Would a MID interface with Individuals as such (that is as human beings) or with cybernetic “personas” that any given human being could create, develop a reputation for, and destroy without limitation?
The Harvard blueprint suggests that MIDs are self-organizing groups in the widest array of businesses, non-profit think tanks, academia, artistic guilds, the free press, and even sports teams to name just a few. Indeed, it appears that billions have already been invested in MIDs, although that investment is scattered because there is no underlying legal framework to connect all “MID ecospheres” and thus lift the burdens of content curation and data verification away from centralized siren servers. The sum total knowledge of any MID is mathematically greater than the data creators (individual personas) of which said MIDs are composed. In this future model of society, it is presumed that curated and verified data has a greater value to all global societies served by said data. The curious global rise of the phenomenon known as “fake news” is empirical evidence that curated and verified data is desirable to all cultures because intuitively, if it’s news it’s not fake, and if it’s fake it’s not news.
In contrast, individual personas (a.k.a., internet aliases) already exist to create un-curated and unverified data which is currently scattered across the internet. Facebook and Twitter’s deletion of “fake accounts” serves as empirical evidence that internet aliases do in fact exist. The basis of the blueprint is that individual personas would be drawn to becoming members of MIDs to both create and have access to curated and verified data. Supply and demand suggests that some MIDs might be harder to join than others, depending on the economic value of their contributions, something analogous to becoming a partner in a prestigious law firm. So with an “electronic legal framework” connecting all MID organizations (a.k.a. epistemic ecospheres) to all individuals (ecospheres of internet personas), all acting as “legal firewalls” to all related social and professional MID memberships, an automated legal protection is created for both the MID as a group, as well as the individual personas who both contribute to and benefit from said MIDs (whether only a consumer of said MID knowledge, or both a consumer and contributor of curated and verified knowledge).
The Harvard blueprint lacks an underlying framework (whose legal existence is relegated to an ecosphere on the unregulated internet) automatically connecting all MIDs to all individual personas by design. The blueprint is skeptical that blockchain decentralization can offer “the bargaining power or informational security required to obtain a fair deal for data creators.” The blueprint suggests a legal structure which it does not define. “A MID should be a true fiduciary [in a legal sense] for individuals who create data or from whom data is measured.” In contrast, only artificial intelligence may be the true fiduciary of all individual personas to protect, organize, and manage all of their own knowledge bases (symbolic, tacit, cultural, and intuitive) inside each of their own individual inter-connected ecospheres. The criteria which would permit any human to become any internet alias and interact with all relevant MIDs is thus dependent on “virtual Constitutional” rights defining, in circumspect, the persona’s legal relation to those MIDs, a jurisdiction constrained to and inherent from the internet.
To understand it all in its broadest sense, it is crucial to compare a virtual model wherein any human of any social or professional talent (to any degree on a sliding scale) is permitted to represent himself or herself as any type of authority in any field of knowledge in all social and professional cultural models of society (a.k.a., in all non-virtual nation States). It is crucial to understand that the virtual cyberspace of the internet is the only “place that has been in existence since the 1950’s” wherein a human can claim to be an authority in any field of knowledge not first obtained from a non-virtual nation State brick and mortar school or local culture. The “school of the internet” is a virtual library that is un-comparable to any classical school, and the culture (from a first person perspective) is not local but rather global from a first and second order of sociocybernetics. In this video, George Gilder of the Discovery Institute think tank summarizes it all by explaining “Life After Google, The Fall of Big Data And The Rise Of The Blockchain Economy.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cidZRD3NzHg
Comment posting has been disabled on this doc.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Would a MID interface with Individuals as such (that is as human beings) or with cybernetic “personas” that any given human being could create, develop a reputation for, and destroy without limitation?
The Harvard blueprint suggests that MIDs are self-organizing groups in the widest array of businesses, non-profit think tanks, academia, artistic guilds, the free press, and even sports teams to name just a few. Indeed, it appears that billions have already been invested in MIDs, although that investment is scattered because there is no underlying legal framework to connect all “MID ecospheres” and thus lift the burdens of content curation and data verification away from centralized siren servers. The sum total knowledge of any MID is mathematically greater than the data creators (individual personas) of which said MIDs are composed. In this future model of society, it is presumed that curated and verified data has a greater value to all global societies served by said data. The curious global rise of the phenomenon known as “fake news” is empirical evidence that curated and verified data is desirable to all cultures because intuitively, if it’s news it’s not fake, and if it’s fake it’s not news.
In contrast, individual personas (a.k.a., internet aliases) already exist to create un-curated and unverified data which is currently scattered across the internet. Facebook and Twitter’s deletion of “fake accounts” serves as empirical evidence that internet aliases do in fact exist. The basis of the blueprint is that individual personas would be drawn to becoming members of MIDs to both create and have access to curated and verified data. Supply and demand suggests that some MIDs might be harder to join than others, depending on the economic value of their contributions, something analogous to becoming a partner in a prestigious law firm. So with an “electronic legal framework” connecting all MID organizations (a.k.a. epistemic ecospheres) to all individuals (ecospheres of internet personas), all acting as “legal firewalls” to all related social and professional MID memberships, an automated legal protection is created for both the MID as a group, as well as the individual personas who both contribute to and benefit from said MIDs (whether only a consumer of said MID knowledge, or both a consumer and contributor of curated and verified knowledge).
The Harvard blueprint lacks an underlying framework (whose legal existence is relegated to an ecosphere on the unregulated internet) automatically connecting all MIDs to all individual personas by design. The blueprint is skeptical that blockchain decentralization can offer “the bargaining power or informational security required to obtain a fair deal for data creators.” The blueprint suggests a legal structure which it does not define. “A MID should be a true fiduciary [in a legal sense] for individuals who create data or from whom data is measured.” In contrast, only artificial intelligence may be the true fiduciary of all individual personas to protect, organize, and manage all of their own knowledge bases (symbolic, tacit, cultural, and intuitive) inside each of their own individual inter-connected ecospheres. The criteria which would permit any human to become any internet alias and interact with all relevant MIDs is thus dependent on “virtual Constitutional” rights defining, in circumspect, the persona’s legal relation to those MIDs, a jurisdiction constrained to and inherent from the internet.
To understand it all in its broadest sense, it is crucial to compare a virtual model wherein any human of any social or professional talent (to any degree on a sliding scale) is permitted to represent himself or herself as any type of authority in any field of knowledge in all social and professional cultural models of society (a.k.a., in all non-virtual nation States). It is crucial to understand that the virtual cyberspace of the internet is the only “place that has been in existence since the 1950’s” wherein a human can claim to be an authority in any field of knowledge not first obtained from a non-virtual nation State brick and mortar school or local culture. The “school of the internet” is a virtual library that is un-comparable to any classical school, and the culture (from a first person perspective) is not local but rather global from a first and second order of sociocybernetics. In this video, George Gilder of the Discovery Institute think tank summarizes it all by explaining “Life After Google, The Fall of Big Data And The Rise Of The Blockchain Economy.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cidZRD3NzHg