Re: Mind's Eye Re: Aliens, Slavery and Resources

I threw this at the Toronto conference - I only had a hour to spare.
God knows what I'll write if they take he abstract.

Ants take slaves and some slave-ants undertake Spartacus rebellion.
 Biology is replete with figures of speech, revealing an arms' race of
co-evolution.  Full democracy is not yet available on Earth and we
have an economic system in denial of it as an efficient production
system.  What might we learn from the tropes of entanglement of
science and the natural world in terms of aspirations of human
democracy and work organisation?  The biological justification of
memory energy consumption is advantage in predicting the future.  With
robot heaven available on Earth what sense would current work ethics
make?  What aspects of the ant and other animal collectives are
present in and conflated with fine human thinking and our social
organisation?  The temptation to write the saga of the Spartacus Ant
in human heroics is not the trope.  This would be biology as a
knowledge against biological determinism and the democratic economy of
the Age of Entanglement, the science of actor-network theory and the
art of the Enlightenment in new representation of democracy and the
new enemies of open society.  Our finer institutions have been co-
evolving with what they are not.  Most human organisation never was
what our memories have made it.  What metaphors might make that
simplexity science does not bring to human affairs directly work in
our practical lives?

On 29 Oct, 12:14, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Rigs, how about a future trip at when it's getting warmer again?
>
> Archimedes said - so the legend goes - that a firm resting place was
> all he needed to dislodge the world from its axes. As much as this
> assertion is based upon mechanical law, it also questions the
> conditions of such an ideal position or theoretical perspective in the
> first place. Over time, the Archimedean point has come to stand for
> the seemingly paradoxical situation of acting both within and
> extraneously to a given context. Copernicus' "displacement" of the
> earth in favor of a heliocentric system is just one well-known
> example. After the Renaissance, literary, philosophical, political and
> scientific thinking has conjured the Archimedean point both naively
> and with skepticism, but always at those moments when a subject seems
> poised to claim an ideal theoretical standpoint. Under what conditions
> do we see such thinkers as Descartes, the German and British
> Romantics, and, in the twentieth century, Arendt, Blumenberg, Luhmann,
> and Latour, summoning the figure of Archimedes and the topos of the
> Archimedean point? To what degree does this point have a cultural and
> political history? Or, more generally, under what conditions do we see
> theories, figures and observations of "the whole" called into question?
>
> They are still calling out for papers
> (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Germanistik&m...)
> I am sure they won't mind if you pick different names to compare with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There are many "beliefs" that are false and unreasonable. Humans can
> > be very gullible.
>
> > On Oct 28, 12:20 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well that is true Rigsy, and perhaps your prediction is also true.  However
> >> religious faith is 'unreasonable' belief.  As it is my stance that we all
> >> hold to some of these along the way, then perhaps it is a wholly
> >> human/sentient being trait and we'll not be rid of it, only time will tell.
> >>  Just one of the reasons I want to reach at least 400 years old.
>
> >> On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:52:50 PM UTC, rigsy03 wrote:
>
> >> > Really? What about the Italian scientists who face prison time for
> >> > failing to predict the severity of an earthquake? What harmony under
> >> > the mantle of monotheism? Science and technology will make god(s)
> >> > obsolete and society can still be managed through various value
> >> > systems based on new realities and methods of control. Presently, we
> >> > are trying to integrate two oppositional positions which accounts for
> >> > a good amount of absurdity and disappointment. As extinct creatures
> >> > might have warned us, sentimentality is deadly.
>
> >> > On Oct 28, 2:12 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > I really do not see much beyond monotheism  atheism holds little but
> >> > > wishful madness, and as for polytheism the universes would be totally
> >> > > different..   Just doesn't work.. You are right arrogance is a
> >> > > tremendous problem which I seriously doubt man will over come.. those
> >> > > that are arrogant have little reason to change.. It is the monotheism
> >> > > that keeps some what harmony,,  the problems I see come from man
> >> > > changing the laws of God that have been handed down through the
> >> > > generations ..  It seems these changes are really designed to benefit
> >> > > them and their goals.
>
> >> > > without a singular God there would be no harmony even with in nature
> >> > > and the predictability of science would disappear.
> >> > > Allan
>
> >> > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:12 AM, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > I agree with S. W. Hawking where this is unknown territory, we have a
> >> > > > tendency to being destructive and careless. We must evolve if we wish
> >> > to
> >> > > > survive, boldly while trying to work out that Achilles heel
> >> > (arrogance).
>
> >> > > > Allan I was thinking similarly in part, I am not so sure monotheism is
> >> > for
> >> > > > everyone though. Where people can devise stories to fit a niche in
> >> > nature,
> >> > > > then further reconcile from that I think there is much less to say on
> >> > God
