so capital (indeed any process) is not, in the final analysis, intelligent?
-
-
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
with capital, it gets a bit more complicated I guess (when you try to grasp it as an entity or process, things get *weird*), at the very least it comes pretty close to being identical with intelligence as it happens now -which may ofc change, but that's hard for us to conceive of
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @cyborg_nomade and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
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' war1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @cyborg_nomade and
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"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @cyborg_nomade and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
'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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @cyborg_nomade and
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.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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. 
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.