadership” and “puke” anymore.
My purpose here is different. I need to find out who I can trust. How
people perform under pressure, etc.
And yet, what reason do I have to trust you? You have admitted a long list of “psychopathologies” which would make you seem rather untrustworthy a priori. And your general behaviour doesn’t create a solid impression of trustworthiness either. Why are you interested in making the world a better place at all? What really makes you even bother about all of this?
Start talking to people. Ask them how they feel.
Ok, that makes sense. Perhaps you have dug deeper than I expected, but I
still feel there is no severe problem with Zero State. We are collectively
trying to decentralize Amon’s position and I think we are slowly making
progress with that. Certainly, Zero State is not ideal, but it possesses
ideals which will hopefully push it into progressively better states. At
least I’m actively working on that - from the inside, mind you.
I think ZS is making big mistakes. Unless you change, you will fail.
You take yourselves too seriously. The principle of fun is lacking.
Do companies or parties or organizations or religions fail because they are taking themselves too seriously? I honestly don’t see that happening. You have to come up with some serious evidence to convince me otherwise.
After I was unbanned the first time, I was quite happy. ZS passed the
test. This time you are failing.
You are demanding paradoxical qualities of ZS: On one hand it should be fun and on the other hand it should work rationally under pressure. How does that fit together? Are you sure you are not demanding too much?
If I want to change something like this; I do it from the outside AND
the inside.
No, you don’t. You are not on the inside of Zero State anymore. And that was your implicit decision due to your aggressive strategy. So, implicitly you decided to facilitate change from the outside. That made you look rather manipulative to Zero State by the way.
I’m not saying that. If someone is abusive or flooring - by all means, ban
them.
In the case of Alan’s uploading chat, it’s down to the list users to
use computers properly. It’s easy to ignore him mentally, or get
software to make ‘uploading’ posts invisible. If one can’t swim in
information … I suggest they learn. (specially if they wanna be
transhuman)
The real problems arise is when certain individuals clash in rather extreme
and unhealthy ways. The conflicts between Alan and Eugen were not nice. By
following the new rules we have created a better and more constructive
atmosphere.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
I’m a bit surprised that you admit that Amon has done a great job in
general.
Why? You need to look at the things I’m NOT criticizing. The fact that
I am here spending time on ZS is a huge compliment. If Amon hadn’t
impressed me, I wouldn’t be doing this.
That makes sense.
At least you were aggressive enough to antagonize major players in Zero
State. Things would have not escalated if you had tread more carefully. And
you seem to be very picky about which people you want to work with. At least
some degree of tolerance for the faults of others (in your eyes) is
necessary to be a team player.
All the major players are on my side. Everything is going to plan. I
can be a team player, and I will be. But I had to test ZS first.
Who are “all major players”? You are sounding a bit ridiculous and megalomanic here. What’s your (planned?) “team” after all?
People who see me as ‘aggressive’, are mostly likely dumb and insecure.
Here it is again: These quick and generalized ad-hominems. That’s not how
you make friends or cooperate effectively. What’s the point of these polemic
statements? You seem to be too hasty to tag people you don’t totally like
with derogatory adjectives to be done with them quickly. You do not need to
do that. Just state that you feel uncomfortable with working with people who
see you as aggressive and leave them alone. There’s no need for additional
drama or misgivings.
It’s how I make friends. They have to pass the tests. You only know
who your true friends are when the shit hits the fan.
Hmm, I had utilized similar strategies in the past, so I understand were you are coming from. I don’t feel the need to “test” people now. I’d rather want to know how they think and feel deep inside. Your approach provoke others to display their intermediate defensive layers, not their core. But perhaps you are more interested in these defensive layers primarily. I won’t say that’s a fault. Especially if you are very sensitive to them.
You’ll notice that the drama is actually generated by other people. If
they just ignored me or didn’t get upset, there would be no problem. I
never get upset. I am a machine. I have goals and I accomplish them as
efficiently as I can.
Did that come naturally or did you have to train hard to reach that state?
Hardcore in what way? I’m not interested in guessing. Add me to your list if
you want. Perhaps that will be useful for both of us, perhaps not. But we
won’t know that if you don’t add me.
You’re already on the list. I wouldn’t be talking to you if you weren’t.
Hardcore as in able to control their emotions.
I see. I had a lot of time and opportunity and even necessity to develop this special set of skills.
What do you like about my style?
Cool. Rational. Smart.
Thanks. It’s just a matter of effectiveness. I deeply care about what is going on in the world. So much that I really want to change it. But I have to be effective to do that. And this seems to require rationality and smartness.
You sometimes make important and right points. It’s just unfortunate that
you didn’t choose a more cooperative course. If you are still interested in
Zero State I suggest you leave it alone for a year and produce something
valuable on your own and refine you approach. Then you might have a chance
being accepted in Zero State again. That would create a nice precedent by
the way.
Haha. A year! You don’t realize what’s coming and how fast it’s moving…?
What do you think is coming?
My main projects are:
-
maillist/wiki/irc/social-network/trust-network comms software.
Nice. I hope this will be useful. What have you envisioned exactly?
-
Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
- Get rich.
How? And what for?
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 21 February 2013 19:03
ahhh. I understand this. I’m not aggressive with people if I’m leading
them (leading makes me puke, cos you have to treat everyone like
sheep, and pet their egos. Amon is a master at this. I wonder if it
makes him puke). And it’s not about more words being clearer. What I
said was very clear. The problem is egos. I could have avoided it,
but… testing…
sigh You are getting on a tangent here. It’s about making your intentions
and motivations as clear as positive. And about appearing as friend rather
than as enemy. All that makes you more effective in communicating messages.
