Re: Mind's Eye Re: thought experiments

The fall or evolution from robot heaven to skyscraper view.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:32 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think competition works as Don suggests. In business we are
> urged to focus on the best customers and rid ourselves of the others.
>
> On 22 Sep, 12:36, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We don't get to dictate the behavior of our neighbors but we can sue
>> or move. We don't get the same care/benefits- it's arbitrary- based on
>> our best information and ability to be covered or to pay.
>>
>> On Sep 20, 11:33 pm, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:25:16 PM UTC-5, rigsy03 wrote:
>>
>> > > It is also the joy of work- accomplishment, etc. rather than
>> > > competing- maybe you are testing your own skills or mastering your
>> > > abilities to repair something, create something.
>>
>> > One can certainly enjoy sprucing up one's home or automobile or garden and
>> > keep one self busy making sure our home appliances and robots are in good
>> > working order. We have plenty of practice so we get quite good at these
>> > chores that help ourselves and our families. But our neighbor prefers to
>> > play video games and watch cooking shows on tv instead of being
>> > industrious. Well that won't work because we are all "entitled" to the same
>> > things, correct? So maybe I should go to my neighbor's house and work on
>> > his robots and appliances and prune his trees and cut his grass for him.
>> > This will, of course, require me to work much harder and the chores around
>> > my living space will suffer for it but that's ok because we all deserve the
>> > same benefits don't we?
>>
>> > Maybe not.
>>
>> > dj
>>
>> > > On Sep 20, 12:03 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Reminds me of the Fritz Lang classic Metropolis. Who's going to build
>> > > and
>> > > > repair and innovate the robots? Other robots? Haven't you seen "I,
>> > > Robot"
>> > > > or "Terminator?" There will always be greener grass somewhere and people
>> > > > will "compete" to occupy it. If it's not Financially perhaps we will
>> > > have
>> > > > gladiatorial competitions to weed out the weak. Maybe we'll play chess
>> > > for
>> > > > favors. Maybe we'll keep building robots to fight for us and play chess
>> > > for
>> > > > us, I dunno. But we will always compete for what we want and we will
>> > > always
>> > > > WANT what we don't HAVE. Doesn't matter if we already have everything
>> > > maybe
>> > > > I want HER. Or HIM. Or that PARTICULAR view from that SPECIFIC condo or
>> > > > whatever. I'm no sociologist but I'm pretty sure the compitition gene is
>> > > > hardwired in the best of us and if we lose it we are doomed. I mean
>> > > extinct
>> > > > doomed.
>>
>> > > > dj
>>
>> > > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:56:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>> > > > > Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate
>> > > > > the nature of things. Thought experimenting often takes place when the
>> > > > > method of variation is employed in entertaining imaginative
>> > > > > suppositions. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas,
>> > > > > including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and physics.
>> > > > > Most often thought experiments are communicated in narrative form,
>> > > > > sometimes through media like a diagram. Thought experiments should be
>> > > > > distinguished from thinking about experiments, from merely imagining
>> > > > > any experiments to be conducted outside the imagination, and from
>> > > > > psychological experiments with thoughts. They should also be
>> > > > > distinguished from counterfactual reasoning in general, as they seem
>> > > > > to require an experimental element.
>> > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
>>
>> > > > > One I like is the notion of robot heaven. It's easy enough to imagine
>> > > > > a time when machines grow our food, build our shelter and do our
>> > > > > work. The interesting stuff comes in thinking what this would mean
>> > > > > for wealth distribution and the nature of society. What work would be
>> > > > > left to do? One can also wonder what place any of our work ethics
>> > > > > would have in such a society. There may be some deconstructive effect
>> > > > > on just what current work ideologies are in place for.
>>
>> > > > > One of the great improvements technology brought to my life is more or
>> > > > > less never having to go into a bank. The only real innovations in
>> > > > > banking are the ATM and electronic banking. This kind of technology
>> > > > > and similar in agriculture and industry fundamentally reduce the
>> > > > > amount of human effort to grow and make what we need. We are in
>> > > > > partial state of robot heaven.
>>
>> > > > > Our ideologies are not up to speed. Real unemployment is massive and
>> > > > > education does little to provide job skills. We are sold life-styles
>> > > > > and products by insane advertising. Job creation seems to be in
>> > > > > perverse areas like financial services or bringing back attended gas-
>> > > > > pumps. With more efficient production we should be able to afford a
>> > > > > bigger social sector and I can't for the life of me understand why we
>> > > > > allow competition through crap wages and conditions.
>>
>> > > > > A great deal of what we pay for could be available more or less free.
>> > > > > Educational content and utility banking are examples - these are areas
>> > > > > that could be ratinalised like agriculture and manufacturing.
>> > > > > Millions of jobs would go. We should be asking why jobs are so
>> > > > > central to out thinking on wealth distribution and how we might
>> > > > > encourage work without the rat race.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>
>
>

--