[NetBehaviour] Epistemic Accelerationism [Was Re: Accelerationism]

[Rob Myers]

On 29/04/16 06:51 PM, erik zepka wrote:
> 
> And when the questions, as both Ruth
> and Alan have effectively talked about, get to a realm of inhuman
> problematics, ecological, species-threatening, who should advise then? 

Deodands:

https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/392/deodands-dacs-for-natural-systems

;-)

> We could at least say that for every categorical norm (a type of person,
> a type of organism, a type of biosphere) there's an exception and that
> considering that exception can help expand the norm.

Or create new separate or superseding norms. The revision of norms over
time, and avoiding local contradictions between them, is a key part of
the sources of epistemic accelerationism - Sellars, Brandom, etc. .

The current work on the "Casper" algorithm for Ethereum may end up as a
realisation in code of this kind of local-within-the-global consensus.

> If we imagined an
> accelerationist advisory committee (maybe this is one), whatever our
> question, it might choose to attempt to make accountable whatever
> accelerationism then meant or did - the advisory committee then itself
> might be considered normative, but it doesn't subtract from the fact
> that it might have been a sober move within a given context.

The Manifesto is against *fetishising* democratic proceduralism.

As Ordinaryism points out, sometimes to increase our knowledge we do
have to listen to other people.

But as Big Data point outs, what people *do* is a better indicator than
what they *say*. We are increasingly able to reason about both using
computing machinery. Epistemic accelerationism may ultimately lead to
the automation of philosophy, although this is not a sufficient or
necessary destiny for it.

It would be difficult to regard this as impossible at the same time as
(for example) criticising algorithms for being racist.