RE: Hivechess season 8 final result: @sawko wins his 4th title
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
These Arena-berserk tournaments are completely destroying my chess style, but yes, they are fun. :)
0
0
0.000
By the way, congrats to being a Hive-Orca again!
Lol, I really still hate HIVE but cannot leave completely as I like part of the community. :-)
Hate is kind of strong, isn't it? Come on, Hive is cool! :)
HIVE is not a person, so I cannot really 'hate' it. :)
Concerning the underlying technology it's actually rather amazing.
However, it is not dencentralized at all: there are like (roughly) 20 accounts who completely control the network and loyally support each other, vote each other as 'top' witnesses, decide, which proposals are approved, borrow each other their posting keys (for example to mask whom they support or flag), delegate HP to each other and anonymous accounts which they created themselves.
Furthermore most of them earned their wealth on STEEM by either being early miners in 2016 or bid bot owners who got paid (and very rich) for upvoting non quality posts, which is in my opinion one of the main reasons why STEEM failed to be successful.
Some of the biggest bidbot abusers, curation reward snipers and profit maximizers are pretending now to protect HIVE against spam and low quality content ...
The facts above make it nearly impossible for other users to break into this exclusive oligarchs club and have any influence.
Some of them even attacked Splinterlands, the only really successful dapp on HIVE, because it was created by a newcomer not belonging to the 'club' - it seems they had the fear to lose their power monopoly.
Of course users can earn money here (especially if they praise HIVE) as long as they don't get in conflict with the reigning class of HIVE.
Well, it's fine if you think HIVE was "cool". I have nothing against different opinions.
Oooo this confuses me a little bit hive is it good or bad ? I am new here and it seems to me a pretty friendly social network although as I understand it is much more than that I keep learning new things the truth is that there is a lot of knowledge to assimilate I believe that there is no perfect technology always the human factor is present.
As you are new here, for now I suggest you to just enjoy your HIVE experience without worrying too much about HIVE politics.
Wow, you are a critical person. That's a good thing.
On the topic, if true, it doesn't sound new to me, it sounds like typical politics to me. Even having a senate as a political institution is no guarantee that citizens are "represented", as if they have a real voice. Opting for "participatory democracy", which is the alternative, usually leads to other kinds of vices. Nor does it work well in the long run (look at my country, for example). Besides, people will accuse you of populism and communism if you try it.
Personally, after reading Arrow's paper about how the democratic voting system is mathematically flawed to consequently express people's preferences when you have more than two choices/candidates, I too lost my expectations about the power of democracy (LOL), but as a society we need political institutions to operate, don't we? (unless you argue from anarchism). Democracy is also preferable to dictatorship.
This also reminds me of the question of free will from the point of view of physics and philosophy. Our universe is deterministic, so why do we bother arguing about free will? Aren't our decisions already intrinsically determined? Well, we also need to pretend that free will exists for practical purposes. If you rob someone, you can't blame the laws of physics. You have to pay for it somehow. Maybe in jail where you can graduate to a criminal degree (irony intended) or maybe by working for the victim's family, as dictated by some sort of "primitive" legislation of some aboriginal peoples I heard about, which in my opinion is superior to Napoleonic Roman law in that regard.
Maybe I should have written all this in a post.
Lol, double post and not deletable because anybody voted on it automatically ...
Concerning democracy I think it only wins if people are educated enough and interested in politics, otherwise one cannot expect them to make wise selections/decisions, and in these cases I wouldn't talk of swarm intelligence but "swarm stupidity". :)
As dictatorship also can't be a solution (even in case of intelligent dictators like in China) I have another idea:
Concerning HIVE it's not a democracy anyway, but an oligarchy with oligarchs supporting each other. Not expertise decides but money. I don't say other places on earth or in the internet would be better in average, but that doesn't change my point of view to only spend energy in a social network which I like and whose political structures hopefully work much better than the ones of an average place on this planet.
The problem was the beginning with early mining and later bid bots.
Look for example at Splinterlands where power is distributed much more evenly than in HIVE ...
I hope we will see better blockchain based social networks than HIVE in futre, maybe on the Cardano blockchain ... but only time will tell.
I doubt that a quantum physicist would stringently agree with this statement ... imagine alone the discussion about 'deterministic probabilities'.
Concerning a "free will", apart from your interesting thoughts, what would that actually/exactly be at all? Would be a "will" created by biochemical interaction of molecules less 'free' (less me?) than a will resulting of an immaterial 'soul' a 'spirit' or whatever else?
Some say "Some of our decisions can be forseen by examining/analysing your brain before you yourself know about them." I answer "Well but these unconscious processes before I consciously met any decision are also part of me, I am these biochemical processes leading to my decisions. :)
What an interesting discussion here!