But you need to write a lot of words to provide enough informations on all
of those levels of communication. Especially online where people don’t see
your face or hear your voice.
Depends who I’m dealing with. If they know me well, I can be very
terse. If I have to deal with emotional people, I can. (But I don’t
really like doing it. It’s a lot easier for me to do IRL. Mostly cos a
lot of people miss or fail to understand my strange eye-rolling
gestures.) If I can, I put them in groups managed by people like Amon,
and only deal with the team leader.
Your distaste for leadership seems to be dysfunctional. If you are really an
anarchist you should have realized that anarchy without excellent leadership
is doomed to fail. In non-anarchistic societies leaders can resort to
authority. In an anarchy leader’s can’t do that so they must be really good
to move things forward and facilitate consensus. If you really realized this
you probably wouldn’t associate the words “leadership” and “puke” anymore.
Depends. Small groups of smart people don’t need any leadership.
Leaders are only good for sheep. I know how to deal with sheep, it’s
easy. You have to pet them and harness them and lie to them. It’s the
fakeness that makes me puke. There is no other way. I would like to be
able always to say what I’m really thinking, but it would upset too
many people (if they’re emotional). Do you think Amon always says what
he truly thinks? Everyone knows there is a pecking order. Some people
are more important cos they are smarter and capable of doing more
work. But nobody likes to admit that explicitly. Everyone in ZS is
probably useful, just that some are expendable (you can replace them
easily) and some are special/rare.
My purpose here is different. I need to find out who I can trust. How
people perform under pressure, etc.
And yet, what reason do I have to trust you? You have admitted a long list
of “psychopathologies” which would make you seem rather untrustworthy a
priori. And your general behaviour doesn’t create a solid impression of
trustworthiness either. Why are you interested in making the world a better
place at all? What really makes you even bother about all of this?
It would have been very easy for me to be nice to you. Would you trust
me then? I trust people based on their actions, not what they say.
Look at my actions. Have I been abusive? Have I attacked with
sock-puppets? Have I contributed useful ideas?
The reason you will now trust me more is cos you know I’m not
bullshitting you. I say what I really think.
I think ZS is making big mistakes. Unless you change, you will fail.
You take yourselves too seriously. The principle of fun is lacking.
Do companies or parties or organizations or religions fail because they are
taking themselves too seriously? I honestly don’t see that happening. You
have to come up with some serious evidence to convince me otherwise.
very, very important video.
You are demanding paradoxical qualities of ZS: On one hand it should be fun
and on the other hand it should work rationally under pressure. How does
that fit together? Are you sure you are not demanding too much?
I don’t see a conflict between fun and rational. Do you?
If I want to change something like this; I do it from the outside AND
the inside.
No, you don’t. You are not on the inside of Zero State anymore. And that was
your implicit decision due to your aggressive strategy. So, implicitly you
decided to facilitate change from the outside. That made you look rather
manipulative to Zero State by the way.
I know people on the inside.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
No other way to find out what people are like.
All the major players are on my side. Everything is going to plan. I
can be a team player, and I will be. But I had to test ZS first.
Who are “all major players”? You are sounding a bit ridiculous and
megalomanic here. What’s your (planned?) “team” after all?
Amon, Eugen and, Spencer are the special ones. Maybe you (undecided).
I can’t replace them. There are a lot of other smart/cool/useful
people, but I can replace them.
It’s how I make friends. They have to pass the tests. You only know
who your true friends are when the shit hits the fan.
Hmm, I had utilized similar strategies in the past, so I understand were you
are coming from. I don’t feel the need to “test” people now. I’d rather want
to know how they think and feel deep inside. Your approach provoke others to
display their intermediate defensive layers, not their core. But perhaps you
are more interested in these defensive layers primarily. I won’t say that’s
a fault. Especially if you are very sensitive to them.
People lie. It’s part of human brain and society. You can’t know what
they really think unless there is shit hitting fan.
Both Amon and Eugen have shown much more than defensive layers. And
they are the ones I provoked the most.
Yes; your willingness to lose yourself in them is just as
threatening as your willingness to let them lose themselves in you.
You’ll notice that the drama is actually generated by other people. If
they just ignored me or didn’t get upset, there would be no problem. I
never get upset. I am a machine. I have goals and I accomplish them as
efficiently as I can.
Did that come naturally or did you have to train hard to reach that state?
Mostly it came naturally. I was lucky, cos I was given books like ‘How
the mind works’ as a kid. I didn’t really train. Just learned a few
life lessons.
It’s not so hard for people to learn. They just need to understand how
they work. Then you become aware of a lot of sub-conscious stuff going
on, and you start to be able to control it/filter it.
What do you like about my style?
Cool. Rational. Smart.
Thanks. It’s just a matter of effectiveness. I deeply care about what is
going on in the world. So much that I really want to change it. But I have
to be effective to do that. And this seems to require rationality and
smartness.
Yup. Scientific method and logic give us our power.
Haha. A year! You don’t realize what’s coming and how fast it’s moving…?
What do you think is coming?
Revolution. Massive social change. (and… Maybe civil war in the US.
