Re: Mind's Eye Re: A Call To Democratic Arms?

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 <nwterry@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <andrewvec...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com>
>> > > 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 »
>
> --
>
>
>



--
(
)
|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..

--