Re: [ox-en] Rivaly of non-rivalry
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Hi Tere,
My take is that digitality is an emergent phenomena, just as chemistry over physics, biology over chemistry, culture over biology, i.e. it is based and can be dissolved into the lower orders of complexity on which it is based, but once it arises, it does show characteristics that are not reducible to its physical basis.
The argument of the real cost of digitalizing networks is something that I fully recognize. However, now that I'm familiar with the work of people like Bill St. Arnaud and others, which I monitor here at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology, I think we can actually see the opposite opportunity, nl. that networks are indeed a 'burden' but at the same time, they have an enormous potential to bring forward biomorphic production cycles (cradle to cradle); see the links to green computing, the p2p energy grid etc... all predicated on the smart use of digital technologies.
The next great argument would be the result of the efforts of the open design communities, to create a global network of global villages using relocalized and ecology-friendly production.
Finally, I think there is a huge potential for digital cultural exchange, to replace a culture of material accumulation.
Michel
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives.
Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html; video interview, at http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
----- Original Message ----
From: Tere Vadén <tere gnu-darwin.org>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:30:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Rivaly of non-rivalry
I
think
that
the
the
point
Patrick
Anderson
makes
is
relevant
in
ways
which
I
will
try
to
come
back
to
later,
but
first,
please
allow
me
a
short
detour.
I'm
guessing
many
people
remember
the
age
old
philosophical
debate
over
the
existence
of
universals
(concepts,
ideas,
types,
etc.).
One
school
(platonists,
universalists)
think
that,
in
the
first
place,
what
exists
are
ideas
and
that
material
objects
"take
part"
or
"instantiate"
or
are
imperfect
copies
of
the
ideas.
On
the
other
extreme,
the
so-called
nominalists
think
that,
in
the
fist
place,
what
exists
are
individual
material
objects,
and
universals
(concepts,
etc.)
do
not
exist
at
all.
According
to
nominalists,
there
are
individual
horses,
but
no
universal
or
ideal
"horse"
or
"horseness";
"horse"
is
just
a
name
(nomen)
for
the
individual
horses.
Now,
some
time
ago
I
started
half
in
jest
playing
around
with
the
notion
of
"digital
nominalism".
It
goes
like
this.
All
of
the
arguments
of
the
copyright
industry
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
there
exists
an
original
(somehow
causally
connected
to
an
author)
out
of
which
near
perfect
digital
copies
can
be
made.
This
is
the
power
of
digitalisation:
the
copies
are,
at
best,
as
good
as
the
original
(unlike
in
the
case
of
material
objects).
The
original
work,
however,
need
not
and
often
is
not
itself
digital.
Moreover,
in
most
copyright
legislations
what
is
protected
is
the
"work",
not
any
particular
physical
copy
of
it.
Now,
what
if
I
were
to
claim
that
what
exists
on
my
computer
are
particular
physical
things
like
electric
currents,
magnetic
polarisations
and
what
not,
and
that
there
is,
in
fact
nothing
"digital"
there.
What
happens
in
computers
is
physics,
and
no
black
magic
talk
about
"works"
changes
that;
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
"digital
copy"
because
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
"digital
original"
(like
this
horse
is
not
a
copy
of
"horseness").
This
is
not
completely
as
crazy
as
it
sounds.
"Digitality"
is
not
a
natural
kind.
That
is,
it
is
not
possible
to
construct
a
"digitality
meter"
that
starts
ticking
every
time
something
"digital"
is
around
(because
it
might
be
optical,
electric,
magnetic,
chemical,
mechanic...).
It
is
possible
to
construct
meters
for
electricity,
magnetism,
etc.
Unlike
those,
digitality
is
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
(Proof:
i)
every
digital
device
easily
collapses
back
into
non-digitality
with
the
slightest
physical
change
which
renders
it
unusable
without
fundamentally
changing
any
of
the
goings-on,
ergo
digitality
is
a
mode
of
operation,
not
a
kind
ii)
a
one-pixel
copy
of
Mona
Lisa
is
equally
much
a
"digital"
copy
of
the
painting
as
a
gazillion-pixel
copy.)
There
is
nothing
in
the
world
as
such
that
forces
me
to
accept
that
anything
like
"digitality"
exists.
(If
any
depth
psychologists
out
there
are
willing
to
learn
how
far
I
have
taken
this
joke,
there
is
some
hard
evidence
in
"Digital
Nominalism.
Notes
on
the
ethics
of
information
society
in
view
of
the
ontology
of
the
digital"
Ethics
and
Information
Technology
6,
no.
4,
pp.
223-231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]-7)
Finally,
to
the
relevance.
Slowly.
Because
of
the
"multiple
realizability"
of
a
digital
"work",
it
seems
like
the
(alleged)
existence
of
the
digital
world
works
as
an
argument
for
AI
(which
also
depends
on
the
idea
of
multiple
realizability).
However,
this
sword
has
two
edges.
It
also
means
that
(almost)
every
argument
against
multiple
realizability
in
AI
works
against
"digitality".
Which
means
that
if
somebody,
like
me,
does
not
buy
multiple
realizability,
s/he
does
not
buy
either
AI
or
digitality.
And
here
is
the
–
admittedly
not
very
sharp
but
nevertheless
decisive
and
potentially
divisive
–
relevance:
it
seems
to
me
that
most
(all?)
credible
free
software/p2p/digital
utopias
(including,
disquietingly,
the
GNU
society)
rely
on
the
idea
of
post-scarcity
economics.
Moreover,
most
(all?)
credible
post-scarcity
utopias
seem
to
rely
on
AI
or
some
other
form
of
universalism
(like
the
idea
that
DNA
is
"information"
or
that
human
thinking
is
"information
processing").
So,
in
sum,
to
quote/paraphrase
what
Patrick
wrote,
while
the
time
and
energy
needed
to
make
a
grain
of
wheat
appears
to
be
much
more
than
downloading
a
copy
of
a
program
and
running
it,
if
we
factor
in
all
the
resources
required
to
manufacture
the
hardware
and
supply
the
electricity
as
compared
to
growing
wheat,
it
may
not
be
as
much
of
a
difference
as
we
imagine,
especially
if
we
are
talking
about
the
utopian
dimension
including
billions
of
people
(and
especially
especially
if
we
are
talking
about
it
in
a
non-AI
context).
Then
again,
this
leaves
Michel's
point:
in
a
particular
context
the
differentials
between
the
qualities
of
"grain"
and
"movies"
allow
and
even
necessitate
different
treatment.
And,
I
love
the
idea
of
pre-paying
for
software
features/products.
Some
musicians
are
doing
it,
already;
like
Marillion,
who
collected
the
money
for
their
next
record
by
selling
it
to
the
fans
before
it
is
made
(and
the
fans
get
their
names
in
the
liner
notes
instead
of
a
record
company).
_________________________________
Web-Site:
http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization:
http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact:
projekt oekonux.de
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de