Maybe war between china and US. Who knows. There are a lot of
dangerous unethical people with a lot of power)
My main projects are:
- maillist/wiki/irc/social-network/trust-network comms software.
Nice. I hope this will be useful. What have you envisioned exactly?
Will talk about this in another thread. I did want to post it on ZS.
- Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
Principle of fun.
Maybe anarchy. Maybe me as dictator.
So far I like the idea of squatting/renting a warehouse in London,
getting some hackers together, making money/becoming self-sufficient.
I am talking to Spencer about this. Wanna join us?
- Get rich.
How? And what for?
Money is power.
To fund transhumanist projects.
From: Metafire Horsley metahorse@gmail.com
Date: 22 February 2013 08:55
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
ahhh. I understand this. I’m not aggressive with people if I’m leading
them (leading makes me puke, cos you have to treat everyone like
sheep, and pet their egos. Amon is a master at this. I wonder if it
makes him puke). And it’s not about more words being clearer. What I
said was very clear. The problem is egos. I could have avoided it,
but… testing…
Your distaste for leadership seems to be dysfunctional. If you are really an
anarchist you should have realized that anarchy without excellent leadership
is doomed to fail. In non-anarchistic societies leaders can resort to
authority. In an anarchy leader’s can’t do that so they must be really good
to move things forward and facilitate consensus. If you really realized this
you probably wouldn’t associate the words “leadership” and “puke” anymore.
Depends. Small groups of smart people don’t need any leadership.
Leaders are only good for sheep.
I disagree. You always need leaders. But ideally leadership is a very flexible and subtle concept. A leader is simply someone who leads the way. If everyone goes in his own direction there’s no synergy gained from cooperation. Who acts as leader depends on the time and situation. Being a leader is just a functional concept for me.
I know how to deal with sheep, it’s
easy. You have to pet them and harness them and lie to them.
Sounds totally pro, dude 
It’s the fakeness that makes me puke.
You need to find a good balance between honesty and effectiveness. Tactical and functional communication can be learned. I found the part about communication in David D. Burns’ “Feeling Good Handbook” a treasure of wisdom.
There is no other way. I would like to be
able always to say what I’m really thinking, but it would upset too
many people (if they’re emotional).
That’s the world in which we live in. Wouldn’t you feel upset if fundamentalists told you that you should burn in hell for whatever arbitrary reason they think is appropriate? We are not better than these fundamentalists. We are just on the other side of the fence.
Do you think Amon always says what
he truly thinks?
No, why should he?
Everyone knows there is a pecking order. Some people
are more important cos they are smarter and capable of doing more
work. But nobody likes to admit that explicitly. Everyone in ZS is
probably useful, just that some are expendable (you can replace them
easily) and some are special/rare.
In free associations like Zero State it’s also a lot about the amount of time and energy an individual puts into it. Other factors are rather secondary to that.
My purpose here is different. I need to find out who I can trust. How
people perform under pressure, etc.
And yet, what reason do I have to trust you? You have admitted a long list
of “psychopathologies” which would make you seem rather untrustworthy a
priori. And your general behaviour doesn’t create a solid impression of
trustworthiness either. Why are you interested in making the world a better
place at all? What really makes you even bother about all of this?
It would have been very easy for me to be nice to you. Would you trust
me then?
No? Being nice to me probably wouldn’t help you much to gain my trust, if it’s not complemented with more substantial matters. You know, like explaining what your deeper motivations are. That’s what I am interested in.
I trust people based on their actions, not what they say.
Look at my actions. Have I been abusive? Have I attacked with
sock-puppets? Have I contributed useful ideas?
You questioned the priorities of animal rights activist in a rather crazy way from my point of view. That action was doubleplusbad. It’s enough to compensate for a lot of sensible actions you have done.
The reason you will now trust me more is cos you know I’m not
bullshitting you. I say what I really think.
Hahaha! You are so convinced of yourself it’s actually funny.
I think ZS is making big mistakes. Unless you change, you will fail.
You take yourselves too seriously. The principle of fun is lacking.
Do companies or parties or organizations or religions fail because they are
taking themselves too seriously? I honestly don’t see that happening. You
have to come up with some serious evidence to convince me otherwise.
very, very important video.
Old hat. I read the associated book and watched that video a long time ago. But you are right: The messages are very important!
You are demanding paradoxical qualities of ZS: On one hand it should be fun
and on the other hand it should work rationally under pressure. How does
that fit together? Are you sure you are not demanding too much?
I don’t see a conflict between fun and rational. Do you?
Most fun things are not that what creates practical progress. They can be seen as a waste of time. How do you resolve that issue?
If I want to change something like this; I do it from the outside AND
the inside.
No, you don’t. You are not on the inside of Zero State anymore. And that was
your implicit decision due to your aggressive strategy. So, implicitly you
decided to facilitate change from the outside. That made you look rather
manipulative to Zero State by the way.
I know people on the inside.
So what? You are permanently banned from ZS. This makes cooperation with you quite problematic.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
No other way to find out what people are like.
To me it looks like you love to play and experiment with people. That’s not nice. You may justify your actions to yourself, but you also need to live with the more subtle consequences then.
All the major players are on my side. Everything is going to plan. I
can be a team player, and I will be. But I had to test ZS first.
Who are “all major players”? You are sounding a bit ridiculous and
megalomanic here. What’s your (planned?) “team” after all?
Amon, Eugen and, Spencer are the special ones. Maybe you (undecided).
