I don't see how you can call any government a democracy .. the USA is a republic and I do not see how you can call any government when leadership keep palling around with the wealth chasing the golden calf. Allan
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:21 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Computing has brought about changes in maths on grounds of speed in > calculation that humans can't achieve in lifetimes - patterns appear > in massive iterations we simply don't have time to do. I don't have > much problem with this if, say, it lets us devise flight plans to > Mars. They are increasingly used to have information first, perhaps > like someone using a telescope to spot which ship is coming home in > order to unload what stock of goods one has while prices are still > high before its goods are docked. I doubt the entire use of the > technology in economics. In some areas of science we are not sure > what the computers are telling us and they appear to be "thinking".I > have taught many people to drive spreadsheets and databases - though > few really learn to manipulate new questions into them or design > useful reporting from them. > Rigs hits one of the nails of democracy on the head and Andrew drives > in another. Unlike Gabby I tend to view faith as a weakness. The > vinegar and oil approach is probably cast as incommensurability in > philosophy - though combined as salad dressing Andrew's meat is my > poison. I suspect much allegedly incommensurate is merely > incompatible due to definition. Chemists could no doubt produce a > solution with both oil and vinegar in it. Wiles' solution to Fermat's > last theorem bridges modular and elliptic equations and Sneed and > Ludwig have used set theory to show compatibility between older and > modern physics (scientists mostly believed this anyway). > > > > > The question is whether there is something we can apply to the sad > state of democracy that keeps the egalitarianism better than our very > peculiar voting systems. If we had an "argument machine" we might be > able t get past Crusade/Jihad, Sunni/Shia, Catholic/Protestant, Hindi/ > Muslim and so on - and get into what is common exploitation on all > sides - the human aspects rigs points out - and to change to the more > positive ones. I may even share (something like) Gabby's > 'frustration' with agnostics - though an explication of this n both > sides would be long. > > > > > This is tough territory - and very unlike the spiv Blair uttering > 'education, education, education' (something I first heard in East > Germany) and the ease with which we are gulled by such blandishments > with no thought of how we can actually create graduate jobs 50:50 and > what such a society would be. We need to know more about what buttons > the likes of Blair and adverts push. I suspect part of the answer > would be the creation of technology to support a level playing field - > but as I write this I'm fairly sure we are being warmed up for war > (it's a bit like Jung's dream). > > On Jan 18, 11:11 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Vinegar and oil are prime reasons I don't order salad when out - hate >> them both! I agree entirely with Gabby on "political argument" and >> would say in addition academic argument can be as bad and the majority >> of it is. When asked most people say they vote on the economy - when >> further asked what the economy is they are clueless. One of us at >> least will need a steel claw to make a success of Al's lair and our >> 'freedom through world domination' scheme. >> >> On Jan 18, 3:46 pm, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Faith and reason, like vinegar and oil (my favorite salad dressing) ,go >> > together and complement each other really well. Like the bible teaches, the >> > knowledge of good and evil or technology is a double edged sword. You can >> > not have one without the other. Like playing with matches, it is not >> > recommended for children. As for teaching morals, I do not think it can be >> > taught by teachers. Education and democracy if used morally can and does >> > fill empty bellies.I agree with you Rigs about democracy. Democracy as we >> > have it in all democratic countries (except Switzerland) lasts only for a >> > day every 4 or 5 years when we elect representatives with meaningless >> > promises to represent us. >> >> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 12:54:01 PM UTC+1, rigs wrote: >> >> > > Faith and Reason are like vinegar and oil. The Enlightenment has >> > > brought us hence- the new Dark Ages? Technology is not a solution >> > > because it can be corrupted. I have much in common with a Roman matron >> > > of the 4th C. as I watch/read of the new barbarians. My modern >> > > conveniences are simply mechanical slaves. It does little good to >> > > teach ethics/morals when other parts of our supposed united world are >> > > not in sync. Education/democracy will not fill an empty belly or >> > > replenish wasted croplands and raw materials. Throwing money at >> > > unstable countries will not rescue us or them (Egypt) nor will >> > > allowing disasters to take their course win us friends (Syria). >> > > Democracy has become a bloated centralized authority so the political >> > > differences are meaningless. The patterns of human history have >> > > changed very little, unfortunately- it still remains about greed, >> > > power and hubris. >> >> > > On Jan 17, 7:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. Of course I talk to myself, Sometimes I need expert advice.. --
