Fwd: "priority users" in F2F altruist economics

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

fyi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante....@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Subject: "priority users" in F2F altruist economics
To: Robin

in a f2f altruist economics,

priority users become friends of friends... ?

could there also be other models in a f2f, where priority users are supporters of intentions ?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante....@gmail.com> wrote:

Folloying up on the last message on concurrency, where "priority users" are being mentionned ( which relates to an understanding of property ? )

I realize that even in a "altruistic" approach,

even in the case where users may sacrifice themselves ( till what point ? ) to enable an intention, ( which each of us seems to be doing ? :)  )

there may be a point where there might be concurrency,

in the sense that there might be "priority intentions". ( such as "live or die" ? )

Hence altruists need to be able to evaluate, autonomously, what their priorities are, in a situation of scarcity, even if their priority is not based on direct self interest ?

Would this lead an altruist to choose to develop an individualist approach, as to ensure sustainability of altruism, in certain contexts ?  Or does an altruist meme self preserve itself best through surrendering to death ?

Or is it rather that altruists may focus priority of intention on developing tools to facilitate non-scarcity ( sufficiency or abundance ) through reclaiming fruits of inter-dependency ?

But if there is concurrency in the inter-dependency, 

then what is the strategy ?

An autonomous altruist strategy sacrifying itself ( without dying ? ) to enable autonomous inter-dependency ? 

Creating autonomy at a subset level ?

Expanding the network ?

Cutting off the network ?

Creating a new network ?

Creating non dependent dependencies through... distributed networks ??? 

and if it does not succeed, rather die then to resort to non-altruist approaches ?

Or are there then "priority users" that emerge within a "priority intention" ( when certain users are best able to enable the survival of a priority intention ),

related to an altruistic strategy ?

Is death of a user acceptable ? ... in an altruistic strategy... ?  

The difference being that such death can not be imposed, but needs to be chosen by the user itself ? Through its own autonomous choice based on its context awareness ?

Is it a "viable" strategy ? Does it enable a better fitness of the altruistic meme compared to non-altruistic memes  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) ) ?

Do we know of mechanisms that reward such approach ?

Or would it create a deadlock till all users find a strategy to preserve all life ?

Hence new processes are created to support deadlocking processes ?

Which we may be doing now ?

How does it position itself on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dynamics

Turquoise ?

" 

Turquoise

Holistic

• From 1970s on
• A sacrifice self-interest system which is still forming "

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante....@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Robin for your reply

after reading it,

I went back onto wikipedia, reading the definition of altruism again,

realizing that I really like that concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

then i questioned myself on the definition of "individualism" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism ,

and then "autonomy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy

and a few more,

comparing also the differences between cooperation and collaboration.

http://delicious.com/deliciousdante/principles

Some time ago, I was thinking about using the words "Collaborative Individualists",

and now ask myself, using examples like this one,

what would be the difference with "Autonomous Altruists" ?

---

Then I start thinking, what is the difference between "cooperative individualists" and "collaborative individualists",  realizing that there might be more of a focus on shared intention in a "collaborative" compared to "cooperative",

and then compare it again with "Autonomous Altruists".

--

I recall 

http://p2pfoundation.net/Introduction_on_Individuality,_Relationality,_and_Collectivity

In conclusion, this turn to the collective that the emergence of peer to peer represent does not in any way present a loss of individuality, even of individualism. Rather it ‘transcends and includes’ individualism and collectivism in a new unity, which I would like to call ‘cooperative individualism’. The cooperativity is not necessarily intentional (i.e. the result of conscious altruism), but constitutive of our being, and the best applications of P2P, are based on this idea.

Michel Bauwens, June 2006

---

thanks Robin for noting the "priority users"

from a point of view,

modes of "priority users" within modes of ownership based on usership look interesting to compare and differentiate with "commons",

especially when users choose to put resources together to create a commons, at a certain level, for a certain amount of time.

