Anti Design Festival | ADF Manifesto We are living in an age where millions of colours became 256. Difference is the enemy. Generic culture hypnotises us all into generic patterns, where control is visibly invisible. From Learning to Earning, and now to Yearning, we have forgotten why we are here. Revolutionary thought is but a distant memory. This generation was replaced by the Thatcher/Reagan paradigm of Culture=Money. We are now left with a spiritual hollowness. We have managed to create for our children, perhaps for the first time in history, a future which is less hopeful than the one we live in today. Deep Freeze The house of credit cards has now collapsed. We have traded Freedom for Peace. Free Me From Freedom As the Lehman Brothers collapsed, so a new era is signalled and the baton is passed on again. The line of Dangerous Ideas had been interrupted and the path can be found again. Dangerous Ideas
Conceptual Framework for Online Identity Roles I just wrapped up a final project for an aesthetics course this semester, the assignment being to create a “Database of the Self.” I chose to make the database as a representation of the roles we play in terms of how we interact with information online. The roles are overlaid on a panarchy, which shows a visualization of adaptive lifecycles. Though the evolution of every idea or meme won’t necessarily follow this specific path, (it may in fact be rhizomatic, with multiple feedback loops), this begins to flesh out what we become as nodes within an enmeshed series of networks. The cycle can be thought to begin with the “Activators,” in the lower right side of image. For an interactive version of the graphic, click here. I found this to be an interesting exercise when thinking about the impact and influence we have on the web, and how information travels. Thanks to @wildcat2030 for inspiration from Friendships in Hyperconnectivity mindmap and to @gavinkeech for visual design. Like this:
The Ladder of Inference - Problem-Solving Training from MindTools Avoiding "Jumping to Conclusions" Don't just "dive in" and make a decision right away. © iStockphoto/abbesses Have you ever been accused of "putting 2 and 2 together and making 5", meaning that the other person thinks you have jumped to the wrong conclusion? In today's fast-moving world, we are always under pressure to act now, rather than spend time reasoning things through and thinking about the true facts. Not only can this lead us to a wrong conclusion, but it can also cause conflict with other people, who may have drawn quite different conclusions on the same matter. In a fast business environment, you need to make sure your actions and decisions are founded on reality. Sometimes known as the "Process of Abstraction", this tool helps you understand the thinking steps that can lead you to jump to wrong conclusions, and so helps you get back to hard reality and facts. Understanding the Theory Starting at the bottom of the ladder, we have reality and facts. This can create a vicious circle.
Conditional Design - Conditional Design Conditional Design A manifesto for artists and designers. Through the influence of the media and technology on our world, our lives are increasingly characterized by speed and constant change. Our work focuses on processes rather than products: things that adapt to their environment, emphasize change and show difference. Instead of operating under the terms of Graphic Design, Interaction Design, Media Art or Sound Design, we want to introduce Conditional Design as a term that refers to our approach rather than our chosen media. The process is the product. The most important aspects of a process are time, relationship and change. The process produces formations rather than forms. We search for unexpected but correlative, emergent patterns. Even though a process has the appearance of objectivity, we realize the fact that it stems from subjective intentions. Logic is our tool. Logic is our method for accentuating the ungraspable. Design conditions using intelligible rules. Use rules as constraints.
to be published in: R. Trappl (ed.) (1996): Cybernetics and Systems '96 (World Science, Singapore?)Francis Heylighen & Johan Bollen Center "Leo Apostel", Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels Belgium email: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Abstract If society is viewed as a super-organism, communication networks play the role of its brain. 1 Introduction It is a recurrent idea that the whole of humanity, the system formed by all people together with their channels of exchange, can be viewed as a single organism: the `super-being' [Turchin, 1977] or `metaman' [Stock, 1993]. Yet, there is at least one domain where integration seems to be moving full speed ahead: the development of ever more powerful communication media. In organisms, the evolution of the nervous system is characterized by a series of metasystem transitions producing subsequent levels of complexity or control [Turchin, 1977; Heylighen, 1995, 1991b]. 2 The Web as an Associative Memory
What Does It Mean? What does it mean? Or really what does it mean to me? I have been asking myself that question a lot lately. What I have found is that I have attached a meaning to everything- of course we all have, but those meanings become so ingrained that it stops me from actually having any new ideas, interpretations, or experiences that could lead me in a new direction. I am so quick to judge and decide based on my past definitions that my future is almost certainly predictable. How can I experience anything new if I already “know”? What’s the point of even leaving my house? Is it possible to experience the world without attaching my past meanings to everything? It’s not new to many of you that most of the “meanings (insert beliefs, Buddhas – wink wink) have been with us since early childhood- even before we could speak we attached meanings to things. I know, it sounds crazy, you’re probably saying it’s not that simple- but you know what – it is. I decided recently to play a game with my brain.