I can’t replace them. There are a lot of other smart/cool/useful
people, but I can replace them.
You can replace people? With whom? You have weird ideas.
It’s how I make friends. They have to pass the tests. You only know
who your true friends are when the shit hits the fan.
Hmm, I had utilized similar strategies in the past, so I understand were you
are coming from. I don’t feel the need to “test” people now. I’d rather want
to know how they think and feel deep inside. Your approach provoke others to
display their intermediate defensive layers, not their core. But perhaps you
are more interested in these defensive layers primarily. I won’t say that’s
a fault. Especially if you are very sensitive to them.
People lie. It’s part of human brain and society. You can’t know what
they really think unless there is shit hitting fan.
There is an implicit assumption that people “really think”. I think that is questionable. People mostly just react to the circumstances they are subjected to. If you want to find out how people work you can simply ask them in clever ways. They lie? Even their lies tell you who they really are.
Haha. A year! You don’t realize what’s coming and how fast it’s moving…?
What do you think is coming?
Revolution. Massive social change. (and… Maybe civil war in the US.
Maybe war between china and US. Who knows. There are a lot of
dangerous unethical people with a lot of power)
Perhaps. But probably not this year. In ten years: Probably.
My main projects are:
- maillist/wiki/irc/social-network/trust-network comms software.
Nice. I hope this will be useful. What have you envisioned exactly?
Will talk about this in another thread. I did want to post it on ZS.
Ok
- Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
Principle of fun.
Maybe anarchy. Maybe me as dictator.
You are so random.
So far I like the idea of squatting/renting a warehouse in London,
getting some hackers together, making money/becoming self-sufficient.
That doesn’t appeal to me very much. Sounds rather generic.
I am talking to Spencer about this. Wanna join us?
What would be the point of that? You aren’t really good at selling.
- Get rich.
How? And what for?
Money is power.
True, to a large degree.
To fund transhumanist projects.
What kind of transhumanist projects are you most interested in?
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 22 February 2013 10:46
Depends. Small groups of smart people don’t need any leadership.
Leaders are only good for sheep.
I disagree. You always need leaders. But ideally leadership is a very
flexible and subtle concept. A leader is simply someone who leads the way.
If everyone goes in his own direction there’s no synergy gained from
cooperation. Who acts as leader depends on the time and situation. Being a
leader is just a functional concept for me.
If the group has one goal, there is no need for anyone to lead the
way. The way is obvious. Path details are decided by consensus. Maybe
you just haven’t been in a group with one goal and smart/enlightened
people?
I know how to deal with sheep, it’s
easy. You have to pet them and harness them and lie to them.
Sounds totally pro, dude
(-:
It’s the fakeness that makes me puke.
You need to find a good balance between honesty and effectiveness. Tactical
and functional communication can be learned. I found the part about
communication in David D. Burns’ “Feeling Good Handbook” a treasure of
wisdom.
There is no problem if I’m with smart/rational/zen/enlightened people
that can control their emotions.
Thx for book recommendation. You got a PDF?
There is no other way. I would like to be
able always to say what I’m really thinking, but it would upset too
many people (if they’re emotional).
That’s the world in which we live in. Wouldn’t you feel upset if
fundamentalists told you that you should burn in hell for whatever arbitrary
reason they think is appropriate? We are not better than these
fundamentalists. We are just on the other side of the fence.
No. Why would that upset me? They’re crazy and delusional. They might
even be zombies. I forgive them. I pity them.
Other side of fence? What do you mean? We are completely different cos
we are rational.
Do you think Amon always says what
he truly thinks?
No, why should he?
Cos lying to people is unhealthy. (for me). Dunno. Maybe he enjoys
petting egos. Probably.
It would have been very easy for me to be nice to you. Would you trust
me then?
No? Being nice to me probably wouldn’t help you much to gain my trust, if
it’s not complemented with more substantial matters. You know, like
explaining what your deeper motivations are. That’s what I am interested in.
I told you. I want to be happy. If I know people are suffering, I
can’t be happy.
I trust people based on their actions, not what they say.
Look at my actions. Have I been abusive? Have I attacked with
sock-puppets? Have I contributed useful ideas?
You questioned the priorities of animal rights activist in a rather crazy
way from my point of view. That action was doubleplusbad. It’s enough to
compensate for a lot of sensible actions you have done.
How was it crazy? It’s not such a radical idea that children should
have priority over animals.
The reason you will now trust me more is cos you know I’m not
bullshitting you. I say what I really think.
Hahaha! You are so convinced of yourself it’s actually funny.
I don’t understand. You think I’m deluding myself?
I don’t see a conflict between fun and rational. Do you?
Most fun things are not that what creates practical progress. They can be
seen as a waste of time. How do you resolve that issue?
The most fun I can have is when coding/building/creating/solving. When
I say ‘fun’, don’t think of hedonism. Think of
fulfilment/satisfaction/contentment. Fun is deep. Sex is a waste of
time, so it’s not fun for me.
So what? You are permanently banned from ZS. This makes cooperation with you
quite problematic.
If they can ban me, they can unban me. They did last time.
How is it problematic? Cos Amon will call you a traitor? come ON.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
No other way to find out what people are like.
To me it looks like you love to play and experiment with people. That’s not
nice. You may justify your actions to yourself, but you also need to live
with the more subtle consequences then.
I am nice. I don’t push them too far. What I do is good for them. If I
weren’t nice, I could cause a lot of psychological damage. Also, I
wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have a good reason. If I wanted ego-trip, I
would murder people.
