Merge pull request #28 from simondlr/revision

revision

README.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
-# The Computing Commons:
-## Imagining the future of society empowered through blockchain technology.
+# The Computing Commons (tentative title)
+## Automation through blockchain technology.
 
-The blockchain: it is the smart, distributed ledger that allows any participant to come to consensus on the state of information without requiring an intermediary. It’s been called “consensus computers” & “trust machines”. They come in many forms (Bitcoin, Ethereum & private ones). Whatever platform succeeds (one or many) will leave society with a vast, distributed, public computer. It’s memory will be our shared, unchangeable historical record, and its power will allow us to forge new relationships with each other and with our technology. It is giving rise to the computing commons.
+The blockchain: it is the smart, distributed ledger that allows any participant to come to consensus on the state of information without requiring an intermediary. It’s been called “consensus computers” & “trust machines”. They come in many forms (Bitcoin, Ethereum & private ones). Whatever platform succeeds (one or many) will leave society with a vast, distributed, public computer. It’s memory will be our shared, unchangeable historical record, and its power will allow us to forge new relationships with each other and with our technology.
 
-This book extends onwards from the previous book I was writing about the blockchain (which can be found in the “old” folder, still available to read). The narrative has changed into a much grander vision. The blockchain is the tool. For each overarching theme, a long-form Medium post will be published. Each chapter will also be published as a $2 e-book. Once each theme is done, the whole book will be edited & revised into a full e-book.
+This book extends onwards from the previous book I was writing about the blockchain (which can be found in the “old” folder, still available to read). The narrative has changed into a much grander vision.
 
 ## Leanpub.
 
@@ -13,23 +13,19 @@ During the writing proces, [leanpub](https://leanpub.com/theblockchain) will be
 
 The themes are subject to change, but will currently cover the following:
 
-Blockchains & The Rise of a Computing Commons (intro & context)
+Blockchains & The Rise of The Automation of Truth (intro & context)
 
-Infinite Scarcity (assigning value to all networks & management of global capital)
+The Agents. Automating Programs & Empowering them.
 
-The Information Markets   
-(A chapter solely on prediction markets. What happens if we allow censorship-resistant betting on everything? Could we model externalities? Would we recreate a map of reality in the digital?)
+Automating Organisations: Infinite Scarcity
 
-Lex Cryptographia   
-(What happens if you have cryptography enforcing contracts? Smart property? Appeal to authority disappears only for very rare scenarios?)
+Automating Markets: Predictions, Graphs & Abundance
 
-The Agents: A Language For Programs
+Automating Law: Arbitration & Lex Cryptographia   
 
-Transcension   
-(Could we model state logic of an alternate reality on a blockchain? Will it provide cascading empathy if other realities are better than the current one? VR & Blockchains?)
+Automating Reality: Transcension at the edge of black holes.   
 
-The Empathy Machines  
-(Conclusion)
+Conclusion: The Empathy Machines  
 
 ## Contributions.
 

manuscript/Book.txt

@@ -1 +1 @@
-rise_of_the_commons.md
+intro.md

manuscript/agents.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+(to be absorbed/changed)  
+
 Here Come the Agents: An Economic Protocol Language for Programs (beyond humans)
 
 “The creation of language was the first singularity for humans. It changed everything. Life after language was unimaginable to those on the far side before it. - Kevin Kelly”

manuscript/intro.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+There’s value in being able to know what others know. It’s the reason why humans are the most advanced species on the planet. Our adept use of language resulted in our capability to relay information to others about the world around this: that which was closed off in our mind.
+
+Kevin Kelly famously said: “The creation of language was the first singularity for humans. It changed everything. Life after language was unimaginable to those on the far side before it”.
+
+Simultaneously echoed by Terence McKenna: “...from the moment human beings invented language, biological evolution essentially ceased, and evolution became a cultural epigenetic phenomenon”.
+
+For you see: “One of the intriguing abilities that language users have is that of high-level reference (or deixis), the ability to refer to things or states of being that are not in the immediate realm of the speaker. This ability is often related to theory of mind, or an awareness of the other as a being like the self with individual wants and intentions.” ((wikipedia source))
+
+Those early hominids who could more deftly relay information were the ones that survived.
+
+Not only was it possible to relay information about the state of the world: “There’s a lion over there, buddy.” but it simultaneously meant we could craft reality. We invented stories and memes about what reality is.
+
+Those memes that fostered harmony amongst the right group and allowed survival was carried across along with its symbiotic progeny. The group that could instill unity vs the “other” were the ones that survived. The stronger the meme, the more likelihood of success. A tribal leader uniting two tribes on one side of the valley against the “evil” tribe over the hill were the ones that survived. The stories of threat & fear and potential prosperity meant that one group survived. It’s a constant throng of memetic battles.
+
+Over time, not only was the strength of the meme important but also how easily it could be transferred. It doesn’t help that you can kill a mammoth, but not get the food to the tribe before it goes off. A simpler meme, propagating faster could overwhelm a group with a stronger, but slower meme.
+
+Transferring these memes only through speech could be slow, and had its own limitations. Robin Dunbar’s work studying sizes of primate groupings echoes this sentiment. Without anything else, the physical limitation, meant that some primates could collaborate in larger groups, ultimately engendering their own survival and growth. Dunbar dubbed this the “social brain hypothesis”. Humans’ larger pre-frontal cortex meant that we could maintain more strong relationships with our kin than other primates.
+
+Other animals do have rudimentary language. What arguable separates us from other animals, besides a more nuanced language toolset, is that we have the capability to codify meaning and understanding about the world, not just in our speech, but into writing & other objects. Its meaning can be carried across time and space. Much of our innate communication happens through a shared understanding of what certain things mean. Money, for example, is a piece of paper that represents your ability to exchange it for something else. The clothes that you wear tell a story to people. In more nuanced ways, even the music that we enjoy, can tell its own story. If I find someone that enjoys my penchant for instrumental progressive metal (a niche sub-genre), I am connected to them because they share a view of the world that allows them to come to that same conclusion. Cue, angsty, young Simon in high school, listening to Muse & Linkin Park (“they just get me”), making a mixtape for a girl, hoping she appreciate it as much as I do.
+
+Like an orbital dance, our memes are tightly interlocked with our own existence. Often times, they come to exist without us even understanding why it is there. It evolves like we do.
+
+A classic experiment is one that evolves a group of monkeys and a ladder. Five monkeys were put in a room with a ladder, on top of which was some juicy bananas. When a monkey went up, the researchers doused the rest of the monkeys in water. Realising this, with each attempted traversal, the monkeys would stop each other from doing so. After a certain point, a monkey was replaced. Without knowing the dealio, it traversed the ladder (“bro, bananas”), and then was subsequently attacked and pull down before the water would douse the others. Eventually, all monkeys were replaced with new monkeys, that never experienced the dousing, but all of whom would attack any monkey that would dare to traverse the ladder.
+
+Needless to say, a sign that could read: “Hey. Don’t climb the ladder even though there’s some dank bananas at the top. The skinless apes outside will douse you with water.” could’ve stopped the turmoil of having to attack each monkey who decided to traverse up the ladder.
+
+That’s what we are more adept at. Unintentionally, the ability to codify meaning manifests in unique ways. The origins of money is contentious ((is it really??)), but my favourite explanation rests on the ability of some artefacts to reflect contributions that a certain group finds valuable. Nick Szabo wrote an article about this ((linkify))
+
+If you want to be a part of a group that helps protect each other, you have to bring your side. If a group is small enough, enough strong relationships exist (ala Robin Dunbar), that each individual can maintain an internal ledger in their mind about who does what. Ostracizing a person is easy as an individual can appeal to the group to do so. Because each individual has a similar internal ledger in their head (due to our own nifty pre-frontal cortex capacity), all in the group would know and would be willing to ostracize an individual that is not bringing their side. However, if the group would grow larger, the physical limitation of our internal ledger starts to break. If an appeal is made, then one would not know whether to believe said person or whether the person whom the appeal is against is actually bringing their side or not.
+
+Those groups who could codify the trust between its participants were the ones who could grow larger. The internal accounting mechanism inside each mind, leapt out into objects, and became a proxy of an individuals contributions & value to the group. The best proxies were things that the whole group could agree resembled the quantification of this effort: and this manifested early as collectibles. Shells, being difficult to collect, often worn as decoration, were regarded as an example of this. The cowry shell was still used as a medium of exchange until the late 19th century.
+
+The object itself became a way to codify the trust ledger between humans. If you had 2x more shells than the next person, you could be regarded as being 2x more worth to the group, since the group accepts this object as a proxy for trust and contribution.
+
+Different open, trust ledgers existed in humanity’s past and in some scenarios led to some interesting cultural mismatches. The Spanish sent on conquests to steal gold from the Americas arrived at the doorstep of the Aztecs, and asked Montezuma to hand over his gold. Its abundance in the area, meant that gold was mainly used as decorations, and did not have as much economic value to them as to the Spanish. Raw gold was basically meaningless, and due to their belief that Cortes was the divine Quetzalcoatl, they happily handed over their gold. Their main source of exchange was cocoa beans, not gold.
+Another, interesting, oft-told, open trust ledger was the large Rai Stones by the Yap people. Large circular stone disks were quarried and used as money on the island of Yap. Due to its difficulty in transportation, and difficulty to excavate, it came to represent a symbolic value. Due to the small population, ownership was exchange simply through oral history. It wasn’t moved to the new owner, or wasn’t required to. In fact, in one circumstance, a rai stone sank beneath the waves to the bottom of the ocean when being transported, and was still being used as a form of money. Everyone knows its at the bottom of the ocean.
+
+As you can see, the societies that could find ways to reflect reality in the ways they wanted it to on grander scales were the ones could survive. There was always a cost to socially coordinate. The better you could do it, the better chance you had at survival. If you codifed your trust network into something that could be destroyed (like inflating metal coins during the fall of the Roman Empire), one could destroy the society itself. The larger a society becomes, the more it needs to build robust open ledgers that reflect the reality of that society.
+
+A tight group of friends can keep tabs on who will get the next round of beers. It’s muddy, it’s not precise, but it works fine to shift around IOUs in that very small network. As it grows larger, it becomes more difficult to maintain. A small town can get by on trust (“I’ll pay you when my latest crops are harvested”). Cities, nations and the globe requires a wholly different trust network.
+
+The value of these large open trust ledgers have grown to be so important and large, that the only we can maintain them realistically was to embed them directly into the rest of our society: national currencies, for example, require human institutions to maintain and enforce it. It’s no longer a shell, beans or gold. Any other system would not be fit to the task. It’s “good enough” as it stands, but with a rapidly changing structure to society, due to technology and a rapidly growing population, it’s creaking at the seams.
+
+Technology, in part, allows us to build out new systems that help us to coordinate.
+
+((information travelling faster than humans))  
+((truth at the rate of programs))

manuscript/rise_of_the_commons.md

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-ise of the Computing Commons
+(to be deprecated/removed)  
+Rise of the Computing Commons
 
 ((only talk in past tense as to future proof these essays))