Re: Mind's Eye thought experiments

We may be on the same page Gabby, my imagined future possibilities are
still clouded by unknowns (to me). That I consider a consequence of
mental bondage to current circumstances, and left unchecked can be
demoralizing to creative intelligence. As far as I can tell we are meant
to invent solutions to challenges, and hold on as long as possible until
the opportunity arises. My opinion is that we can do little to force
change but as facilitators we can pursue strategic challenges that will
open those opportunities.

If I said that in 10 years the technology should be accessible to refine
garbage, wood or any other fuel into electricity at 80+ conversion
efficiency from common household materials in your average (modern)
garage there is no shortage of engineers that would call me a quack. If
I said that you could do it today with moderate access to materials
refining equipment, with a net generated income over the winter months,
and it could be boosted by running a greenhouse and indoor fishery I
would be surely nuts. SOFC, steam reforming, plasma reduction, pyrolytic
reduction are a few terms for that type of nut.

I think we are missing the spirit of engineering in our social and
political dialogue. It could just be me.. we seem to be able to redefine
just about any kind of waste into an asset, but we insist that primitive
human traits are superior and sacrosanct.

Navigating awkward transitions, that is what I think we are doing (not
necessarily excellently, but making progress). Still passin' the buck
here, your turn. Sorry for no answer Archy, too bad telepathy isn't an
option because the picture is clear but I just don't trust the words yet.

On 10/4/2012 5:14 AM, gabbydott wrote:
> That's right. Us end consumers of your brilliant ideas need time to
> consume your complex theories in simple practice for you to see where
> we fail to get your idea for you to better educate and motivate us. :p
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:25 AM, James<ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was hoping we could evolve sociologically in step with technology, that
>> implies an intelligent management infrastructure that educates and motivates
>> free agents to make contributions to the works of humanity. Suitably
>> educated in the workings of organisms (especially how they relate and
>> compare to man), the arts, sciences, elimination of destitution, poverty,
>> mental illnesses, the list goes on.. It requires that we manage things
>> intelligently, learn from mistakes and move forward. If this progress
>> happened in a 100 years I think we would likely reduce our population to
>> half within the next hundred, there is nothing logical about reproducing ad
>> infinitum and by then the social costs should be obvious enough, added to
>> the lack of need as we extend the human lifespan. I think we have a large
>> potential in voluntary acts.
>>
>> Who is pie in the sky now? :p
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2012 5:57 PM, archytas wrote:
>>>
>>> If workers aren't needed for work, what will happen to them? The
>>> animal and plant world answer is generally a 'return to nutrients'.
>>>
>>> On 3 Oct, 09:57, Shekila Tieschmaker<shekilatieschma...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> how do you get out this group thing ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: James<ashkas...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:26 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye thought experiments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well it is far worse (or better depending on who is looking at it), many
>>>>> of the older trades and crafts-people I've met had an appreciation for
>>>>> seeing their work as an artform. That would be my robot heaven, working
>>>>> toward a world where we can all pursue meaning and purposeful work without
>>>>> the burden of resource scarcity. What would it matter that someone wants to
>>>>> be a plumber or architect in a day when those positions are obsolete, if
>>>>> that is pursuing meaning, it would matter little more than what restaurant
>>>>> someone likes to the next guy. In a world that valued human contribution it
>>>>> might be a plus, there is a name associated with the foundation of my home,
>>>>> or certain furniture or I tweaked my engine to respond exactly the way I
>>>>> like in a curve, finding a way to shield a planet from gamma radiation,
>>>>> optimizing resource allocations in complex evolving environments from
>>>>> nanotech on up to transport vessels for interplanetary mining and
>>>>> settlement, etc..
>>>>> Back to the present time and scale there is the matter of plotting a
>>>>> course of innovation by meeting challenges.
>>>>> Laziness might be a challenge, and frailty, I haven't met many people
>>>>> who have had to wash clothes in a bathtub complain about the advancement of
>>>>> the washing machine, or get whimsical about enduring ailments we've found
>>>>> remedies or therapies for. We seem to be in a transitional stage, not quite
>>>>> coming to grips with the world we could create. Psychology is important to
>>>>> survival, nonproductive time as some call it, I eye some of them as suspect
>>>>> sociopaths. Being motivated can be very rewarding, it is too bad that out
>>>>> word for meaningfully motivated is "naive". I'm taking the long way 'round
>>>>> with this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/19/2012 5:56 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>

--