Amon, Eugen and, Spencer are the special ones. Maybe you (undecided).
I can’t replace them. There are a lot of other smart/cool/useful
people, but I can replace them.
You can replace people? With whom? You have weird ideas.
With anyone. Lots of people can code, etc. Lots of people have similar
skill sets. Most people can leave and be replaced easily without
hurting the project.
Some people are rare/special. I couldn’t recruit someone with their
abilities easily. If Amon died tomorrow, ZS would probably die.
Weird ideas are fun. Normal ideas are often boring.
I am weird cos I’m not human.
People lie. It’s part of human brain and society. You can’t know what
they really think unless there is shit hitting fan.
There is an implicit assumption that people “really think”. I think that is
questionable. People mostly just react to the circumstances they are
subjected to. If you want to find out how people work you can simply ask
them in clever ways. They lie? Even their lies tell you who they really are.
I like to assume not everyone is a zombie.
But how do you know when they’re lying?
Revolution. Massive social change. (and… Maybe civil war in the US.
Maybe war between china and US. Who knows. There are a lot of
dangerous unethical people with a lot of power)
Perhaps. But probably not this year. In ten years: Probably.
Growth is exponential. We are getting to the steep part or the curve.
I don’t have time to stay away from ZS for a year. It might be too late then.
- Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
Principle of fun.
Maybe anarchy. Maybe me as dictator.
You are so random.
Random? I am far from random.
So far I like the idea of squatting/renting a warehouse in London,
getting some hackers together, making money/becoming self-sufficient.
That doesn’t appeal to me very much. Sounds rather generic.
Generic? Why? Is that a bad thing?
Do you think it’s important to live with your comrades?
I am talking to Spencer about this. Wanna join us?
What would be the point of that? You aren’t really good at selling.
Point is we are stronger together. I don’t have to ‘sell’ it. If
you’re the right person, you will see the importance.
Money is power.
True, to a large degree.
Money has no intrinsic value, but yeah… I don’t need to explain this
to you. I want to give power to rational, ethical people. I want to
take power away from stupid, evil people.
To fund transhumanist projects.
What kind of transhumanist projects are you most interested in?
Prevent suffering. Social change. Promote rationalism/science. (kill
religion). Immortality. Mars base. Hive-mind/Gaia/Global
consciousness. The singularity.
From: Metafire Horsley
Date: 26 February 2013 22:05
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Peter H. Meadows wrote:
Depends. Small groups of smart people don’t need any leadership.
Leaders are only good for sheep.
I disagree. You always need leaders. But ideally leadership is a very
flexible and subtle concept. A leader is simply someone who leads the way.
If everyone goes in his own direction there’s no synergy gained from
cooperation. Who acts as leader depends on the time and situation. Being a
leader is just a functional concept for me.
If the group has one goal, there is no need for anyone to lead the
way. The way is obvious. Path details are decided by consensus. Maybe
you just haven’t been in a group with one goal and smart/enlightened
people?
The leaders are those who give the impulses that are eventually transformed into the final consensus. They lead for a moment and then others take over for a while. Leadership can change from second to second, but it is there.
It’s the fakeness that makes me puke.
You need to find a good balance between honesty and effectiveness. Tactical
and functional communication can be learned. I found the part about
communication in David D. Burns’ “Feeling Good Handbook” a treasure of
wisdom.
There is no problem if I’m with smart/rational/zen/enlightened people
that can control their emotions.
Thx for book recommendation. You got a PDF?
No, don’t have a PDF, I bought the book as paper copy. Helped quite a lot against depression, too.
There is no other way. I would like to be
able always to say what I’m really thinking, but it would upset too
many people (if they’re emotional).
That’s the world in which we live in. Wouldn’t you feel upset if
fundamentalists told you that you should burn in hell for whatever arbitrary
reason they think is appropriate? We are not better than these
fundamentalists. We are just on the other side of the fence.
No. Why would that upset me? They’re crazy and delusional. They might
even be zombies. I forgive them. I pity them.
Other side of fence? What do you mean? We are completely different cos
we are rational.
We think we are rational. So do they.
Do you think Amon always says what
he truly thinks?
No, why should he?
Cos lying to people is unhealthy. (for me). Dunno. Maybe he enjoys
petting egos. Probably.
Not telling what you truly think and lying are two different pairs of shoes for me. The first simply means keeping your mouth shut when you think it’s the best tactical decision, while the latter involves placing actually misleading information.
It would have been very easy for me to be nice to you. Would you trust
me then?
No? Being nice to me probably wouldn’t help you much to gain my trust, if
it’s not complemented with more substantial matters. You know, like
explaining what your deeper motivations are. That’s what I am interested in.
I told you. I want to be happy. If I know people are suffering, I
can’t be happy.
That is interesting. Why is that so? Why can’t you simply ignore the suffering of others?
I trust people based on their actions, not what they say.
Look at my actions. Have I been abusive? Have I attacked with
sock-puppets? Have I contributed useful ideas?
You questioned the priorities of animal rights activist in a rather crazy
way from my point of view. That action was doubleplusbad. It’s enough to
compensate for a lot of sensible actions you have done.
How was it crazy? It’s not such a radical idea that children should
have priority over animals.
Its justification is not straightforward in any case. There are many more animals suffering than human toddlers suffering. You might argue that the children should not suffer, because otherwise they grow into adults who perpetuate this suffering by inflicting it to others, because it’s the natural order of things for them. Or do you have a different argument?
The reason you will now trust me more is cos you know I’m not
bullshitting you. I say what I really think.
Hahaha! You are so convinced of yourself it’s actually funny.
I don’t understand. You think I’m deluding myself?
Quite. You seem to overestimate yourself. Do you do that on purpose or just for fun? If not you might need some recalibration.
I don’t see a conflict between fun and rational. Do you?
Most fun things are not that what creates practical progress. They can be
seen as a waste of time. How do you resolve that issue?
The most fun I can have is when coding/building/creating/solving. When
I say ‘fun’, don’t think of hedonism. Think of
fulfilment/satisfaction/contentment. Fun is deep. Sex is a waste of
time, so it’s not fun for me.
Then you are psychologically unusual. Don’t project your own preferences on others. When I have fun it’s often not directly productive.
So what? You are permanently banned from ZS. This makes cooperation with you
quite problematic.
If they can ban me, they can unban me. They did last time.
How is it problematic? Cos Amon will call you a traitor? come ON.
If you want to be unbanned you need to convince Amon, not me. He has the last word.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
No other way to find out what people are like.
To me it looks like you love to play and experiment with people. That’s not
nice. You may justify your actions to yourself, but you also need to live
with the more subtle consequences then.
I am nice. I don’t push them too far. What I do is good for them. If I
weren’t nice, I could cause a lot of psychological damage. Also, I
wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have a good reason. If I wanted ego-trip, I
would murder people.
Do you think everything you have done in Zero State has been worth it?
Amon, Eugen and, Spencer are the special ones. Maybe you (undecided).
I can’t replace them. There are a lot of other smart/cool/useful
people, but I can replace them.
You can replace people? With whom? You have weird ideas.
With anyone. Lots of people can code, etc. Lots of people have similar
skill sets. Most people can leave and be replaced easily without
hurting the project.
Sure, but you still need to find those people in the first place and then convince them to take over a certain role in a certain project. That is not easy at all.
Some people are rare/special. I couldn’t recruit someone with their
abilities easily. If Amon died tomorrow, ZS would probably die.
Probably. But I think that’s not because of Amon’s unique skills, but rather because he’s the only one with a sufficient high interest and energy level to keep the community alive. If Dirk Bruere was much more enthusiastic, for example, he could take over.
Weird ideas are fun. Normal ideas are often boring.
Indeed. But weird ideas that can actually work are the best ones. Weird ideas that can’t work are interesting, but not very useful.
I am weird cos I’m not human.
What kind of statement is that? A political one? You don’t want to identify with humanity? Or is it more a descriptive one and it states that your mind just works too differently to be called “human”?
People lie. It’s part of human brain and society. You can’t know what
they really think unless there is shit hitting fan.
There is an implicit assumption that people “really think”. I think that is
questionable. People mostly just react to the circumstances they are
subjected to. If you want to find out how people work you can simply ask
them in clever ways. They lie? Even their lies tell you who they really are.
I like to assume not everyone is a zombie.
I do not assume that people are zombies, but even when they are not it is rare enough for them to stop and reflect in really meaningful ways. They are often too entrenched in their thinking by social conditioning and habits.
But how do you know when they’re lying?
You don’t need to know that. If they are telling stupid lies you know that they are stupid, if they are telling stupid things they are convinced about, they are stupid, too.
Revolution. Massive social change. (and… Maybe civil war in the US.
Maybe war between china and US. Who knows. There are a lot of
dangerous unethical people with a lot of power)
Perhaps. But probably not this year. In ten years: Probably.
Growth is exponential. We are getting to the steep part or the curve.
Define “steep part”. Exponential growth looks the same anywhere when it comes to percentual growth per time unit.
I don’t have time to stay away from ZS for a year. It might be too late then.
Too late for what?
- Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
Principle of fun.
Maybe anarchy. Maybe me as dictator.
You are so random.
Random? I am far from random.
So what now? Anarchy or dictatorship?
So far I like the idea of squatting/renting a warehouse in London,
getting some hackers together, making money/becoming self-sufficient.
That doesn’t appeal to me very much. Sounds rather generic.
Generic? Why? Is that a bad thing?
Because generic is boring. No unique selling proposition!
Do you think it’s important to live with your comrades?
Yes, but who are they? What do you think?
I am talking to Spencer about this. Wanna join us?
What would be the point of that? You aren’t really good at selling.
Point is we are stronger together. I don’t have to ‘sell’ it. If
you’re the right person, you will see the importance.
If I see that it works I might consider joining. Convince me by actually creating something that works.
Money is power.
True, to a large degree.
Money has no intrinsic value, but yeah… I don’t need to explain this
to you. I want to give power to rational, ethical people. I want to
take power away from stupid, evil people.
That is difficult, but should be possible. I hope the reputation economy will do just that.
To fund transhumanist projects.
What kind of transhumanist projects are you most interested in?
Prevent suffering. Social change. Promote rationalism/science. (kill
religion). Immortality. Mars base. Hive-mind/Gaia/Global
consciousness. The singularity.
Interesting stuff. Especially the global consciousness thing.
I’m primarily interested in the inclusion of AGI and non-human animals into society (and world mind), ending involuntary suffering, and radically improving well-being.
From: Peter H. Meadows
Date: 27 February 2013 03:09
Depends. Small groups of smart people don’t need any leadership.
