war is clearly a process that tends towards intensification. Like a housing bubble, it has an escalatory or self-fulfilling dynamic. therefore (according to this theory) war is an artificial intelligence. likewise for asset bubbles
hmm not sure I follow you. are you saying now that intelligence is not a quality (defined by local intensification) attributable to processes, but rather is itself a social process, like capital (or war, etc), which is in fact identical to capital?
-
-
I'm not not saying that
'in fact identical', 'social' and 'like capital (or war, etc (!))' are problematic because: factual identity is tricky when it comes to capital, social suggests an unfortunately specific perspective, capital isn't like war such that there can be 'a' war -
capital is a specific social process though, like a war or a housing bubble. I take it you agree with the first bit, "that intelligence is not a quality (defined by local intensification) attributable to processes"?
-
capital isn't so much a specific social process, it is 'the' process of 'roundabout production' ('social', again, seems to try to reduce it to the human element), but yeah defining intelligence as a qualitative attribute of processes seems precisely backwards
-
ok, capital is a specific process (which includes a social element but also something non-human - what?). in general processes (such as capital) are not intelligent. rather there is a specific process called intelligence which is close to being but not quite identical to capital
-
'functionally identical' works for me - and your question wrt the non-human element in the capital relation conjured a vision in my head where the entire process of production involved nothing but human bodies. I feel slightly nauseous now
-
groce
. a social process is one defined by human relationships, interactions, institutions. other types are possible ofc, but capital, wars, housing bubbles, etc, in my view, are social. they act on and arise out of human society. -
ok look, this is the point where I call it quits, I've had this exact same thread at least 5 times now, the basic idea is that the process of capital becomes autonomous from human interests and, via automation, from human participation, if u read Land u know this been a blast

-
ive read land ofc but the idea that capital is an artificial intelligence doesnt make much sense, which is why its so hard to get to a consistent definition. but I've definitely been going round in circles a bit here, so I agree, time to call it a day.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.