I'd add the situation is so complex even a metaphor like driving a car
is replete with problems - car driving is part of planet burning, I
once built a kit car but this doesn't make me a 'better' driver than
Stirling Moss, cars kill etc.
Much decision-making is already automated by technology in the sense
of the term I mean. High frequency trading is an example and is very
much subject to cheating and unfair advantage by those in control of
the technology (the general scam is front-running).
Profit and loss decision-making across the world leaves out many items
most of us would consider vital such as the atrocities perpetrated on
the lives of people around mines - etc. ad nauseum - these
'externalities' could be subject to the accounting processes.
I'm only suggesting we can get beyond moral wittering - initially in
thought experiment - and maybe find new ground that would be
actionable rather than chattering-class stuff. In the current
technology those in control take huge rents and promise trickle down.
Nearly all of us despise centralised control as in the Sino-Soviet
experiments (probably based on the Domesday Book) - yet 'money'
centralises. I often think leaving democracy to argument is like
being told we can put up ourselves against Manchester United and let
football decide out fate! {We might turn up with 13 decent amateurs
and beat them by changing the goal-posts to rugby league football - or
Allan might keep his shotgun on them while rigs walked in our winning
goals}.
Shotgun (Whilst I liked rigs' metaphor) and god-contest threats seem a
lot more violent than the logicians to me at this point.
On 17 Jan, 16:47, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I rode shotgun in our last civil war Gabby. I see little in 'god
> arguments' other than chronic factionalism and can no longer laugh at
> Lutherian rants emanating from Belfast. There is something else in
> religion and I don't agree with those like Dawkins who make fortunes
> replacing it with science that may as well be 'Latin mass' in general
> understanding. I'd be happy enough to ride in this context with Allan
> against the road agents - though I for one would need comfortable
> suspension and I don't travel well.
>
> God clearly doesn't work once in factional human hands - like Gabby I
> prefer direct appeal to him/her/it - but even Protestantism is led,
> collective and so on. Quite how the Protestant tossers who started
> shooting into Catholic gatherings (and so on) in Northern Ireland
> could justify themselves with a loving god I don't know- though I'm
> sure rationalisation was part of it. I much prefer agnosticism on
> what we don't know to the zealot - and admissions we don't know over
> 'there is no alternative zeal'. As to what science is, I prefer
> admission it is replete with values, religion, manic belief and so on,
> done by social animals, already present in a world before humans and
> in subjective human reflection on the past. The whole notion of
> science as 'value free' is a nonsense and has origin in battles in
> which others held and used the instruments of torture to promote their
> control fraud. I have no intention of being sent out, as a previous
> and dubiously historical figure with a sling-shot against god-made-
> Goliath.
>
> To some extent, if we could break the 'argument code' and produce a
> technology that made decision obvious, we would break the political
> power complex. The fear is of some Frankenstein nightmare worse than
> what we have now. Habermas sought to extirpate (root out) ideology
> and form an ideal-type speech situation in which only Reason would
> decide (Reason in my take is a 'technology'). He was scoffed at as
> 'the Professor' by postmodernists as his 'system' would inevitably be
> totalising - and hadn't we had enough totalising with the Nazis? I
> think all sides of this argument are little more than academic guff.
>
> I wonder whether there is a better starting point in recognising most
> people are hopeless in argument and whether we might be better placed
> as individuals if technology could do more of the argument for us as,
> say, a car can be driven.
>
> On 17 Jan, 12:10, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
