We call ourselves democracies - the classic was perhaps the DDR (East Germany), famous for strange athletes, Stasi and the Trabant. But shouldn't we expect the Doublespeak Allan? Most of us don't really want to be involved in politics - it's a bit like running the coffee fund in a school common room. Like Gabby I tend to vote Green - but this is really about registering my protest that the main parties are now scum. We could, as Andrew suggested, have a much less representative politics and make more decisions ourselves. In the UK we should already have decentralised from London and become much more electronic in base. It must be very easy for 'foreign powers' to infiltrate our main political parties and they are all stacked out with highly suspicious suit horses. There has long been no one for me to vote for. We need revolutionary ideas about the system and I don't mean bombs, capes, dubious mustaches and a "temporary" dictatorship of the proles. This is why I think radical change in our understanding and then technology of argument might help. You astutely note we don't have any real democracies - but were earlier clinging to the notion of voting involving argument - I'm saying that ain't 'real' either.
On 19 Jan, 07:52, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --
