vinay on identity

vinay on identity

adding page this day:

quote by vinay via fb share by jon:

found here: [https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/part-i-are-you-sure-you-exist-we-are-5cfe13ab488c]

<< It seems that whatever toolkit we approach identity with — art, philosophy, psychology, esoteric yoga, whatever it happens to be for any given person — there is no simple, clear, pat answer which holds true for a lifetime.

For people that do “find themselves” (whatever that means) the result may be a higher quality of life and a less turbulent mind, less self-doubt or similar benefits, but they never quite seem to be able to explain what it is that they found, much less how a third party might find it.

You probably don’t know who you are. And if you do, you probably can’t tell me about it in a way that communicates it to me.

And we’re supposed to write software about this???! >>

what we need to write software for is to listen for daily itch/curiosity/fittingness.. and then use that to augment our interconnectedness

ie: 2 convers as infra

tech as it could be

___________

notes from id page on whole article:

vinay on id (2017)

‘You probably don’t know who you are. And if you do, you probably can’t tell me about it in a way that communicates it to me. And we’re supposed to write software about this?’ – @leashless medium.com/humanizing-the…

perhaps we need to write software to listen for daily itch/curiosity/fittingness.. and then use that as data to augment our interconnectedness

ie: 2 convers as infra

tech as it could be

The case that I’m going to make is that the identity debate is magnetically drawn to two opposing poles:

  • Humans as things identified by their bodies, vs
  • Humans as intangible, ever-shifting narrative beings.

Our challenge, in creating software to enable people to use or manifest their identity, is that to do either job well results in problems. On one hand, a world in which people are things and are serialized and tracked like all other things. On the other hand, a liquid world in which defrauding Grandma on eBay never, ever feeds back to a person’s dating profile, even after convictions.

perhaps not if we let daily curiosity be our id.. and we practice gershenfeld something else law

Our job, as software engineers working on identity, is first to be philosophers — phenomenologists and epistemologists — to understand the abstraction that we hope to represent.

What is a person, and how do I identify one to a computer?.. the sum of all the roles we play seems to fall short of describing the totality of our identity.

again.. rather/better to just id daily curiosity and use that to augment our interconnectedness

ie: 2 convers as infra

tech as it could be

4 ie’s: credit ratings, social networks, names, surveillance databases

all seem inhumane.. except maybe social networks.. but need to realize current social networks are built/created with/by whales in sea world.. so non legit as well

part 2 – the art of the impossible.. what can we describe

daily curiosity as only label we need (to get back to us in an undisturbed ecosystem)

part 3 – id’s we can all live with – he suggests profiles and actions

perhaps let’s consider something deeper.. ie: curiosity as only label

because what the world needs most is the energy of 7bn alive people.. and it seems anything other than daily curiosity is a distraction to that.. and exponentiatingly ginormous distraction .. begging the need for ongoing inspectors of inspectors et al

_________

more from vinay’s page:

dec 2015

Another thousand words on the end of the Identity piece

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pfwCTsY08HMrwijOhDRlgraGewoS_g3nQsdnE4LjopQ/edit#

(at the end, the Biometrics and Blockchains section)

The piece is turning into a right old grind, but I feel that when all is said and done it will really help clarify the space and help things

The case that I’m going to make is that the identity debate is magnetically drawn to two opposing poles:

Humans as things identified by their bodies, vs

Humans as intangible, ever-shifting narrative beings.

Our challenge, in creating software to enable people to use or manifest their identity,..

so www ness..imagining something like blockchain (only because vinay is *saying it’s the means to get databases and networks to dance) used as a facilitator/scraper of data (from self-talk as data) to pool on some…. type… platform ish.. app/chip ness

On one hand, a world in which people are things and are serialized and tracked like all other things. On the other hand, a liquid world in which defrauding Grandma on eBay never, ever feeds back to a person’s dating profile, even after convictions.

on the other hand.. everyone so busydoing something else and grounded by everyone ness… ie: have to have everyone…. to have ps in the open and io dance ness.

deeper w/.. in the city. as the day. .. ie: alex getting me to try out a placebo chip ness… otherwise agenda is baked in..

There is something in the whole which is beyond description.

[..]

p4

If we are, in some sense, our relationships, and our relationships (at least some of them) only exist on Facebook, then something very odd indeed is happening to our identity.

add note here on doc:

perhaps a magnification of what’s been going on for years..no?  wilde et at – most people are other people. so not only have we gotten to a grave not-us ness.. most things we see as problems (that we then spend our days pre-figuring/pre-cautioning) are a result of that. perhaps we keep missing that instead.. they could be counted as irrelevant.

so thinkg.. way beyond fb.. ie: science of people in schools ness.. perpetuate/ing not us ness. in desperate need of detox.. where we can be still enough to hear/be ourselves.. not because of selfishness.. because that’s what the world needs most. each one of us matters to oneness..

so perhaps.. again.. self-talk as data.. via some app/chip is our mechanism simple enough..

p 6

I want to posit that there is simply no solution to these questions without building out a really extensive new theory of identity, and that such a theory is going to have to compromise with the philosophical abyss presented by the gap between who we think and feel we are, and the identities that the world generates for us on a more-or-less ad-hoc basis, without our say so or so much as a by-your-leave other than, perhaps, accepting an occasional EULA.

yes. let’s. systemic change… leap frog even.. to a nother way to live.

p 10

You could even argue that the IP address is providing much the same kind of accountability. But, in practice, there are so many users and so few administrators, and such unwillingness to go after abuse that – unless the matter is criminal, and in many cases, even if it is criminal – there’s simply nobody to go to.

perhaps why it won’t work unless it’s everyone.. and unless everyone is free to do something else

p 14

We cannot actually manage the reputation databases all that well – scandal, hearsay and gossip penetrate into people’s record far too easily – and if these systems have something resembling the weight of law (at least common law) in everyday life, there are clearly huge consequences to even the occasional accidental false report, or intentional and malicious contamination of the history data.

The better able we are able to identify people, the more certain we must be that the identity databases which back up those conclusions are flawless.

I don’t think that’s going to be an easy job at all.

why are we identifying people.. seems just for justice/punishment.. et al…

ie: most of doc seems to be focused on how to take care of badness/bad guys.. well what if we get to the root of that instead… call bad/ness irrelevant..

then perhaps… not so hard..

I strongly suspect that the paradoxical nature of DNA – as an identifier, but also as deep insight into the biology and possibly psychology of the person identified – is going to be a defining quandary of the 21st century. As our tools rapidly evolve to allow us to use DNA, can business, government and society keep up and create countervailing protections and indirections, keeping us safe from the transparent nature of at least some of our genes?

again – ps in the open ness. what if business, govt .. society… is totally not us. what if we make them irrelevant.. make privacy.. security.. irrelevant.

p 15

The same kind of biometric hashing can be applied to fingerprints, iris scans and various other kinds of measurements of the body, with differing degrees of success, confidence and precision.

getting us back to beginning…

The case that I’m going to make is that the identity debate is magnetically drawn to two opposing poles:

Humans as things identified by their bodies, vs

Humans as intangible, ever-shifting narrative beings.

p 18

The “public profile on a blockchain” model just does not seem to have the kinds of properties we want our societies to have: it’s the wrong kind of transparency. There’s an essay at least this length on different kinds of transparency. It’s probably already been written by somebody who sees the world mainly through that lens:

perhaps we’re looking for the wrong thing.. perhaps we look instead to what we could be doing with our day.. all of us. and trust that. so that we don’t have to pre-figure, pre-plan, pre-caution,… our days away..

p 20

I would say, rather, that we need to shun computer systems that make us think such things are needed.

indeed.

_ _

tweets (i picked out) from a stream dec 21

Creative distress is distressing. The identity piece I’ve been working on is driving me mad. I’ve got 2 conclusions docs.google.com/document/d/1pf 

Reification is a complex word: compare en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati… to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati… But it is super important in the identity debate

So the identity we want in blockchain land is a history of my actions, and the continuation of this record, not a third party profile of me.

Obviously my own account of my actions must be partial: I am a subjective entity But partial-and-proven is stronger than partial-and-passing

But this is only fully compelling in an environment where speech acts are performative and need nobody to validate them.

self-talk as data. never provable. but closer than we are now.. because everyone would be more themself from doing something else.. as the day. trust that that’s enough. [avedon truth law]

idiosyncratic jargon.. keeping those not really interested in you.. from messing with you.. but again.. that’s minimal if taken w/in game plan of a nother way..

___

dna as a template of our being…

in Siddhartha‘s – emperor of maladies.. perhaps our dna’s are cancerous enough that we need to create a rna – artificial/augmented identity.. detox\ing us back to us.. facilitating the chaos of getting us back to natrualness… back to self-organizing ness

____

The second is that I’m wired for very tight relationships with quite small numbers of people. I need to see inside their heads to trust them

self-talk as data.. culture of trust... back from the day care centers..

 

__________

Advertisements