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

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 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--