Oh darn I gave away the secret lair.. voting is by its very nature argumentative,, a discussion is always needed for understanding what you are voting for.
It is in rereading what I have written right or wrong what I have written is here I gain some amazing insights. Even when I have been wrong.. doors seem to open, There are old sayings that tell us to learn from our mistakes. As I wrote that statement it suddenly saw a lot of the problems with politics.. they are not able to correct the errors in their views. oddly thinking back President Clinton was able to do that on the fly.. The republican party negotiated with Iran to hold the political prisoners they were holding and not to release them till after the election of Reagan .. that demonstrates the honesty of the republican party.. Allan On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:22 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 <[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 >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. Of course I talk to myself, Sometimes I need expert advice.. --
