Kaggle is also up and running, apparently producing better than expert results from data crunching. The project, whether a Tower of Babel confronting god or not, is underway.
On Jan 18, 12:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > At last we discover the lair from which you intend to launch 'Dr No' > plans Al! > > One can argue that democracy already uses a 'non-argument technology' > called voting. > > In many respects Allan is right on argument being about reinforcing an > individual's point of view. > > Studies of the Internet show the most likely reaction to facts is > backfire as people dig in on their original position. > > Does anyone know 'where' human decision-making takes place - much > modern testing indicates it comes before anything rational (the social > animal thesis). Adverts are highly irrational, political bull > simplistic and often not true - FDR matched others in rhetoric on not > letting the English fight to the last American to get elected. Would > any of us want to claim how WW2 came about - I suspect not - but even > what we might know is likely more factual than those who think the > Soviets were on the other side. Universal education hasn't helped > much on fact bases in individuals. > > One has to suspect if we could build a bulldung detector it wouldn't > switch off until after we shot the last politician and detergent > salesman. I don't expect we can build one. Plato's suggested > technology was to train Guardians - I'd prefer something much less > elitist and socially constructed. > > Currently, we don't even have reliable voice to text - but statistical > engines are reliable in translation. There are many problems - not > least on how a trustworthy database could be formed and work (even the > history of forensic science is rather shameful - certainly a Curate's > Egg). Rudimentary machines that outperform humans are already with us > - the process I'm thinking about is already under way. There is > already a wide literature - Lyotard's 'The Postmodern Condition: a > report on knowledge' was about it. The technology could be > emancipatory - but is currently developed largely for competitive > advantage. > > On Jan 17, 6:15 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > under threat of a sawed off shoot gun Allan bows low and retreats to > > his monastery on Skellig Michael. > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not talking about transhumanism - which might be critiqued as: > > > > Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the > > > humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ > > > from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on > > > technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. > > > technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[40] However, other > > > progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its > > > philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns > > > about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from > > > other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a > > > transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of > > > being.[41] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of > > > humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics (Wiki) > > > > but about identifying why we have made some progress but not very much > > > towards secure living in freedom. I suspect we are much less distinct > > > from animals than in Gabby's religious view, much less involved in > > > 'logical' argument than we know (and generally have less training in > > > it than soccer) and may be disabled from democracy by a technology we > > > could fix (imperfectly would do) if we could really debate what it is. > > > > On 17 Jan, 17:48, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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 > > ... > > read more » --