I actually think too that our free will is an illusion and a social concept so that communities can work better together (like religion is also such a concept). It comes down to the question "What is you?" If only the part of you that has this remnant free will due to the Brown´s molecular movement (or some subatomic stochastic processes) is the one to "choose" then it might be a free will technically, but not in common sense.
Another explanation is the matrix theory which I find quite interesting. Is it so unlikely that in a far future whole planets or moons could be turned into gigantic computers who run such simulations? Is it not plausible that our ancestors would do such research in lack of physical objects? It could be routine research in a subject called "virtual archeology". Maybe in parallel to our simulation another one is running where e.g. Hitler has won the WW2 or where the exploding powder or the lightbulb were never invented?
I've also heard of the idea of the universe as a huge computer simulation. For me, as a professor of computer science, it's easy to entertain it, but for now I place it more in the realm of speculation. Others are more critical and label it as pseudoscience.
Of course speculation, but it is difficult (if not possible) to disprove :)
Pseudoscience is possible to be proven wrong, is it?
Yes, also when it is unfalsifiable, as when there are no circumstances in which it could be proved wrong.
I actually disagree ...
In general science 'believes' in things because there is evidence that they are true/exist (because of experiments, observations, calculations etc.).
Science doesn't believe in things only because they are not refutable/nobody had enough time to refute them (I wrote something about this topic in my old posts about the "God gene").
It's nearly impossible to refute everything which anybody claims everywhere (it's far more easy to claim anything then to prove/refute it). :)
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like interesting speculations. I actually also like to speculate and imagine bizarre things myself.
I think your idea is interesting but at the same time speculation (and not refutable). :)
I can't stand politicians either, I'm always telling that to my family :D It's hard to imagine a society without political institutions, though, at least from the conventional view of politics. I have heard some alternative views coming out of anarchism as a doctrine of political philosophy. The idea of rejecting political institutions is often associated with left-wing thinking, where political power is typically seen as domination, as something bad. But there are also right-wing thinkers who see the state as an abuser, so-called liberalists, and so on. So you shouldn't be taken as a communist for proposing that idea. Nowadays those words (communism, neoliberalism) btw are more used by the common people to insult other people than to ponder their ideas, but I don't see them that way.
Swarm stupidity is a serious issue. I often come across Bunge's lectures on political philosophy and so on and he talks about "political stupidity as a universal problem". People are often attracted to bad candidates. What you propose is called Epistocracy (government by knowledgeable). It is not technically the same as democracy as it is seen today because, as you say, not everyone has equal voting weight. Only those who demonstrate competence in the subject matter are allowed to vote. Some might argue that this violates democratic principles such as horizontality and equality of citizens to exercise their political rights, but ironically today there are many practical ways in which those principles are also violated in democracy. For example, in my country the dictatorship fabricated a voting system for the "Constituent" where some people could vote twice (while others could not) and where proportional representation was broken, since some municipalities could elect more deputies despite having less inhabitants than other municipalities. Similar things happen in very "democratic" countries like the USA where people do not elect their president, but an electoral college that votes for them. Ironically this was invented to combat "swarm stupidity" but it clearly violates the principle of proportional representation since some states have much more inhabitants than others.
Yes. These new technologies may prove useful in improving things, although since this is not a technical problem alone, we have a lot of things to fix as well.
I know Hive isn't a democracy, but as far as I know there is or was an internal voting system to elect witnesses isn't there? I think I still have the two witnesses I voted for a few years ago. It's the voting system reminiscent of the democratic voting system I'm talking about. But I don't buy it anymore because of what I said about Arrow's theorem. We are supposed to choose 20 witnesses, so that's more than 2 choices. In this scenario, the real wishes of the people will not be properly balanced and represented.
Interesting. I didn't know of that blockchain.
The idea of deterministic probabilities exists. In short it has to do with the law of large numbers. Quantum Mechanics is certainly a source of pure random phenomena, but discussing whether or not it tributes to determinism depends on the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. In some interpretations the universe remains deterministic.
It's an interesting point of view, but I would reply that you as the conscious being are the dependent variable. Free will has to do with conscious decisions. So, the biochemical processes dominate over you, not the other way around :) It is the Copenhagen interpretation that has given rise to these disturbing ideas about consciousness collapsing the wave function, determining states and affecting physical processes. Most physicists prefer to avoid this idea that consciousness determines things.
I mention them because they would make my idea possible to let everybody vote over the internet, using his smart phone without the fear of manipulation (due to transparent block explorers etc.). They also would make it possible to determine via smart contracts the vote weight of every single person in the world depending on the respective election topic (even proofs of identity & university degrees etc. could be saved on the blockchain like Cardano is trying in Ehtiopia).
