Necessary for what, though? We need the shared value(s) before we can ask what response we'd get from the convergence on something that might be necessary to adhere to that value. Is the shared value that biology on this planet should be preserved and the thing we need to do is impossible? Or perhaps the shared value that all "lower forms of life" were simply stepping stones to the human organism, but to preserve the human organism is impossible? Etc.
As Jon likes to ask: What are we optimizing? If we can't agree on that, then the responses to impossibilities will be as diverse as the values that underlie those impossibilities. And, if that's the case, then we're back to the clustering/homogenizing we see in any aspect of pop culture. On 1/24/22 17:21, David Eric Smith wrote:
In a real situation where we decided something was necessary that we believed there was no way to do, somehow I feel like the same movie doesn’t become the response. Something else does. What is that?
On 1/24/22 17:34, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Before I launch into a diatribe about why the hell we can't agree to basic, never mind interesting things:
-- glen Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
