Topic: The Cryptoglobalist Coalition (Read 5692 times)

It's not so bizarre if you see what decentralization means.

This is the most bizarre topic ive read.

@Intermatic,

Any thoughts?

Yes, I get that; I'm just pointing out that it doesn't sound like what you are talking about to most people. "Globalist" could be substituted for something else, perhaps "world" or "planet"... or "cryptopanhumanist".


If you justify initiation of violence in the name of preventing harm upon others, then you are giving free reign to psychopaths who will pretend to be preventing harming others (such as "us") and even make it seem as if that's what's happening when harming "them".


A computer that perfectly categorizes the information, allowing a human to access the information when relevant. Hence, it's worse than Britain today. Why do you think it would be difficult to abuse, and what exactly is "it" that would be difficult to abuse?


Seems to me like a big fat assumption of determinism underlies this idea.


You're assuming that the mind is in the brain.


Yes, surely, but that type of art is a level dumbed down from the original type of art. It's an algorithm-based canvas vs. infinite human imagination.


You didn't answer my question directly though. If, operating under the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomena arising from electrochemical neuronal interactions, how could we possibly know what the boundary of AI self-awareness is? In other words, if human intelligence is emergent hence in a sense artificial, and we don't understand how it happens (aka the hard problem of science), how could we possibly understand silicon self-awareness before it happens if we don't understand carbon self-awareness?

Lest not forget the horrors of transhumanism which will naturally spring forth from said singularity.

Phase five:
Robots get rid of humans and live in peace!

Bump! I may message a mod about getting this moved to General Discussion.

A continuation of the previous post:

5. I do believe in the harm principle, that the actions of people should only be limited to prevent harming others. We have court systems deciding and interpreting what does and does not constitute a crime, and I am adamant that eventually, a computer system capable of analysing and making decisions on what constitutes a crime at least as well as a court can will emerge, and it will provide a foundation for a cryptocourt. Technically, people won't really be being watched, not by a human, only by a computer. I believe a cryptostate surveillance system would be just as difficult to abuse as the Bitcoin network, if not more difficult.

6. I do understand some details on the whole microchip idea might be a bit off, but the basic concept is correct, that eventually, we will be able to prevent crime, increasingly earlier and increasingly effectively.

7. How does the downloading of information directly to the brain already happen?? You'll need to provide a source, to help me understand what you mean, because as far as I'm aware, we have not yet perfected an interface between brains and computers.

8. Google 'computer generated art' and 'computer generated music', there's loads of examples.

9. A lot of the current focus on developing a superintelligent AI will be to prevent such an AI from treating humans like livestock, as you describe it. It is a challenge whose difficulty I certainly acknowledge, but I am adamant we can solve it.

What's wrong with it? From my end, it's still working.

Think what you want of it, but this system I propose would eventually be able to provide any good which a government or market could provide more efficiently with zero risk of human abuse, as would be the case in a human-operated government or corporation.

EDIT: Can I also request a mod move this thread to the General Discussion forum?

sounds like conspiracy theory made real ;p

What happened to the reddit link?

Thank you for your positive reception of the idea, if I may address the criticisms:

1. I deliberately want it to be focused on globalism. I believe in a globalist view based not upon endless growth, plutocracy and corporate terror, but one based upon a single human identity, where all people unite to ensure the safety and happiness of all humans. A cryptostate will be the most comprehensive and effective means of achieving this. It is a coalition because I want to unite those who have traditionally been humanists and globalists, like me, with enthusiasts of cryptography and its applications in society, to construct the cryptostate.

2. I understand that a decentralised internet has been created in the deep web, but I want to build upon what has already been accomplished. So far, there is no decentralised, cryptographic search with a cryptocurrency token reward system, but I am aware of Namecoin, a cryptographic DNS. There is also market functions built into things like Nxt and Ripple (correct me if I'm wrong) but I want to make something more thorough than that which stands as its own function, separate from the cryptocurrency module of the cryptostate. I'm not currently aware of any cryptopublishers or cryptoaggregators which exist.