Sure, but as the biggest few accounts have much more voting power than everybody else and also vote for each other (plus are doing several things about which I wrote for example in my first comment), they completely control the platform.
Furthermore, most of them are not even investors but simply early miners and former bid bot owners.
Well, ADA, the token running on it, is the fifth biggest crypto currency.
I suggest you to read this interview about social media.
In some interpretations the universe remains deterministic.
I think that would be a completely whole complex topic to try to decide and find some consent about if or if not or to which degree the universe was deterministic ...
They are me ... so you say I dominate over myself? :)
Conscious is kind of a second instance of evaluating things, but in my opinion (which I stick with as long as proven wrong) it is (seems to be?) a product of nothing else than biochemistry (which doesn't make it less fascinting).
Sounds good. It could well represent the beginning of another technological revolution :)
Interesting. I've to learn a lot more about the crypto world. Thanks for the recommendation.
The truth is determinism and randomness are part of models which have proven to work well. So, for philosophers of science and scientists to argue for both is not a problem. It's also true that hardcore scientists don't care about free will and don't put it in anywhere in their theories. I say hardcore scientists because I've learned that in other fields of science (I guess it also depends on some epistemology considerations), especially in social science, they're more open to resort to theistic or supernatural explanations.
This is getting tricky as you are mixing the issue of identity with that of free will, it's very broad. I think you are trying to argue for free will from a physicalistic and materialistic point of view, where we intermingle our own identity with particles, matter, etc. since we assume that what really exists is matter and physical phenomena.
But the funny thing is that to accept the fact that physical processes dominate over our decisions is certainly to deny the existence of free will as it was originally seen, i.e., as an independent capacity of ours. I have learned that some philosophers have even redefined free will after learning about or accepting the factual influence of determinism and randomness in nature. They now think that free will is the ability to make decisions despite not being aware of their existence or something like that. Ok, there will always be different ways to redefine some things, but in the process, that concept stopped being what it originally meant and sometimes it's better to leave it than to fabricate ways to make it fit. It is unnecessary for basic science and for understanding the world. We can keep it as a social construct and argue for its existence only for practical purposes IMO.
Independent of what?
Of physics and chemistry?
But asumed something like a 'soul' or a 'spirit' would exist independently of the rest of our bodies, then who knew that the decisions of this 'soul' or 'spirit' would be less deterministic than biochemical processes? :)
I personally don't know what a 'free will' should actually be?(!)
My will, my decisions are the product of the interaction of molecules, which (and the way they interact) again are a product of my genes an environmental influences. That altogether makes me, my body and personality.
(That's how I see things, and according to my current knowledge and the current state of science there is nothing else, like for example an independent soul etc.)
Independently from the (also among scientists) open(!) discussion if things (and the universe) are deterministic ... even if they weren't deterministic: would that make my will 'free'?
If free or not: for any reason I come to my decisions and conclusions, where one among them is that I don't like how HIVE works. :-)
I am only making the case for free will as an illusion from a natural point of view. Since you said that you "make decisions" because of the mere biochemical processes that you are also part of, then I added that ontologically approaching free will (making decisions) from physicalism and materialism wouldn't quite work either, because it's actually contradictory.
So I found your statement about you "being those biochemical processes leading to your decisions" somewhat confusing, where in this context "you" is understood as the agent making those decisions, hence the agent with free will. So, on a very technical and fundamental level of nature, we are not making any decisions because everything is determined or random. But I see that by "making decisions" you didn't mean that you have free will, but it's a bit of a confusing argument, maybe because of the flexibility of the language in this context but also after bringing up and relating that with the ideas about physicalism and materialism too :D
OK, I know I am somewhat hairsplitting now:
I think that is/was your interpretation of my words (maybe because you are accustomed to see people argue in a certain way). :)
I don't see the "you" (my identity) as a separated thing from the "biochemical processes" which are leading to decisions. That's why I wrote they "are" me.
(By the way English not to be my mother tongue doesn't make a discussion like this one easier ...)
So you wouldn't call decisions "decisons" as soon as they are a deterministic result (or the result of 'deterministic probabilities') of biochemical processes? ;-)
I would add something like "apparent" somewhere, for example, since in this context someone making decisions (regardless of whether they look at themselves materialistically) is the same as exercising free will. Maybe something like: "I am the product of these biochemical processes leading to apparent decisions" or something like that. Like I said, that's valid mostly in a very fundamental level of nature and I got what you mean :)
same, but at least I have the opportunity to play with some really strong players.