Sorry for being late here. Let me go back to your question, Allan, whether our counting system is bigoted. And let me ask you if you think that there is a substantial difference between "4" and "IV". I would argue that both representational symbols do not violate the parameters of human perceptional limitation, which only allow for up to four visible items being instantaneously operated upon and produce reliable data representative. Five dots on a piece of paper should be better put in some order - in order to be recognized as 5 in a blink of a moment. Or - as evidence of the Spirit At Work. :)
As for being afraid of James - what separates us from the other animals is our deeply rooted belief that we are better than them. That should count as a valid argument for believing in God, the creator, in whose image we are being made. What struck me as "fearful" - to follow your logic - is hearing an American (highest degree of individualistic socialization, self-localization: from-coast-to-coast) arguing towards "mutually beneficial outcomes". Across the pond we have our own understanding of "mutually" and "beneficial", depending on our different historical cultural backgrounds and present day socioeconomic situation. The global construction of oneness so far has been achieved by the force of necessity aka God's higher justice. How do you want to improve that opponent of yours, Neil? 2013/1/17 archytas <[email protected]> > > Removing spiritual blindfolds sounds suspiciously Masonic. I'm not > scared by rationality - but remain very perturbed by what people will > do in the name of truth. What I'm concerned with is the greater play > of knowledge in democratic action - in marxism this would be praxis. > The problem has long been what we can legitimate as knowledge.- > control of the production of knowledge being as central to power as > general control of the means of production. It strikes me the problem > is less important in thinking about the democratic formation of > knowledge than in description and explanation of what we are caught in > in the present. We would presumably want to build democratic > precaution and human rights into technology we wanted to improve these > matters through. > > > > On Jan 17, 7:54 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > what you are proposing is the worst type of dictatorship available.. > > simple because there is no control.. > > Judgement is one of the most difficult things to do,, Even under the > > standard concepts of God judgement is very difficult to the point and > > is left to God,.. in reality upon your death and resurrection back > > into the realm of souls.. you are judged solely by yourself only you > > know the truth and the blindfolds are removed and you are no longer a > > spiritual zombie and will be able to make that type of judgement,, > > to sand in judgement of others is even tougher,, > > Neil not only is it something that is very hard to explain itis > > something you can not explain.. as all explanations are nothing more > > than justifying your point of view. > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The technological point Allan would be in terms of the facts even a > > > few people like us who know each other would accept and "know" via > > > database - it's very hard to explain. Currently we are generally in > > > the state you suggest, though exceptionally skilled in harmlessness. > > > > > On Jan 16, 7:05 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Personally Neil I do not think the four of you would be capable of > > >> making that type of evaluation. > > >> No offence taken ... every one listed is as bigoted to their own > > >> view as I am.. (",) > > >> Allan > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > I'm a very woolly thinker - and part of the technology I want to see > > >> > would entail a bunch of us - say me, rigs, Gabs and James - being able > > >> > to decide on whether the public or private sector is 'better' (I > > >> > suspect we'd all say this depends on circumstances) without making the > > >> > question into some ideological contest - and then on to the world more > > >> > generally. I've no doubt we could all give examples and counter- > > >> > examples and suspect we'd find some consensus on not really being very > > >> > interested. What I really wonder is why such matters are contested > > >> > ideologically rather than being subject to transparent record. > > > > >> > On Jan 15, 10:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> Didn't know you were a Papist rigs! Which changes about nothing - I > > >> >> was dragged up Proddy until I got Dad to write a note to school > > >> >> excusing me RE. I did my maths and English homework in the classes - > > >> >> still took the exams and came top twice - which rather suggests how > > >> >> useless classrooms can be. I think a great deal is recoverable from > > >> >> religion concerning practical democracy and the loss of decency and > > >> >> organic solidarity. > > >> >> I've been reading a lot of academic material on banking systems for > > >> >> some lectures, Most tell the story that what has been done since the > > >> >> crash have really done nothing - there's one athttp:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132152(pdf > > >> >> downloads if anyone is interested) - and reading it is typically > > >> >> bleak. I've stopped the reading, partly because I have enough, but > > >> >> more because I'm depressed by how powerless it makes me feel. Rosanne > > >> >> Barr seemed the best presidential candidate to me. We need to get > > >> >> back to farming, building and making the planet a sensible collective. > > > > >> >> We used to try to teach the logic underlying various discipline - > > >> >> typically through learning artificial languages that demonstrate > > >> >> ambiguity lies in even simple constructs in ordinary languages. > > >> >> Tarski was usually key. One can dream of a machine that would do this > > >> >> in real time as politicians speak - but only dream. One can end up in > > >> >> such stuff as Chu sets - sadly not as easy as Casey Jones. What I > > >> >> could see in near-term would be a database that worked in near real- > > >> >> time that immediately produced facts that made politician's statements > > >> >> as ambiguous as they really are factually and identified rhetorical > > >> >> tricks as they spoke. Academic work in this area like discourse > > >> >> analysis is painfully slow. > > > > >> >> Tony Blair was a good orator - but now he looks the paradigm case of > > >> >> 'how do you know this man is lying - because his lips are moving' > > >> >> along with Nixon. The current technology is some combination of > > >> >> oratory, rhetoric and infotainment - perhaps even combined with > > >> >> education as discipline. I would want a technology that was very > > >> >> different, more transparent and honest - and I would see machine > > >> >> thinking as part of it all - in some areas of science we are fairly > > >> >> sure the machines are smarter than us already. I can think up some > > >> >> kind of 'mind-repository' as science fiction - Hawking is saying > > >> >> biological intelligence may be at the end of its evolutionary span. > > >> >> The Frankenstein and totalitarian elements always raise their heads - > > >> >> of course. > > > > >> >> Gordon Brown - the idiot who sold our gold reserves - used to say 'we > > >> >> must be proud of our British heritage' - but such is never said in > > >> >> the spirit of analysis of the good and the disasters. I'm pretty sure > > >> >> machines and software could show all our politicians now contest in > > >> >> such actually meaningless drivel. Some of us believe this already. I > > >> >> wonder if technology exposing such would generate space for the real > > >> >> dialogue? > > > > >> >> On 15 Jan, 12:14, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > It appears chimps are willing to share a banana fairly and we are > > >> >> > closely related- it's a start. (NPR or BBC) But also heard farmland > > >> >> > was selling for $10,000. an acre and discouraging young independent > > >> >> > farmers (which will lead to more agribusiness swallowing up the > > >> >> > land).//There is a very long history promoting power and wealth- as a > > >> >> > sign of worldly success and divine favor- not sure if there is any way > > >> >> > to abolish that notion- well illustrated by the top tiers of > > >> >> > socialists and communists- even religious groups.// To be a > > >> >> > conservative may mean you have something to conserve (from an old > > >> >> > deceased friend); conservatives reward themselves with their own > > >> >> > efforts while liberals reward everyone with other people's efforts > > >> >> > (thoughts while cooking-rigs). Politicians make endless promises to > > >> >> > the poor and middle class in order to secure their votes and stay in > > >> >> > office since they(politicians) become unfit for work in the real > > >> >> > world.//I think I wanted to be a good person rather than a rich person > > >> >> > but I was brainwashed by Catholicism...wasn't I?// > > > > >> >> > On Jan 14, 9:21 pm, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > There are a number of trade routes built into the rewards system though, > > >> >> > > for example a simple formula might be: > > > > >> >> > > Cities favor growth of tax base and expansion, attraction of prospective > > >> >> > > citizens and businesses might favor a financial institution over a > > >> >> > > private home builder, the contractor may get tax breaks through tricks > > >> >> > > between the bank and taxing authorities to greatly increase profits for > > >> >> > > everyone except the buyer. The financial institution rewards contractors > > >> >> > > and gains from relationships with all three and everyone has their hands > > >> >> > > in the others' pocket making gains from the buyer. The whole system is > > >> >> > > in the rewards game and it is designed to favor those who can leverage > > >> >> > > scale and the promise of a shared economic gain. > > > > >> >> > > My thinking is very in line with Andrew's on establishing a higher > > >> >> > > baseline, I think it would be a worthwhile investment in humanity. But > > >> >> > > it doesn't sound probable as long as we are addicted to perpetual growth > > >> >> > > schemes that rely on massive excess capacity and waste to prop up an > > >> >> > > increasingly top heavy infrastructure. > > > > >> >> > > Someone once said that an empty stomach doesn't make the best advisor > > >> >> > > for the future (or similarly rather). I think that cuts right to Neil's > > >> >> > > second brain (the enteric nervous system) that drives an an organism > > >> >> > > with primal survival motives, and that is the manipulation in play, I > > >> >> > > cannot imagine the promise of democracy seeing the light of day while > > >> >> > > higher cognitive functions such as navigating complex multidimensional > > >> >> > > environments (societies/states) to solve complex sociological challenges > > >> >> > > (lest we believe this is just about money, or at all?!) toward mutually > > >> >> > > beneficial outcomes. Unless I was blinded by the pie in the sky I had > > >> >> > > something along the lines of a just, healthy and productive society in > > >> >> > > mind when first learning about democracy. > > > > >> >> > > What I see is a large part of people's lives driven by fear, that primal > > >> >> > > second brain. I think it should piss us off that we could be far more > > >> >> > > productive if someone cared to put the infrastructure in place for our > > >> >> > > outputs to be recycled back into society to a larger and more integral > > >> >> > > extent, from lack of imagination and dominance of a culture of usury and > > >> >> > > isolation. We can invent money but not cure poverty? Who is driving the > > >> >> > > boat? (oh democracy, hmm).. > > > > >> >> > > Distribution of prestige and privilege in our society is as powerful > > >> >> > > today as it has been for a long time, how we pursue that I think will > > >> >> > > determine whether we fulfill the promise of democracy. The society we > > >> >> > > engineer will determine whether the activities of citizens resemble > > >> >> > > intelligent, caring, inspired beings or a mound of parasites and > > >> >> > > resource aggregating automata. Pardon the crude reductionismto an > > >> >> > > absurd dichotomy. > > > > >> >> > > The possibility of a better world, is it > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > > --
