W: Whilst embodied identities maintain a formal highly structural and therefore rigid set of indicators, defined primarily as body, gender etc., our virtual identities are factually indicated in a fluid manner and thus pertain to the flaccid designators category. The initial condition of the human thus has changed and can no longer be theorized based on immovable objects of identity. What the Polytopian stance suggests is that our virtual identities are in fact social entities in and of themselves allowing a co-present, inter-subjective, hyper-connected, state of affairs, radically rewriting the codes of social encounters.
I find the idea that plastic identity is a stepping stone to virtual minds very much worth exploring. I am of the opinion that the singularity (the version where we upload our brains) is not likely to be successful, as minds without an embodiment constraint to force them to stay integrated would disintegrate - a post singularity insanity, if you will. If we are to survive the transition it will require that we gain skills in managing multiple sub and supra-identities. We must become comfortable being a somewhat redundant aggregation and randomization function.
When considering platform design for identity systems or systems which depend on identity, it is advisable to think carefully about the emergent properties of the structures underpinning the system. In this regard I completely agree that the designs should specifically avoid rigid designators wherever they are unnecessary. I don't agree that banking is a good example of appropriate use of rigid designators, though the dating site example is valid re gender (though gender on a spectrum, a slider if you will rather than a checkbox). Banking requires a stable, verifiable identity, not a bio person linked one. It is rather governments that require bio person identities for the purposes of taxation and control. It is also my shared concern with yours that identity cards for the internet are extraordinary inappropriate for the medium, and that increasingly the old institutions will criminalize new behaviors until a revolution ushers in the new age (see debates around bitcoin, internet anonymity).
This is a nice thought, but I am unsure of the ability to enforce, except through moral suasion. I expect human beings in general are not capable of using designators purely empirically. This is why, including in your project, it is often necessary to use esoteric language to be very specific about meaning, avoiding common vernacular is it is overloaded. This naturally makes the exercise more exclusive and less capable of viral spread. The ties between language and thought (causal or not) imply word coinage may be necessary to combine the virtues of simplicity and non-traceability.
This is the theme of any new conceptual context, that the old metaphors are recreated in the new medium, until such time as the new medium finds its own 'true' expression. Witness documents and folders on computers. The key is to introduce the new metaphors in a way that can catch on, such that we do not become limited in an essentially free medium to the constraints that exist only in our collective conciousness.
This is a beautifully made point. Again it is based on trying to represent old metaphors in the new medium. Having paper on your computer screen and wondering why you cannot tear it or dog ear the corners, missing entirely the new affordances of the medium.
I wonder whether you are making the obvious point of intelligent agents being extensions of their creators but existing in a context unknown or even unknowable by their creators, and the responsibility tracing back to the originator (say a virus and its author), or a rather broader implication that even simple representation in the virtual space has an element of indeterminacy about it - that the context and interactions the avatar has with its surroundings make it something other than an extension of self - I also wonder about the responsibility attached to the butterfly that flaps its wings for the hurricane half way around the world, not all emergence is unknowable - please comment
I do very much like the use of originator rather than owner as it reflects the fluid interests in a particular avatar or representation that become more distributed with time and interaction. This is another design feature of interest for a social platform.
This is a fascinating theme and intuitively satisfying. What is the intelligence you are referring to here? The projection of identity? Directed causation? how does this definition
map to your flows?
A lovely softening of the hard lines of object centric sociality, a gestalt figure and background swapping from traditional social networking models.
So you think facebook sucks a priori :) I would agree this would be a fascinating design for a social network. Certainly it can merely be a usage, but as a meta layer of semantics, much more powerful / dangerous .. do you dare to eat a peach?
This is a key point, that our acceptance of greater degrees of ambiguity through the virtualization of identity is the training ground for cyborgization / mind upload is compelling.
Indeterminacy and ambiguity leads not only to greater freedom but to more natural action. Perhaps this also implies a movement towards the now, disengagement from the past and future, a simple engagement with the present not cluttered by temporal norms of identity behavior (ie consistency, alignment).
There seems to be a theme of intelligence and identity being closely linked, I wonder if you could elaborate on the nature of this relationship. Moreover, once the imperative grouping function of the body is no longer a constraint, and for example minds are all uploaded (as an extreme example) whither this relationship? Are stable forms now more akin to attractors in a chaotic flow than the bio-stabilized identities we now employ?
Thank you as always for the stimulation.