TED Conversations

Mitch SMith


This conversation is closed.

Should we trust the invisible hand?

James B Glattfelder outlines an emergent entity in his study of transnational company data.

Is this entity trustworthy?

Please state your reasons for trust or otherwise on the assumption that this emergent entity exists.

I'd also be interested in your opinion of whether the entity outlined in the math is essentially separate from the people who created it?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 21 2013: Our five senses are imperfect. Our eyes can not see the true size or colour. We cannot even see a Pencil in its totality. Always some part or portion will be hidden from us. We cannot hear the actual sound because when sound travels from a source and reaches our ears , there will great loss. Do we receive what the sound started from the throat of a singing bird? Can our taste buds taste the real taste of a grain of a salt without some loss. Even our sixth sense is not perfect. All these leads to the fact that there is an invisible hand - may I call the invisible hand - the all powerful GOD
    • thumb
      Feb 21 2013: I would argue that your "god" is no more than an invitation for us to go explore him to his destruction - he is a consumable - a resource that we must attack with the utmost agression and passion.

      In other words - your god is ignorance. And therefore imortal.

      we are mortals - god is no business of the living.

      Go eat your god - as I eat mine. This is a personal quest - the sharing of it is manipualtive and vain - Read Eclesiastes, then accept that there is nothing new under the sun and I will consume you on my way to the destruction of this falsity called god.

      Now, having gotten your personal ignorance killed, I can explain about perception.

      Are you up to it? Or are you happy to remain the victim of your own delusion?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 21 2013: My god is the invitation to live.

          This thread is to explore an emergent entity which exists in economy - it also has been invited to live, as such it is a kind of peer.
          The exploration is to define what it is a bit better and to determine if it is healthy, and perhaps if it needs some healing.
          If we bring the deity into it, then the subject loses traction.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 21 2013: The invisible hand of supply/demand economics is a system dynamic.

          What is curious about that is how it has self-organising limits.

          I'm not all that inclined to go into detail about the universal "god" which gives rise to all this, beyond saying that it's the invitation to live. And that all which manifests is saying "yes" to that invitation. I might add that there is a difference between awareness and consciousness - awareness does not require memory and needs only particiapate as an expression of "yes". As such, all is aware - from galaxy clusters to sub atomic particles.
          These are our peers - equal in our "yes-ness".

          As is the invisible hand of economy.

          Trust is another aspect.

          It could well be that our economy has a pathogen or an imbalance which might need healing. This is cogent to we who participate in it.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 21 2013: A good conversation indeed!

          Our definitions are presented as gifts - not as weapons.
          However there is a point to this thread and a little hearding is in order.

          Certainly - every pair of humans creates a new language .. one tries to speak into the void of the internet with inclusive language, but it is doomed to exclude at some level.
          For instance, few will understand what is being said between Gilbert Schwob and myself - that particular exploration is a mapping between his world-view and my own using the models we have built - to do that, one has to fully comprehend these models. It is an exclusion, but the exploration takes precedence.
          As i have described elsewhere, the autobiographical part of a human is not one self but many - one pair for each relationship (self/other). These pairs are used for convergence (empathy). Empathy is non-linear, it can produce abundance or scarcity depending on collaberation/enmity and may result in compassion or agression.
          Things, of course, become complex when dealing with more than 2 participants. In such cases, convergence requires extrinsic symbols - and these have to be agreed before group convergence can occur.
          An outcome of this discussion is to refine the symbolic description of the invisible hand of economy.
          To that end - above and beyond this thread, I have enrolled in a course to help create a reliable model for this subject and others using a modeling tool called netlogo.
          Much of what i learn in this thread will contribute to that model.
          The result will be published as public domain (for what it's worth - hopefull it will be of value to some).
        • thumb
          Feb 21 2013: PS - thanks for the link.

          It is known that the 20th century spelled the decline of the auto-didact.
          The internet is partially restoring this ballance.
          I suspect that the old dross of the Crowley stain was instrumental in the decline of knowledge through the self-justification of the wealthy. The disenfranchised were separated from the empirical knowledge they hunger for. It was an act of class war.
          I note that the property boom of the intellect is the same stain as propogated by De Sade and Crowley - the attempt to hoard the truth along with money and property.
          This is one reason i am keen to get exposed via this thread.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.