3. A cryptostate would, at first, provide basic, easily automated health services, then provide more advanced, complex services. Its functions would eventually include diagnosis through a scanner system and (later) possibly an implant, administering medicines (perhaps through the laser injection system developed a couple of years ago in South Korea), and (at much later stages) performing surgery. A cryptohealth system would be provided to everyone for free at the point of use, and would be initially funded through a charge to all the wallets associated with the cryptostate, before being reduced and eliminated once post-scarcity is reached. It would initially act in a supporting capacity to private and national health services, assisting them, before becoming standalone and offering care independent of a human-operated service. The goal of the cryptohealth service will be to ensure everyone enjoys a minimum standard of health, as defined by measures such as mobility, general level of pain or discomfort, and the condition of organs.

4. Education would be provided in the form of highly interactive cryptopublished content. Children would spend up to 6 hours a day receiving education, which may also include interactions with a set group of children also using the service. My vision of it is something modelled on the likes of Khan Academy, Code Academy, Duolingo, Brilliant, etc., but with improvements. Children would be given mandatory education up until the age of 16, and can continue non-compulsory education indefinitely.

I will answer the rest of the points later; right now, I unfortunately lack time.

This is a very interesting idea. VERY impressive! Perhaps you should post this in General Discussion to get more attention?


Calling it a Globalist Coalition seems to me like a bad idea for various reasons:

Globalization is commonly thought of as a tendency or agenda of governments to expand towards global centralization -- in other words, to consolidate jurisdiction of central authority.

'Coalition' is similarly associated with political parties, i.e. groups of people who believe they have rights that other people don't have. On the other hand, that has its positive aspect, in that it sounds formal thus resonates with statists.

Strictly speaking, centralized power isn't "held" by nation states, but rather exists as a collective belief in the legitimacy of the fear-based control system commonly known as government.


The latter already exists in the deep web. Could you elaborate on how technically feasible the others are at the current stage of decentralization development?


Please define "health" and "education" in a cryptostate, and how it would differ from the current, to put it mildly, "highly dysfunctional" systems.


The big question here is: what constitutes a crime? If there is no victim, there is no crime, but even with that understanding the threshold (crime/not-crime) is not well-defined. The surveillance idea seems a little scary indeed... many ways to abuse it, and most people would object to it in principle (few people like being observed).


That idea makes a large number of assumptions that don't jive with reality.


This already happens, in a sense.


That makes no sense. Art is by definition a human thing, an aspect of being human. You're assuming AI can "master the processes of biology" as Kurzweil would have it, but even if that were so, art would lose its meaning.


If the AI can make intelligent decisions to the degree of programming and improving itself, how would you make sure it won't become self-aware in some sense, if you believe that consciousness is an emergent phenomena arising from electrochemical neuronal interactions? Such kind of self-awareness would probably make the AI decide that humans are to be used to its liking, just as humans use livestock.

Then this is perfect for you; the eventual outcome of the plan will be post-scarcity, rendering money unnecessary.

i hate money

No problem, I hope you are interested.

Wow, this is a lot of reading. I will bookmark it for later.

Well, how would a transition to an anarchist society take place? What's to stop someone seizing nuclear weapons as a state is dissolved, or to stop someone requesting voluntary services which would eventually lead to the cultivation of weapons of mass destruction?

There are certain sources of power which we must ensure are equally inaccessible to all people, so no one person or a group of people exert undue power over any other group of people. They are:

• military power; the core source of power, upon which all other sources of power are realised. This includes weapons, personnel, and the infrastructure through which the exertion of military power is realised (logistics, intelligence, etc.) Examples of people whose power is primarily military include Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, and Xi Jinping
• sovereign power; secondary power, exercised by states according to law. Sovereign power gives the state power to punish someone; should they resist this, military power is deployed. Examples of people whose power is primarily sovereign include Angela Merkel, Janet Yellen, and Mario Draghi
• financial power; tertiary power, exercised by those with wealth, and protected by legal power (namely contract law, property law, etc.). Examples of people whose power is primarily financial include Bill Gates, King Abdullah Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, and Michael Duke, CEO of Walmart
• cultural power; quaternary power, exercised primarily by religious leaders, but also by media giants (like Rupert Murdoch). Examples of people whose power is primarily cultural include Pope Francis, Mark Zuckerberg, and Robert Li of Baidu
  

