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

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 I don't know- though I'm
> > >> > sure rationalisation was part of it.  I much prefer agnosticism on
> > >> > what we don't know to the zealot - and admissions we don't know over
> > >> > 'there is no alternative zeal'.  As to what science is, I prefer
> > >> > admission it is replete with values, religion, manic belief and so on,
> > >> > done by social animals, already present in a world before humans and
> > >> > in subjective human reflection on the past.  The whole notion of
> > >> > science as 'value free' is a nonsense and has origin in battles in
> > >> > which others held and used the instruments of torture to promote their
> > >> > control fraud.  I have no intention of being sent out, as a previous
> > >> > and dubiously historical figure with a sling-shot against god-made-
> > >> > Goliath.
>
> > >> > To some extent, if we could break the 'argument code' and produce a
> > >> > technology that made decision obvious, we would break the political
> > >> > power complex.  The fear is of some Frankenstein nightmare worse than
> > >> > what we have now.  Habermas sought to extirpate (root out) ideology
> > >> > and form an ideal-type speech situation in which only Reason would
> > >> > decide (Reason in my take is a 'technology').  He was scoffed at as
> > >> > 'the Professor' by postmodernists as his 'system' would inevitably be
> > >> > totalising - and hadn't we had enough totalising with the Nazis?  I
> > >> > think all sides of this argument are little more than academic guff.
>
> > >> > I wonder whether there is a better starting point in recognising most
> > >> > people are hopeless in argument and whether we might be better placed
> > >> > as individuals if technology could do more of the argument for us as,
> > >> > say, a car can be driven.
>
> > >> > On 17 Jan, 12:10, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Sorry for being late here. Let me go back to your question, Allan, whether
> > >> > > our counting system is bigoted. And let me ask you if you think that there
> > >> > > is a substantial difference between "4" and "IV". I would argue that both
> > >> > > representational symbols do not violate the parameters of human
> > >> > > perceptional limitation, which only allow for up to four visible items
> > >> > > being instantaneously operated upon and produce reliable data
> > >> > > representative. Five dots on a piece of paper should be better put in some
> > >> > > order - in order to be recognized as 5 in a blink of a moment. Or - as
> > >> > > evidence of the Spirit At Work. :)
>
> > >> > > As for being afraid of James - what separates us from the other animals is
> > >> > > our deeply rooted belief that we are better than them. That should count as
> > >> > > a valid argument for believing in God, the creator, in whose image we are
> > >> > > being made.
> > >> > > What struck me as "fearful" - to follow your logic - is hearing an American
> > >> > > (highest degree of individualistic socialization, self-localization:
> > >> > > from-coast-to-coast) arguing towards "mutually beneficial outcomes". Across
> > >> > > the pond we have our own understanding of "mutually" and "beneficial",
> > >> > > depending on our different historical cultural backgrounds and present day
> > >> > > socioeconomic situation.
>
> > >> > > The global construction of oneness so far has been achieved by the force of
> > >> > > necessity aka God's higher justice. How do you want to improve that
> > >> > > opponent of yours, Neil?
>
> > >> > > 2013/1/17 archytas
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--