TED Conversations

Mitch SMith


This conversation is closed.

Is "the state" our enemy?

I am seeing a growing trend of antipathy towards "the state".

This is coming from all sides of political discourse. But Mostly, none of it is qualified by what this "state" is.

I find that confusing.
I assumed that "the state" was a collection of "us" and that the "democracy" we support is simply a process of having representatives make laws which we agree to obey ..

SO .. let's have a look!

Is our state antithetical to our own agreement?

Please let me know what you think the "state" is and why it is your enemy?

If we can get some kind of understanding for that, then we might be able to advise our representatives. We vote for them after all .. is that just "entertainment"? Or is it real?


Closing Statement from Mitch SMith

Many thanks for those who contributed here!
The discussion has been quite inspiring.

Is "the state" our enemy?

I conclude that if we are part of the definition of the state, it cannot be our enemy.
However, if we are excluded from that definition, it could very well be our enemy.

If you observe that the state is separate from you, then you must decide:
1. if you need to defend yourself against it.
2. If you should negotiate an allegence with it.
3. If you should join with it.
4. If you should attack it.
5. If you should create another state which includes you in its definition.

I would suspect that a state will resist attempts by outsiders to change it - this is the same as an attack and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will point out that western "democracies" have included the mechanism of electoral terms. If such terms were treated as an opportunity to dissolve and re-form a state, then inclusion would be the first principle.

Is the Western state our enemy? No - the enemy lies in the political parties who have corrupted the power of the electoral term - this is where the enemy should be met.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 11 2013: I do not believe the state is our enemy, however, there is a distinction between society and government that should be observed. To quote Thomas Paine," Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices." Can a state efficiently utilize available resources? At this time I would think not, but, 20/20 hindsight almost always conveys wisdom. People learn better, and forgive themselves and eachother. Forgive the past, use what is available now.
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2013: It's interesting. I think a phase-change happened this last few weeks . in politics yes, but beyond that...

      There is some reason to believe that the imaginary plane is collapsed by the point of accumulation in chaotic systems - the membrane of self is completed by progress from the past to the future.

      What we have seen is known, what we face is not known .. yet, but we go forward on our best guess - based on what we have seen.

      The big problem with Bayesian learning is that it is susceptible to the local minimum .. and all knowledge is local.

      Locality is a moving thing - this is why the human is least adapted and most adaptable. OUr fellow species are mostly adapted - we must be careful to not leave them behind because they provide us with the negentropy required for our adaptability - our locality is constrained. And here is the 4th level of morality.

      (edit: not "completed" .. accumulated.)
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2013: What is best for society as a whole? I would say term limits for all elected officials, not just time but performance limits, and to take the monetary upperhand incumbents seem to have and replace it with a mentor program or something of the like for future officials. All while a database of rational consensus and precedents act as an augmentation to intelligence and a firm foundation new ideas can branch off of.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Yes,

          I recently had a huge arguement with an AI PHD who is garnering funding for an educational program and wants to move ahead and get some results (which I believe are desirable).
          He's not talking to me right now .. ah well.
          The arguement was about the AI it*self* .. and my arguement was that for it to work it would have to have a self which is defined .. and that what he is proposing is no more than a tool.
          I can pick up a chisel, and it won't complain if I use it as a weapon.
          So if any kind of database is put together, it's just another tool, and it does not mater how many neural-net geegaws we attach to it, it is not a self. And it will be equally tool and weapon.
          We can make a self - no problem, but we have to leave it be itself .. it must have freedom, and then we treat it as a mentor. But we better make sure that its "mentor-hood" is defined as the vector of its survival. This is not so hard if you think about it.

          The other way is to create a tool which becomes part of the user's body. .. a true prophylactic. This can also be done, but it will inherit the user's self as the centre of its organisation. To do this is pretty techy .. it has to adjust within what I call the Bayesian existential loop - it has to be "potentiated" at teh same rate that body tissues potentiate - particularly braincells which potentiate in milliseconds.That requires a bio-interface which is sensitive to the proto self. Maybe a detector brace on the back of the neck or actual electrode implants.
          Humanity is set to collapse, so such technical investments are unlikely. It would be nice if we can save some component of the internet. I'd be more happy if the principles of reality can be preserved.
          elsewhere I talk about the "field of adaptability" which refers to the dynamic "surprises" a given adaptive system can encompass. I suppose it's an expression of elastic limit.
          SO it's this adaptive field that will get selected in the Darwinian sense.
          Let's work on that?
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Gotta ramble on here a bit:

          Society is only the second level of "morality".
          We have to go beyond that in order to define a word spelled m.o.r.a.l.i.t.y.which everyone understands.
          In fact .. what society is has at least 2 more layers - there is tribe, and there is region .. and you might have to add another called "nation" or "republic" or feifdom" or "kingdom" or whatever. But beyond that you have the "nation of all nations" and beyond that you have "the ecosystem".
          This is extremely fractal .. and this particular fractal division is chaotic - up to "ecosystem".

          And that "ecosystem" is a gateway into the infinite connection through imbedded scalar systems - and all these systems are open systems.

          Here is where the fields of adaptability are cogent to the definitions of "selves which organise" and the principles of entropy become apparent as defined by negentropic envelopes - which themselves are fractally defined in chaotic layers.

          I suspect that all membranes are chaotic fractal spirals - which infers a "way out".
          The way out i recommend is there .. but you kinda have to be standing in the right place to get through in time.
          I'd like to be at that place - and have as many friends there as I can manage ;)
      • thumb
        Feb 12 2013: Right on. Shyam Sankar has an interesting talk on human-computer cooperation, citing that intelligence augmentation is greater than artificial intelligence. What I'm getting at is if someone is unsure of the right decision, then they will have like a super tablet linked into a super internet, whether it is to be used as a tool or weapon is always a possibility, they could use to make the most informed decision, hopefully the right one. Implants wouldn't be necessary because those who don't use it would no longer be fit and get left behind. Humanity, I feel, is not set to collapse but there is always a split in the path.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.