REGARDS SUR LE NUMERIQUE: Blog - Comment remettre l'homme au centre de la technologie : le manifeste de Jaron Lanier RSLNmag est édité par Microsoft et se consacre à l’analyse et au décryptage du monde numérique.. « Que se passe-t-il quand nous arrêtons de façonner la technologie et que la technologie commence à nous façonner ? » C’est la question centrale qui anime le livre « You are not a gadget, a manifesto » de Jaron Lanier, publié par Alfred A. Knopf. > Qui est Jaron Lanier ? Pionnier et père de la réalité virtuelle, classé par le Times, pour l'année 2010, parmi les 100 penseurs les plus influents au monde, Jaron Lanier a principalement travaillé sur l’interface et l’interaction entre la machine et l’homme. Dès la première page de son livre, Jaron Lanier annonce ses intentions : son livre est un manifeste, celui d’un témoin de l’émergence du Web et des changements radicaux qu’il a entrainé aussi bien pour le commerce, que pour la pensée, l’art ou la culture. Attention néanmoins, Jaron Lanier n’est absolument pas technophobe : « Cela m’ennuie que je sois parfois classé comme étant anti-technologie alors que je suis en réalité un véritable technologiste. » > Un véritable manifeste
The Global Brain, the Semantic Web, the Singularity and 360-2020 consciousness to create the Web of WE: socially-voiced co-creation - un knol de 刘Twain Video Introduction F irstly, thank you for your interest and I hope readers will contribute their own considered analysis and gut intuitions here intelligently, regardless of whether or not they agree with these postulations and the presentation of them. Secondly, I’m looking forward to our interactions and building upon this model together. Thirdly, I have the flu whilst I write this so my own brain may not be optimally functioning! Nevertheless, I promised a knowledge share and here it is. This post is an initiating conversation in a continuum of “negotiations of intellect” (discourse) I’m engaging in with others interested in the subject matter, as well as within myself. It is not intended to be the definitive, static or absolute end-game version, nor indeed the academic / geek version. I decided to start this posting today, 26 November, on my father's birthday. It’s for this myriad of interconnected reasons I’m interested in the Global Brain: personal, parental and professional.
Climbing the Ladder of Inference It happened again this week. I was going along merrily about my business when I read something very disturbing on someone’s Facebook page. It was one side of a multi-faceted, distasteful, eye-opening situation affecting a significant number of people personally and about which most of the rest of us had an opinion. I took an opinion too, way too early in the game. And, I found myself at the top of the Ladder of Inference feeling embarrassed by my rush to judgment and having to climb my way down again by taking back words I had written in haste and with insufficient thought. I don’t suppose it will be the last time I’m going to rush up the ladder. It is with this in mind that I’m re-publishing this post about the Ladder of Inference, just in case, along with me, you also could use a refresher course. The other day, while at the supermarket, I was reminded of how easy it is to make assumptions about people. The little boy gave me a filthy look. “I think he’s referring to me. Like this:
ONE HALF A MANIFESTO And so I'll here share my thoughts with the respondents of edge.org, many of whom are, as much as anyone, responsible for this revolution, one which champions the assent of cybernetic technology as culture. The dogma I object to is composed of a set of interlocking beliefs and doesn't have a generally accepted overarching name as yet, though I sometimes call it "cybernetic totalism". It has the potential to transform human experience more powerfully than any prior ideology, religion, or political system ever has, partly because it can be so pleasing to the mind, at least initially, but mostly because it gets a free ride on the overwhelmingly powerful technologies that happen to be created by people who are, to a large degree, true believers. Edge readers might be surprised by my use of the word "cybernetic". I find the word problematic, so I'd like to explain why I chose it. I hope no one will think I'm equating Cybernetics and what I'm calling Cybernetic Totalism. Here we go:
Le cerveau bayésien 14 juin 2008 par Jean-Paul Baquiast Le cerveau bayésien Deux articles de grande portée épistémologique ont été publiés à un mois d’intervalle par le journal britannique NewScientist, dont la fécondité ne cesse de nous étonner. Ces articles s'articulent logiquement. Some swans are grey Le premier article, « Some swans are grey » de Robert Matthews (10 mai 2008, p. 44) relativise l’intérêt de la falsifiabilité proposée par Carl Popper dans « La logique de la découverte scientifique, 1934 » afin de distinguer les « vraies » hypothèses scientifiques des hypothèses présentées par les « fausses sciences »(1). Ajoutons que les expériences destinées à prouver telle théorie ou hypothèse dépendent de l’état de l’instrumentation scientifique, lequel se perfectionne sans cesse. La critique poppérienne est aujourd’hui largement utilisée par les scientifiques voulant montrer que la cosmologie n’est pas une « vraie science »(2). Mais comment ? Essence of thought Revenons en arrière.
The Ladder of Inference Have you ever found yourself perplexed at the way someone else has interpreted something you said or did, and put a meaning on it that you never intended? Or perhaps you have found yourself enraged by someone’s comment or action, and concluded that they must be acting against you for some reason? You have been climbing the ‘Ladder of Inference’. First proposed by Chris Argyris, way back in 1970, the ladder of inference is a way of describing how you move from a piece of data (a comment made to you, or something that you have observed to happen), through a series of mental processes to a conclusion. You start by selecting from the data, translate it into your own terms, explain it to yourself, and then draw conclusions. How the Ladder Works in Practice Your beliefs tend to reinforce the data that you select, and how you interpret it, which means that it becomes a positive feedback loop. Here’s a simple example of a few moves up the ladder: Jane arranges to meet Mary for coffee at 10.30am.
The Evolutionary Manifesto Dossier : de l'IA faible à l'IA forte, par Jean-Claude Baquiast et Christohe Jacquemin 9 juillet 2008 par Jean-Paul Baquiast et Christophe Jacquemin Dossier L'intelligence artificielle (IA). De l'IA faible à l'IA forte L’Intelligence artificielle (dite ici IA) a connu des développements rapides, principalement aux Etats-Unis, dans les années 1960/1970, en corrélation avec l’apparition des premiers ordinateurs scientifiques. ues. On voit par ailleurs aujourd’hui se développer une IA qui vise à reproduire le plus grand nombre possible des fonctions et performances des cerveaux animaux et humains. En pratique, ces IA fortes sont associés à des robots, à qui elles confèrent des propriétés d’autonomie de plus en plus marquées. Proposons notre définition de l’IA : nous dirons qu’elle vise à simuler sur des ordinateurs et des réseaux électroniques, par l’intermédiaire de programmes informatiques, un certain nombre des comportements cognitifs, ou façons de penser, des cerveaux animaux et humains. C’est d’ailleurs ce qui est en train de se passer avec l’IA. 1. Les systèmes experts