X Y N C H R O N I C I T Y

Agonistic Inamic Unities II: Part 2 / Clarifications and Boundaries

Some definitions where they are needed for a proper interpretation of the argument presented previously.

() “Reactionary”

R/ACC is reactionary in the sense that neoreaction is, and interested in outracing the degenerative ratchet—not reactionary in any other sense. Further clarification may be provided if necessary.

: What Is: Intelligence

Hipshot definition of intellect is game-playing/-winning ability. But intelligence is clearly something more: “ ability to reject stupid games, propose new ones, enhance one's own power, etc.”... Entailed within: many human capacities, including self-determination, abstracting, pattern-matching, mathematics... all of which are necessary to win truly intractable competitions. Try to imagine a neural network—which has only trained on a static set of data—competing with a strategy it hasn't encountered before. It may or may not have a competitive response. (Are NN analogies to AGI played out? Yes. Here I am making one anyway. Consider it an analogy to a superior analogy.)

Modulo human beings' more base biological urges, our brains have a satisfactory level of general problem solving ability baked in. It is a safe bet that intelligence, modulo humanity, will be at least legibly alien to us via the protocols through which it communicates—e.g.

(:) If Intelligence Good, Why Hate Decision-Making?

The offending passages:

Chaos is order that decides to stop becoming more order.

Consciousness happened.

The question raises a good point, and a dimension to the matter left unfocused. Clearly an intelligent being is capable of making bad decisions. What is the R/ACC solution to this dilemma?

Self-determination where it's due—and nowhere else. The general trend of the matter seems to be that, for any given organi(sm|zation) O, the allocation of self-determination to a given subsystem of O scales inversely with its power. The central nervous system (brain, spine) contains almost all of the body's “free will”, but your peripheral nervous system (nerves and such) knows to jerk its arm away from a fire dozens or hundreds of milliseconds before the brain knows it's in pain. The stomach has some say in when the body feels like eating, but the brain makes the decision to go make food and ingest it. Top-down governance structure. (Future post will elaborate on importance of cephalization.)

The military: Classical example of a organization that maximizes for overall competence at “games” (being, war at all scales) while allocating minimal self-determination to its component organs. Everyone follows orders no matter what. Ideally, in the event of leadership decapitation each unit is capable of reorganizing into a competent structure, but this is not strictly necessary for success—just a useful redundancy.

The corporation: Another highly relevant example of how to allocate self-determination for maximum effectiveness. Cubicle drones grind out code and cold calls for middle management, who report to VPs who kowtow to CEO and fulfill whims of other C-levels. Free will/self-determination most necessary at top of structure where most power concentrated, attenuates gradually—exponentially? Could it be a literal power law?—as the organization bottoms out.

Termite mounds are a subhuman example of similar structure.

INTELLIGENESIS must occur in such a way as to maximize its future growth—or its future freedom of action. As we have seen in modern civilization, when we pursue “intelligence” in a self-doubting, self-critiquing, self-sabotaging manner where we smash the Self-Determination Super Special Individual slider to MAXIMUM, we sacrifice everything else in the interest of manufacturing the impression that one is a unique cog in a formerly functional machine. Sure, we climbed 80% of the way up this mountain. But instead of keeping going let's make some nice mud huts here and decorate them with flower petals and slowly suffocate and our supplies run out. At least we died with a healthy perspective.

Back