Tomorrow (as I write) I’ll be posing briefly the questions of how to structure a knowledge commons wiki (irrespective of the technology we use), and giving some suggestions to chew over, not about how to categorise knowledge relevant to the Second Renaissance and Deliberately Developmental Spaces, but rather about the kinds of wiki page that would serve to represent that knowledge (and its edges) and the parts of such wiki pages. If you have a bit of time in advance, reading what I have written recently will be very helpful, but of course that’s not essential. See there to explain the terms I use below … I will also explain in our session.
So here are the kinds of wiki page which I suggest are pretty common to Commons and Bioregions. Is there anything in 2R or DDSs that doesn’t fit comfortably in this list?
- Resource (material or immaterial, including concept)
- Person
- Group
- Place
- Gathering (some kind of meeting involving people)
- Story (both about actual events and myths)
- Pattern
- Question
Not all the above kinds of page will need all of them, but these are the parts I see as most useful to each page: again, are there parts of a wiki page that would be useful to have, other than these?
- The top of each page, or “lead”
- Main content
- Related pages
- Footnotes and references
- Commentary
- Questions arising
Meeting link copied below for convenience:
Zoom: Join here
Meeting ID: 891 1441 1437
Passcode: 649056
1 Like
My interest in this is more about orchestration than categorization. My current R&D is focused on such orchestration, with potential direct overlap with 2R. My current project in outline is a follows:
Question: What is the Minimum Viable Education Program (MVEP) to train novice adult students for the engineering, oversight, and management of ethical agentic AI systems?
Reflection: My general impression is this MVEP must be non-linear. There are too many technical and social prerequisites to ethical agentic AI engineering to make it a course of study that can be satisfactorily addressed in conventional degree programs or conventional scope and sequence outlines. By conventional means, “ethical AI” is at least a post-doctoral topic, or thereabouts. To make it relevant for younger job seekers in technical training programs, we need a more accelerated training model.
This leads to a design idea involving 1) an intake layer, 2)two main intertwined content pipelines, and 3) practical outcome demonstration projects. Layer 1) is currently specified as “Ikigai-based self-assessment and goal setting”. Through a variety of pilots, I’ve demonstrated (to my own satisfaction at least) that this can launch a room full of adult technical students into productive directions in 15 minutes or less. Layer 2) is specified as a) a technical pipeline intertwined with b) a humanities pipeline. In my current practice a) is fully satisfied through free vendor content like AWS Academy. All of my recent creative content work has been directed toward building curriculum wrap-arounds to get students ready for AWS Academy and similar content from other industry vendors. b) is an exaptation of that wrap-around work. In recent years, I’ve been adding explicit ethics training (e.g. deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, discourse ethics) to technical courses to frame IT security and other business goals. The need for ethical agentic AI guardrail engineering expands that ethics training requirement to something along the lines of a co-major. To master the psychology of AI requires mastering the psychology of the human as well. There are no shortcuts! To properly answer the question of “does this AI pass the Turing Test?” requires engineers who themselves pass the Turing Test and can give a proper account of what it is exactly about their own thoughts and behavior that make them human-like. Layer 3 is basically proving mastery of the technical-human synthesis by implementing a demonstration project.
My interest in 2R in general has been motivated by the specific need to generate ethical technology wrap-around content, and now, it seems, the emerging requirement for a full-on humanities content pipeline equal in stature and sophistication to technical programs like AWS Academy or Microsoft Learn. Is a 2R Academy too much to wish for? In practice, if 2R chooses not to build it, I’ll probably hack a minimal version of it on my own, but I would very much prefer a more social and collaborative approach in so far as that is available.
Quick note on the proposed “2R Academy”. The content provided to human students would also be used for AI agent training via Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and other techniques. So the proposed 2R Academy would serve both human and artificial students!
This is great to hear, @RobertBunge ! I see the categorization, such as it is, as like the infrastructure or foundations to grow learning programmes and other activities on a firm basis, and, vitally, to allow them a better chance to communicate and collaborate.
1 Like
Yes. The non-linear will need a bunch of more conventional categorical infrastructure as reference material. So it’s an exaptation, not a replacement. The way AWS Academy works, schools all over the place adopt it and infuse it into the their own traditional course and degree frameworks. Or it can be used agilely for independent study. I see a 2R Academy has working like that. Schools might “adopt” some or all of the content and activities.
Meanwhile … legal pad in hand, I’m roughing out modules for what I’d like to click on and find in a 2R Academy.
Module 0: Ikigai-based orientation (what are the big questions?)
Also, “what is like to be a human?” (Nagel’s question about bats, applied to us.) Also, “how will you know when you personally have passed the Turing Test?”
Module 1: Polarities - the seeds of thought and expression
inner-outer, self-world, subjective-objective, value-fact …
Module 2: Worldviews
Massive inventory of historical worldviews, summarized and presented for comparative purposes.
(That’s it for now … more to come …)
Module 3: Building a Worldview
- a variety of action learning models.
Module 4: Conflict - When Worldviews Collide
- dialog, dialectic, synthesis, emergence, exaptation, empathy, perspective taking, hermeneutic circles.
Module 5: Grounding
- experiential basis of language and culture, problem vs mystery, human ground truth, centering practices
Module 6: The 2R Worldview
- white papers, etc.
- sources
- competing and alternative perspectives
Module 7: 2R Practices and Projects
- guide to organizations and opportunities
(That’s Draft #1. Love to hear any input about the items above!)
On this point, I’m calling for an expanded, “human-in-the-loop” version of this draft session below.
List 10 different alternative worldviews.
Copilot said:
Copilot
Here are 10 alternative worldviews that differ significantly in their metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical foundations:
1. Animism
-
Everything—plants, animals, rivers, mountains—has a spirit or consciousness.
-
Common in many Indigenous traditions worldwide.
2. Panpsychism
3. Dualism
4. Monism
-
All reality is ultimately one substance or principle (e.g., Brahman in Vedānta).
-
Variants: material monism, idealist monism.
5. Process Philosophy
-
Reality is fundamentally dynamic and relational, not static substances.
-
Associated with Alfred North Whitehead.
6. Dialectical Materialism
7. Holism
8. Relational Ontology
9. Idealism
-
Reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual; matter is derivative.
-
Seen in Berkeley, German Idealism, and some Buddhist schools.
10. Scientific Naturalism
Would you like me to expand each worldview with its historical roots and key thinkers, or create a comparative table showing their metaphysical assumptions, epistemology, and ethics?