3 ms·

I can formulate my disagreement with you as a question in the hopes of finding common ground: Here in the US we've seen major political parties completely real

I can formulate my disagreement with you as a question in the hopes of finding common ground: Here in the US we've seen major political parties completely realign themselves, Goldwater conservatives bear more resemblance to today's Democratic party than they do to today's GOP. Doesn't the fact that politics changes, imply that it's a reincarnation of opinion and tribalism, rather than a science rooted in fact (which is immutable)? Not to put words in your mouth, I think the space between us is that I see a separation between policy and politics. I view politics as the science of cultivating power, and policy as something measurable and scientifically testable. Not a matter of opinion. IMO opinion is a reflection of people's inability to commit to statistical facts, and operate using mathematical precision. There is actually no need to make decisions on the basis of opinion, if one has unlimited resources for computation, decisions are just optimization of a Bellman loss.

nomel 4y ago
> I view politics as the science of cultivating power, and policy as something measurable and scientifically testable. My use was definitely loose. I agree, with an additional separation: politics is the science, policy is the reality, and propaganda is a corrupting force, influencing both. I think the science and propaganda are too intertwined to make sense of, leaving the reality as the true signal. I believe that if we were very careful, and removed all data relating to "propaganda" and "political science", while training an AI, and just feed it reality, both the propaganda (the outcome of this policy is "better") and science (this results in this) would be emergent in anything we considered "intelligent". I guess my basic point was that avoiding politics is not possible, because we're living in the result of politics, and an understanding of the abstractions of the world results in politics. It's a strong feedback loop with few degrees of "rational" freedom, causing the emergence. An "intelligence" that could look at policy, and create a scaffolding of understanding for why it was built, wouldn't be "intelligent".

nomel 4y ago

> I view politics as the science of cultivating power, and policy as something measurable and scientifically testable. My use was definitely loose. I agree, with an additional separation: politics is the science, policy is the reality, and propaganda is a corrupting force, influencing both. I think the science and propaganda are too intertwined to make sense of, leaving the reality as the true signal. I believe that if we were very careful, and removed all data relating to "propaganda" and "political science", while training an AI, and just feed it reality, both the propaganda (the outcome of this policy is "better") and science (this results in this) would be emergent in anything we considered "intelligent". I guess my basic point was that avoiding politics is not possible, because we're living in the result of politics, and an understanding of the abstractions of the world results in politics. It's a strong feedback loop with few degrees of "rational" freedom, causing the emergence. An "intelligence" that could look at policy, and create a scaffolding of understanding for why it was built, wouldn't be "intelligent".