People usually acquire quaternary cultural power first (for example, a politician seeking to increase their image) then tertiary financial power (donations) then secondary sovereign power (election) then primary military power (responsibility for the military, usually as a head of state). An anarchist society would required everyone to have equal power; nobody should have more power than anyone else, otherwise they would be able to oppress others. But to ensure this, one must exert power, and to exert power on others amounts to oppression, surely?

This is why I advocate cryptoanarchism; anarchism cannot be accomplished by humans, as it requires all humans to have equal power to prevent oppression. But to achieve this, someone has to exert power over others. But with a cryptographic system doing this instead, no humans are exerting power over each other, and instead having their demands met by the system.

Walk around your block.  Tell me if a greater majority of your neighbors are flaunting war with each other.

Now, since your neighbors are typically in their house, or in their garden, walking their dog, or otherwise minding their own business, it's safe to say that the average human being is a not vicious barbaric warlord.  The average human is someone who wants to be happy.  Who wants to have friends or a lover to spend time with.

Now, let's look at how society is now.  We currently have vicious barbaric warlords lifted unto a pedestal avast a trance induced population that acts as stormtroopers for their higher agenda.  We have mass genocide being committed at a constant rate.  We have famine caused by our supreme warlord overlords and the restrictions they place against neighboring economies.  Controlled indefinite chaos.

Now, let's imagine everyone was an anarchist, they all held the knowledge here-within: 1) Anarchy is complete freedom.  Freedom makes humans happy. 2) Anarchy is living without your supreme overlords commanding you what to do or how to think.  The only possible way a governing entity could exist is through oppressing it's 'power' (illusory power) through violence. 3) Anarchy is natural.  Cows do not form governments and slaughter other cows, flies do not form governments to rule other flies, birds do not train armies to attack other flocks.

Now, everyone is an anarchist, as it's the logical state of existence to choose, as it is natural.  Joe decides he wants to dominate the world.  He wants to be the supreme overlord of earth.  Joe and 100 buddies decide to attack everyone around them.  Earth has a population of almost eight billion people.  If Joe and his buddies wanted to take control of earth, they would have to control or kill 80,000,000 times the amount of people they had to begin with.

Through nature's (anarchy's) perfectly balancing equilibrium forces, I would approximate that a 8,000,000,000 men battle against 100 men would end with 7,999,999,999 men and 0 of Joe's team remaining.

Therefor, it is safe to conclude that anarchy provides a perfect medium and balance between energies, as nature is a constantly perfected balance.

We can also conclude that for a natural population of homo sapiens to be ushered into a trance of hierarchical overlords vastly outnumbered by the population, the overlords at work may possibly be of a different species.  Millions, if not, billions of species have existed on earth.  It is highly probable a more evolved race is responsible for the societal structures over the last thousands of years.

Now, regardless if our supreme overlords are human or not, taking this knowledge we have learned through logic, why continue feeding them your energy?  They only have power over you if you believe they do, hence, humanity is awakening from a great trance from beyond the realms of humanity.

As you observed when you took a walk around your neighborhood, we are able to conclude that human beings are not supreme overlords by nature.  We are humans that want to live, prosper, and live some more.  We are beings that seek love, acceptance, understanding, unity.

It is safe to say that our society is not the work of your average human, but a creation by beings with a superior intellect and awareness, assisted by mind control through exciting stimulus in humans such as pain, fear, greed, lust.

It just so happens that the CIA has spent millions on mind control programs.   There are no coincidences in a world entangled by matter.

So, with this knowledge, can we agree that further robotic integrated control over our human lives may not be in the best interest of homo sapiens, but rather the beings 'above' them?

Nature is perfect.

It's a legitimate point. A superintelligent AI arising from a technological singularity is something which I entirely acknowledge, which will need to be tackled.

Thank you ^_^

good luck with your plan