
Can an Economy Feel Joy? - iciac
https://www.camerongordon.site/post/can-an-economy-feel-joy
======
mirimir
In _Echopraxia_ , Peter Watts argued that group minds invariably become
psychotic, if inter-node latency is too great. Which makes sense to me. So
arguably no.

And yeah, TFA does considerable bullshit in order to display text. I mean,
what is "parastorage.com"?

[https://parastorage.com](https://parastorage.com)

> Error ConnectYourDomain occurred

~~~
lainga
Looks like Cameron used Wix for his site. `parastorage` only shows up in the
context of Wix as far as I can see.

ed:
[https://www.wix.com/corvid/forum/search/parastorage](https://www.wix.com/corvid/forum/search/parastorage)

"That is a part of Wix CDN network to deliver images and stuff like that
faster." by word of a "Wix Code Evangelist"

------
dieselerator
I think the question suggests another question:

Can an economy feel "irrational exuberance"?

------
carapace
Site doesn't load content w/o JS enabled (or some other BS.)

ORT (Only Read Title)

No: economy doesn't have glands.

However, consider, can _cells_ feel joy? Everything we do is done by cells: we
see because the cells in our eyes can see, we digest because our cells digest,
we move because our cells move, we think because our cells think, and so on...

If we allow a an analogy (however imperfect) between cells and the body, and
between people and their civ/society/economy, then it seems to me that, yes,
you can measure or quantify a given civ by the joy of its members.

Bhutan actually formally collects and analyzes data to form a Gross National
Happiness index (as contrasted with the GNP metric), and attempts to use this
as feedback for their government.

~~~
marcosdumay
Well, yes, given that economies aren't organic individuals, their "feelings"
will be something different. I also do no think it's useful to separate
"economies" to study as if they were entire beings, they are a part of
"societies" \- this reads a lot like asking if our arms feel joy.

~~~
carapace
> Well, yes, given that economies aren't organic individuals, their "feelings"
> will be something different.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm trying to say. The analogy between a human
organism and human society is imperfect, so I think the closest you could come
to saying a society is joyous would be if the humans in the society are
joyous.

As for what would constitute the subjective experience of a society, you could
call that the _extrinsic_ Hard Problem of Consciousness, eh?

> I also do no think it's useful to separate "economies" to study as if they
> were entire beings, they are a part of "societies" \- this reads a lot like
> asking if our arms feel joy.

I agree with that too. FWIW I would maybe identify money with oxygen and the
economic system with the circulatory system, and maybe (parts of) some others
(I'm an expert neither on economics nor physiology.)

~~~
HillRat
If you start from philosophical questions of mind and identity (e.g.,
substance dualism vs physicalism, etc.), it’s not hard to get to an argument
that qualia are neither substances nor physical identities but instead
properties of systems (cf Whitehead), so you can ask not only “what is it like
to be a bat,” but also “what is it like to be _any_ system capable of qualia?”
It’s possible that such systems could include societies, economies,
corporations, and so on, depending on what you assume the criteria are for a
qualia-capable system. (This is also how you get to the Gaia hypothesis, which
sounds utterly crazy taken on its own, but almost axiomatic if you build it up
from a systems approach to mental states with loose enough coupling and
coherence restrictions).

The kicker of this approach is that the modes of qualia or consciousness at
different system levels are likely to be so completely alien and the causal
mechanisms so hard to discern that you could never definitively answer the
question of “what is it like to be an economy;” it’s as impossible as a neuron
wondering what it’s like to be Proust eating his madeline.

Scientifically, it’s virtually unfalsifiable but, if correct, it does have the
delightful side-effect of turning social sciences such as economics from
attempts to formulate natural “laws” to something more like efforts to
psychoanalyze alien gods.

~~~
carapace
In re: Gaia, if the basis of qualia involves something cells do then (IMO)
there's no inherent difficulty in assigning "mind" or subjective experience to
the global ecosystem. We can "fold in" that question with the problem of human
subjective experience.

Gregory Bateson speculated that evolution and thought are two aspects of the
same process. ("Steps to an Ecology of Mind", "Mind and Nature: a Necessary
Unity")

Michael Levin's lab's work on the self-regulation of living forms points to
_ambient_ intelligence. The cellular machinery that neurons use to think is
common to all cells. It's concentrated and accelerated in neurons but the
clear implication (IMO) is that all life thinks.

"What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System"
(youtube.com)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698)

------
bryanmgreen
Ask the 1920's or 1990's.

------
Y_Y
Can we get a "Betteridge" filter for headlines that ask stupid questions?