I then start thinking, what happens if we set up in such a model, an algorithm where users become "altruists", and may for example "choose to give up their priority" ?

And when applied to "property" definitions, how to prevent giving up of property in a system/algorithm,

of being taken over by a non altruistic property meme ?

Is this what is done through a GPL license ?

Is a GPL license an "altruistic property" ?

But how to apply it to scarce resources ?  How to handle concurrency issues in altruistic modes of property ?

I guess this leads to individual choices.  Emergent governance through individual choices for contributions ?

But how to enable individual choices in a way as to avoid deadlocks in inter-dependent systems ?

What if one ( or more ) "altruistic" agent faces a dilemma as to where to allocate resources in a situation where this situation can create different types of deadlocks ?

Can an agent communicate about it to other agents, can they have a view of it,

can they resolve deadlocks related to interdependency through creating novel solutions ?

Is this what we are doing right now by discussing alternative solutions ?

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Robin U> wrote:

Hi Dante,

what would an "altruists" response be ? to the following context...

When all agents are interdependent, what is altruism ? Tuning into an
understanding that would maximize mutual empowerment ? win-win-win ?
 

Firstly, note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem is a theoretical quandry for computer scientists more than ethicists etc. It's more of an examination question than a moral dilemma AFAIK.

Asymmetry helps to handle this. The first way to handle that springs to my mind (perhaps because I'm influenced by thinking the repationship between commons and current property relationships) is that each resource in 'common use' has a 'priority owner', who has 'superuser' rights to override any other requests, should she choose to exercise it. So it's available for public use until the owner needs it. If someone else is already using it, and you think your need is greater, contact the superuser (owner). They then have a call to give you priority.

It gets more complex for cases where a large item of property is made up of multiple other people's items of property (e.g. my wheels fitted onto your car body, who gets to have a call...) but this is resolvable in priciple (e.g. we agree when we constitute the larger object and make it available for others).

Robin

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson<dante....@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Subject: Sharing of Resources : when multiple users need exclusive access to
shared resources
To: eskerda@
Cc: Alex R, Samuel R


Hi Marc ( cc: Alex )

In relation to PPP

http://www.publicprivateproperty.org/wiki/Main_Page

I realized this could be an interesting situation :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem

" In general the dining philosophers problem is a generic and abstract
problem used for explaining various issues which arise in problems which

hold mutual exclusion<http://wiki/Mutual_exclusion>  as a core idea. The

various kinds of failures these philosophers may experience are analogous to
the difficulties that arise in real computer programming when multiple
programs need exclusive access to shared resources. These issues are studied

in the branch of Concurrent Programming<http://wiki/Concurrent_Programming>.

"


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson<dante....@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Subject: collaborative financial interface ? Re: (con)currency of users
To: Samuel Rose
Cc: agile-...@googlegroups.com, econ...@googlegroups.com


Thanks Sam.

Could we start with a smaller amount of users, which would "play" with a
protocol they can choose to use ?

And , unless it is used through a non digital interface such as some kind of
board game,

can we make the data related to such use of the protocols accessible,
so that that users can build on each other,
such as with wiki's,
while also enable what has been built to use as "circuits"?

In effect, creating some kind of collaborative "interface" for financial
transactions ?

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Samuel R wrote:

 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson

<dante....@gmail.com>  wrote:
   

In effect, I imagine that we can design simple principles ( protocols ? )
that enable
an operating system
"of" users
that enables "concurrency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)
"facilitated" by tools mediated by ICT... ?
     

I've participated in several communities where we've thought of
similar things in the past. It's a vision that probably goes back to
the first networked computers.

What you imagine is possible only if everyone adopts some way of being
a participant which is interoperable with most other participants.
This ecology must first exist before the any architecture or meta
computational paradigm can emerge.

Thus, I still maintain that the primary mission is creating a way for
any single system to talk to others in an understandable way (adopt
some standard/protocol or make one and use it).


--
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samue...@gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://p2pfoundation.net

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan