Shared publicly  - 
 
Kevin Kelly hung out with 5 people.Yuri van Geest, Gyurka Jansen, Jurgen Appelo, Gijsbregt Brouwer, and Jeroen van Eck
Kevin Kelly's profile photoYuri van Geest's profile photoGyurka Jansen's profile photoJurgen Appelo's profile photoGijsbregt Brouwer's profile photoJeroen van Eck's profile photo
Kevin Kelly was in a video call with 5 others
9
2
Gyurka Jansen's profile photoTuril Cronburg's profile photoMark Essel's profile photoSamuel Driessen's profile photo
16 comments
 
guys i am sorry, my bandwidth is too low
 
hmm ... good luck to you friend ......!
 
thats good... Wish i was 1 of them..
 
Is it possible to fairly judge (or fully understand) a system from a biased position within it?
 
Can a community decide NOT to follow an inevitable discovery path? If there is no choice, then all that is possible is inevitable.

update just reviewed the section from WTW on north korea's usage of electricity (a choice not to heavily embrace a technological possibility). After reading further Kevin suggests that the inherent direction of potential technology is present (seed analogy from Robert Wright), even though it may not always be realized (not all seeds grow into trees).
 
Influence is a better term than control for children, or self replicating technologies. Moreso, there's a feedback or co-influence between creators and self replicating technologies.
 
+Kevin Kelly I asked this yesterday, but would like to post it again (as I didn't get an answer yet). I understand you're a christian (I am too). Would your book be very different if it wasn't written from an evolutionist but creationist viewpoint? I really enjoyed your book by the way.
 
I don't believe they'll be 2000 varieties of mustard on the shelf, consumers will help conjure on demand one realization of a near infinite variety. The simplification of the process that guides filtering and choice, and the ability to rapidly iterate will mitigate the paralysis of choice.

Even with a HUGE space of opportunities, our ability to experience them is limited by our existence. A counter direction for the Technium could be the longevity of it's members, or the speed of experience since life is biased towards recycling and change.
 
In life, we borrow everything. Information defies ownership when the barriers to communication are eliminated. Acting on relevant synthesis of information has great value though. Going forward it's not information which will have great value based on limited supply, but the attention of individuals who will (wisely) utilize that knowledge.
 
It's also quite interesting to see that "ownership" (of oneself) does not necessarily facilitate a tendency towards uniqueness. If you look at how people shape their appearance both offline (clothes, tattoos) and online (photoshop) you can see very unique ideas but also a lot of tendency towards 'genericness'. Not sure if that is a sort of basic law, of just a side effect of the implementation of how social relations work for us as humans.
 
+Gyurka Jansen , the two basic behavioral laws that all individuals of any kind (living and not) have are: contraction/attraction to things that are somewhat nearby, and expansion/repulsion to things that are very, very nearby. These are seen in the forces of magnetic pushing and pulling, as well as in romantic affairs where we both want our companions close, but not too close. So yes, humans will indeed work to act and look close to what many others around them act and look like, but not too close, with each individual having both individuality and a collective approach to life.
 
+Derek Janet, no confusion on my part. All physical systems behave following the laws of physics, regardless of their level of complexity. (Unless you believe in supernatural forces governing some individual's behavior, which if you want to make a case for I'll listen, as I'm curious about other people's religious beliefs, even though I'm basically an atheist/science type.) We humans might not realize that we behave according to the laws of physics just as much as any of the non-living things that make up our bodies do, because our own thoughts and feelings are so complex, but this is the way our behavior works, just like it's the way that all physical systems behave. A system doesn't need to be self-aware, conscious, to behave in a certain way. (Your behavior when you're asleep is not-conscious, yet it still happens. :-)

And I'm being scientific, rather than poetic. Poetic would be saying something like "dead things don't behave". :-) Which is amusing, and interesting, but not scientifically accurate.
 
Bonus points for this hangout, it reminded me to move from 28% read to 49% read of What Technology Wants.
 
+Derek Janet, behavior, in the literal sense is, as my dictionary tells me, "to act, react, or function in a particular manner". There's no "only if you're organic matter" part, which you seem to have added, which I can see might have confused you. The meaning is universal, applicable to any object or set of objects, regardless of the level of complexity of the object or the particular kind of actions, reactions, or function/s.

But if you don't like that word for some reason, pick whatever word you do like that describes the "things that something does" and use that in place of the term "behavior" in my original statement.

"the two basic "things that something does" laws that all individuals ofany kind (living and not) have are: contraction/attraction to thingsthat are somewhat nearby, and expansion/repulsion to things that arevery, very nearby." Which explains why humans tend to try to act and look like those around them to some extent, but not totally.
 
Everyone wins when we share ideas and come to understandings... :-)
Add a comment...