> >> > > > than people might, it may even be sacrilege to do so. In the sense of
> >> > > > attempting authority on the nameless, a belligerent act so to speak.
> >> > > > Agrarian civilization, centralization of authority, and cultural
> >> > homogeneity
> >> > > > (dare add monotheism) have allowed us to achieve major advancements
> >> > but I
> >> > > > question that we are approaching or even on track with a 'destination
> >> > > > truth'. It seems we are a hollow shell filled with culture, but
> >> > shouldn't it
> >> > > > be the other way around?!
>
> >> > > > I keep looking, but I'm just not seeing that 10% innovation in the
> >> > > > population, there is some serious parasitic drag somewhere in our
> >> > equations.
> >> > > > Sorry so subjective tonight Al. :)
>
> >> > > > On 10/26/2012 1:12 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> > > >> The foundations of most of the religions are not that far apart..  it
> >> > is
> >> > > >> the interpretation of them that gets the idea screwed up..  It seems
> >> > > >> though that the creator places people that have a better link and can
> >> > > >> help straighten the cultures  so there is hope as to maintain the
> >> > same
> >> > > >> ideas.  so I think that there us a very real possibility that common
> >> > > >> ground is available.
>
> >> > > >> poking a nd prodding out of curiosity is to be expected  it is called
> >> > > >> curiosity.
> >> > > >> Allan
>
> >> > > >> Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
>
> >> > > >> On Oct 26, 2012 3:18 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com
> >> > > >> <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>     Ohhh I don't know Andrew.
>
> >> > > >>     As I have said we can of course speculate on all sorts of things
> >> > > >>     about alien life, but seeing as we can only ever think about from
> >> > > >>     our particular species POV, I question how useful such
> >> > speculation
> >> > > >>     would be.  I think the most logical deduction we could make is to
> >> > > >>     say 'Well I really don't know', and that is indeed my line.
>
> >> > > >>     Heh of course having said that and in the spirit of pure
> >> > > >>     speculation, given that our current understanding of universal
> >> > > >>     principles, and laws of physics etc.. seem to encompass the
> >> > totality
> >> > > >>     of the universe, I do not think it incorrect to draw some
> >> > > >>     speculative conclusions.
>
> >> > > >>     Would alien lifeforms be carbon based as on our planet?  I
> >> > > >>     suspect probably yes, but there are reasons enough to suppose
> >> > > >>     otherwise also.
>
> >> > > >>     Would then non carbon life forms form different morality than
> >> > carbon
> >> > > >>     based life forms?  Umm well I'm going with 'I don't know' for
> >> > this
> >> > > >>     one, as I lack an in depth understanding of neurology.
>
> >> > > >>     As a theist who believes in a single creator God though I would
> >> > have
> >> > > >>     to agree with Allan.
>
> >> > > >>     A large part of my struggle is with the message of God.  Trying
> >> > to
> >> > > >>     recompense different religions with this single message is hard.
> >> >  I
> >> > > >>     try to imagine that all religions are valid and look for
> >> > > >>     the similarities, I rather suspect as I grow I will have to claim
> >> > > >>     that some are wholly false and man made whilst others are
> >> > > >>     the direct message from God albeit fucked with by mankind for his
> >> > > >>     own nefarious ends(Christianity for example).  So then the job
> >> > > >>     becomes separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
>
> >> > > >>     How would intelligent alien life cope with God's message I
> >> > wonder,
> >> > > >>     and would they be in the boat as we? Perhaps they have no idea of
> >> > a
> >> > > >>     God at all?  Or perhaps they may be the only beings who hold to
> >> > the
> >> > > >>     truth?  Ahhh once again, I'm forced to say I don't know.
>
> >> > > >>     Let us endeavour to understand the other sentient creatures we
> >> > share
> >> > > >>     this planet with first, then just maybe we can make better
> >> > educated
> >> > > >>     guesses.
>
> >> > > >>     Heh yes you can assume from that I am in favour of granting
> >> > > >>     personhood upon those 'higher order' animals, enshrouded in law.
>
> >> > > >>     On Friday, 26 October 2012 10:22:52 UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
>
> >> > > >>         I agree. Extra terrestrial visitors to earth would not be
> >> > > >>         comparable to us. They would have different values and
> >> > morals.
> >> > > >>         They would find all life sacred and would respect it, no
> >> > matter
> >> > > >>         how depraved or primitive. Perhaps they were the ones who
> >> > seeded
> >> > > >>         earth in the first place. They would probably recognize our
> >> > > >>         weaknesses and would let us either survive to our next stage
> >> > or
> >> > > >>         let us destroy ourselves.
>
> >> > > >>         On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:19:42 PM UTC+2, William L.
> >> > > >>         Houts William L. Houts Lukaeon William L. Houts wrote:
>
> >> > > >>             All right, I just wanted to run this by you guys.  I know
> >> > it
> >> > > >>             seems I'm
> >> > > >>             always rattlling on about aliens, but they're really a
> >> > stand
> >> > > >>             in for,
> >> > > >>             well, for a lot of things.  Anyway, I've been on Facebook
> >> > > >>             and recently
> >> > > >>             made a status report commenting on the conversation we
> >> > had
> >> > > >>             going on here
> >> > > >>             about hypothetical aliens and what they might or might
> >> > not
> >> > > >>             want
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--