The Enlightenment is Dead, Long Live the Entanglement

Working Draft (1 Saved Version)chevron-down
44 Discussions (#public)
1 Contributor
The Enlightenment is Dead, Long Live the Entanglement
··
Read Only You have view permissions to the working draft but cannot edit it.
1

Loading...


Contributors

Discussions


Labels
Sort
Discussion on Jul 20, 2016
Sean Thoennes: We continue to grasp at a reasonable means by which wealth can be distributed in an equitable fashion, not only so that each has the means of survival and opportunity that a wealthy and democratic ...
Discussion on May 30, 2016
Mike McCarthy: With the exception of the powdered wigs, the authors of the Constitution are little different (just fewer) than the authors of wikipedia: almost entirely white guys, mostly in their 20s. (As much ...
Danny Hillis: I think you overstate your case. While it is true that the demographics of WIkipedia contributors are very different that of the general population, it would be difficult to argue that they are not...
Discussion on Mar 24, 2016
Ken Goldberg: What is needed is a science of collaboration that combines diverse sets of machines (eg ensemble theory, random forests), with diverse sets of humans. In contrast with the rhetoric of Singularity,...
Discussion on Mar 24, 2016
Ben Toth: An interesting piece but is there any evidence that humans have ever NOT been intimately intertwined with their creations? If not the rest of the article falls rather flat on its face. One only has...
Danny Hillis: We certainly had physical and emotional investment in our creations in the past, but there was little difficulty drawing a distinction between the character of the created and the creator.
Discussion on Mar 23, 2016
Joe Sokohl: Too bad its roots are in bad punctuation. Understanding homophones matters.
Discussion on Mar 16, 2016
Francisco José Casas Restrepo: Mr. Hills, your article is wonderfull!! The most natural in our world today is technology. This is our nature,
Jon Henrich: I totally appreciate your vision. I agree that the article is excellent. Can we really say that technology is our nature? This makes me shutter to think: Is synth the new, natural form of music, ca...
Dustin Ezell: Those instruments are tech too. We've been making tech since we sharpened our first hand axe.
Discussion on Mar 14, 2016
Donna Fasano: Working in design and fabrication, often the question which comes up is "Why create this particular thing? What story will it tell after we have informed it?" Will this thing we design continue to ...
Discussion on Mar 13, 2016
Georgi Georgiev: Do you mind giving an example?
Danny Hillis: Programmed trading sytems on the stock market.
Danny Hillis: Programmed trading systems on the stock market.
2 more...
Discussion on Mar 13, 2016
Brian Eno: One of the issues hinted at here and very critical at present is the issue of authorship. Where does any given idea come from? Who is responsible for it and how should they be recompensed? How can ...
Boris Anthony: A lovely example indeed here of how "zooming" in and out of problem spaces can give us different perspectives towards a resolution. If, for example, we stay within existing / prevalent consumerist/...
Kevin Ford: Brian, Kirby Ferguson produced a thoughtful and eloquent 4-part indie movie series that I think is related to what you mentioned above about the book, The Topology of Chance. This book is now on my...
3 more...
Discussion on Mar 13, 2016
Andrew Martz: "We can no longer see ourselves as separate from the natural world or our technology, but as a part of them, integrated, codependent, and entangled." Codependency, in a psychological framework, gen...
Danny Hillis: I am not using the term “codependent” in the clinical sense, but our co-dependencies with technology certainly have the potential for becoming pathological. Our co-dependencies with other people a...
Discussion on Mar 12, 2016
Natasha Davidenko: All enlightened people just go into 3D and are in greed of having material golds and etheric power. And what church provides.
Discussion on Mar 12, 2016
Zacharias Efraimidis: Reading this makes me think of a Global Constitution, i.e. a collaboratively constructed set of rules.
Jon Henrich: I think that brings about the excellent point: things become too large for any single contributor to even read, which brings about Design as Participation. To paraphrase Henry Rollins, "I don't thi...
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
Jackie Luo: Particularly fascinating in light of the argument about the Apple v. FBI case that iPhones are more analagous to our minds than safes.
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
no rb: This whole article reminds me a lot of "The 3D Additivist Manifesto"
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
no rb: "You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines." - D&G (from 1000 Plateus)
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
no rb: I'm getting a type of post-humanist vibe from this. Maybe we could suprass "the human" (so to speak) instead of us being "left behind".
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
no rb: Science predates the Age of Enlightenment....
Georgi Georgiev: Isn't it the case that the Age of Enlightment IS the age of science?
Danny Hillis: The scientific revolution began towards the end of the Renaissance period, yet I would argue that science as we know it today is a product of the Enlightenment, when the great scientific academies ...
Discussion on Mar 11, 2016
Tom Leedy: Reminds me of P Teilhard de Chardin's ideas about evolution. Forward the Mind! (organic or other)
Discussion on Mar 02, 2016
Evgeni Sergeev: Yet, luckily, the end result may be understood by a designer to a large extent (e.g. organs in a body). Maybe the best fusion will be achieved when we learn to contribute our designer's understandi...
gabriel licina: You vastly overestimate our understanding of biological systems...
Danny Hillis: The relation to parts to function is more complex in a biological systems than in an engineered systems, but I agree that they sometimes have have parts with understandable function, for example th...
Discussion on Mar 02, 2016
Evgeni Sergeev: That's SNARC. "C" was for "Calculator".
Discussion on Feb 27, 2016
Chris Oestereich: This is my concern. We are children playing with power tools -- blithely unaware of the havoc we might wreak.
Matthew Shaw: Children do wreak havoc. They also create and inspire wonder. Omelettes and eggs and all that.
Ravi Heugle: Chris, I like the poignant analogy but I think that your concern is everyone's concern. The question is whether or not we can build cultures and institutions that allow us to utilize "power tools" ...
2 more...