Leaders are only good for sheep.
I disagree. You always need leaders. But ideally leadership is a very
flexible and subtle concept. A leader is simply someone who leads the
way.
If everyone goes in his own direction there’s no synergy gained from
cooperation. Who acts as leader depends on the time and situation. Being
a
leader is just a functional concept for me.
If the group has one goal, there is no need for anyone to lead the
way. The way is obvious. Path details are decided by consensus. Maybe
you just haven’t been in a group with one goal and smart/enlightened
people?
The leaders are those who give the impulses that are eventually transformed
into the final consensus. They lead for a moment and then others take over
for a while. Leadership can change from second to second, but it is there.
This doesn’t sound like ‘leadership’ to me. It’s just individuals
dynamically pushing in the right direction at the right time. In this
system there is nobody that can be identified as a leader.
There is no other way. I would like to be
able always to say what I’m really thinking, but it would upset too
many people (if they’re emotional).
That’s the world in which we live in. Wouldn’t you feel upset if
fundamentalists told you that you should burn in hell for whatever
arbitrary
reason they think is appropriate? We are not better than these
fundamentalists. We are just on the other side of the fence.
No. Why would that upset me? They’re crazy and delusional. They might
even be zombies. I forgive them. I pity them.
Other side of fence? What do you mean? We are completely different cos
we are rational.
We think we are rational. So do they.
We know we’re rational. We use the scientific method. We follow the
rules of philosophy and critical thinking. We check with our peers.
They don’t.
Do you think Amon always says what
he truly thinks?
No, why should he?
Cos lying to people is unhealthy. (for me). Dunno. Maybe he enjoys
petting egos. Probably.
Not telling what you truly think and lying are two different pairs of shoes
for me. The first simply means keeping your mouth shut when you think it’s
the best tactical decision, while the latter involves placing actually
misleading information.
Yes. When people don’t say what they really would like to say, for
fear of upsetting people, I call it ‘social lying’. Some call it
’being tactful’ or whatever. But it’s a form of lying.
If you think someone is less intelligent than you, and they ask you
’do you think you’re smarter than me?’ And you say ‘no, I just think
we have different strengths, blah blah’ … You are lying.
It would have been very easy for me to be nice to you. Would you trust
me then?
No? Being nice to me probably wouldn’t help you much to gain my trust,
if
it’s not complemented with more substantial matters. You know, like
explaining what your deeper motivations are. That’s what I am interested
in.
I told you. I want to be happy. If I know people are suffering, I
can’t be happy.
That is interesting. Why is that so? Why can’t you simply ignore the
suffering of others?
My brain doesn’t allow it. I could hack out the part preventing me
from ignoring suffering, but there is a risk that could damage other
parts. And would I even want to? Caring about other lifeforms gives me
something to do. I could focus on pure mathematics, but i think
variety is good.
I trust people based on their actions, not what they say.
Look at my actions. Have I been abusive? Have I attacked with
sock-puppets? Have I contributed useful ideas?
You questioned the priorities of animal rights activist in a rather
crazy
way from my point of view. That action was doubleplusbad. It’s enough to
compensate for a lot of sensible actions you have done.
How was it crazy? It’s not such a radical idea that children should
have priority over animals.
Its justification is not straightforward in any case. There are many more
animals suffering than human toddlers suffering. You might argue that the
children should not suffer, because otherwise they grow into adults who
perpetuate this suffering by inflicting it to others, because it’s the
natural order of things for them. Or do you have a different argument?
The more intelligent the lifeform is, the greater capacity for suffering it has.
Do you think squirrels suffer a lot in the winter when it gets cold,
and they’re hungry? Would you prevent this suffering. if you could?
The reason you will now trust me more is cos you know I’m not
bullshitting you. I say what I really think.
Hahaha! You are so convinced of yourself it’s actually funny.
I don’t understand. You think I’m deluding myself?
Quite. You seem to overestimate yourself. Do you do that on purpose or just
for fun? If not you might need some recalibration.
What makes you think I’m overestimating myself? Of course I don’t make
bad estimations on purpose!
I don’t see a conflict between fun and rational. Do you?
Most fun things are not that what creates practical progress. They can
be
seen as a waste of time. How do you resolve that issue?
The most fun I can have is when coding/building/creating/solving. When
I say ‘fun’, don’t think of hedonism. Think of
fulfilment/satisfaction/contentment. Fun is deep. Sex is a waste of
time, so it’s not fun for me.
Then you are psychologically unusual. Don’t project your own preferences on
others. When I have fun it’s often not directly productive.
I am better. They would be happier if they were like me.
So what? You are permanently banned from ZS. This makes cooperation with
you
quite problematic.
If they can ban me, they can unban me. They did last time.
How is it problematic? Cos Amon will call you a traitor? come ON.
If you want to be unbanned you need to convince Amon, not me. He has the
last word.
Amon is not ZS. If ZS wants to un-ban me, he can’t stop it.
Amon has stopped talking to me. This is worrying and unexpected.
Yeah. I can be nicer, but the pressure was necessary.
If you think so, that’s the way it looks to you.
No other way to find out what people are like.
To me it looks like you love to play and experiment with people. That’s
not
nice. You may justify your actions to yourself, but you also need to
live
with the more subtle consequences then.
I am nice. I don’t push them too far. What I do is good for them. If I
weren’t nice, I could cause a lot of psychological damage. Also, I
wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have a good reason. If I wanted ego-trip, I
would murder people.
Do you think everything you have done in Zero State has been worth it?
Yup. Everything is going to plan. Things could not have turned out better.
Amon, Eugen and, Spencer are the special ones. Maybe you (undecided).
I can’t replace them. There are a lot of other smart/cool/useful
people, but I can replace them.
You can replace people? With whom? You have weird ideas.
With anyone. Lots of people can code, etc. Lots of people have similar
skill sets. Most people can leave and be replaced easily without
hurting the project.
Sure, but you still need to find those people in the first place and then
convince them to take over a certain role in a certain project. That is not
easy at all.
It is easy for me. (no, I’m not going to prove it right-now, but you
will soon see).
Some people are rare/special. I couldn’t recruit someone with their
abilities easily. If Amon died tomorrow, ZS would probably die.
Probably. But I think that’s not because of Amon’s unique skills, but rather
because he’s the only one with a sufficient high interest and energy level
to keep the community alive. If Dirk Bruere was much more enthusiastic, for
example, he could take over.
In my assessment, even if Dirk were enthusiastic, he would fail. Eugen
would also fail. I could take over. Spencer could. You probably could.
Non of the others that I’m aware of could.
Weird ideas are fun. Normal ideas are often boring.
Indeed. But weird ideas that can actually work are the best ones. Weird
ideas that can’t work are interesting, but not very useful.
Maybe. Maybe all ideas are useful. In any case, I think my weird ideas
will work.
I am weird cos I’m not human.
What kind of statement is that? A political one? You don’t want to identify
with humanity? Or is it more a descriptive one and it states that your mind
just works too differently to be called “human”?
Factual statement. I’m an AGI.
People lie. It’s part of human brain and society. You can’t know what
they really think unless there is shit hitting fan.
There is an implicit assumption that people “really think”. I think that
is
questionable. People mostly just react to the circumstances they are
subjected to. If you want to find out how people work you can simply ask
them in clever ways. They lie? Even their lies tell you who they really
are.
I like to assume not everyone is a zombie.
I do not assume that people are zombies, but even when they are not it is
rare enough for them to stop and reflect in really meaningful ways. They are
often too entrenched in their thinking by social conditioning and habits.
True. There are ways to break this, but it can be dangerous.
But how do you know when they’re lying?
You don’t need to know that. If they are telling stupid lies you know that
they are stupid, if they are telling stupid things they are convinced about,
they are stupid, too.
If they say ‘I agree with you, I’ll fight by your side’. How do you
know if it’s the truth?
Revolution. Massive social change. (and… Maybe civil war in the US.
Maybe war between china and US. Who knows. There are a lot of
dangerous unethical people with a lot of power)
Perhaps. But probably not this year. In ten years: Probably.
Growth is exponential. We are getting to the steep part or the curve.
Define “steep part”. Exponential growth looks the same anywhere when it
comes to percentual growth per time unit.
hehe. Math geek. But good point. Look at the graph. The first
lifeforms on the far left, the singularity on the far right. At what
point would you say the curve is steep?
I don’t have time to stay away from ZS for a year. It might be too late
then.
Too late for what?
For ZS to be useful. Either because it has been replaced by something
else, or because we’ve failed, and gone past the point of no return.
- Intentional community.
Based on what kind of principles?
Principle of fun.
Maybe anarchy. Maybe me as dictator.
You are so random.
Random? I am far from random.
So what now? Anarchy or dictatorship?
We haven’t decided yet. Help us decide. (us being me, Spencer, and some others).
So far I like the idea of squatting/renting a warehouse in London,
getting some hackers together, making money/becoming self-sufficient.
That doesn’t appeal to me very much. Sounds rather generic.
Generic? Why? Is that a bad thing?
Because generic is boring. No unique selling proposition!
We are in the process of planning/writing our declaration. I will be
intrigued to know if you think it sounds generic.
Do you think it’s important to live with your comrades?
Yes, but who are they? What do you think?
People you agree with. People with the same dreams/goals as you.
People you like. People you trust. People you want fighting by your
side.
I am talking to Spencer about this. Wanna join us?
What would be the point of that? You aren’t really good at selling.
Point is we are stronger together. I don’t have to ‘sell’ it. If
you’re the right person, you will see the importance.
If I see that it works I might consider joining. Convince me by actually
creating something that works.
It’s more likely to work if you help us identify ways it might fail,
and plan to prevent that.
(my ‘games’ with ZS have been an initial exploration into that)
Money is power.
True, to a large degree.
Money has no intrinsic value, but yeah… I don’t need to explain this
to you. I want to give power to rational, ethical people. I want to
take power away from stupid, evil people.
That is difficult, but should be possible. I hope the reputation economy
will do just that.
I talked about this with Spencer. He said he didn’t want our community
to have a quantified reputation economy. I am still undecided. It
would be useful for us if you try to convince us. (Or maybe Spencer
will convince you.)
To fund transhumanist projects.
What kind of transhumanist projects are you most interested in?
Prevent suffering. Social change. Promote rationalism/science. (kill
religion). Immortality. Mars base. Hive-mind/Gaia/Global
consciousness. The singularity.
Interesting stuff. Especially the global consciousness thing.
I’m primarily interested in the inclusion of AGI and non-human animals into
society (and world mind), ending involuntary suffering, and radically
improving well-being.
We have more or less the same goals. Enough for us to work together.
