Scientific Civilization [modified]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
True, crowd control is an aspect of civilization. Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion.
Thats very true. But we are talking about civilization, not an individual's ability to be civil. It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the federal borders and interstate commerce
Once you give the feds the power to regulate "interstate" commerce, you have given them the power to regulate business. Besides, states rights means that California should decide what enters its borders and what doesn't. It most definbitely doesn't mean that the feds will enforce your particular prejudices and opinions and override the will of the people of California. You appear to be hoist by your own petard. The idea that the feds will set up customs houses on every road that crosses a state line boggles the mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there is some nation out there trying to flood our society with drugs
Sheeee-it. There's enough marijuana grown in California to keep us all stoned every weekend from now on out. Once States Rights becomes paramount, Cali will be growing poppy and hemp everywhere it doesn't grow maryjane. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the folks in New York and Massachusetts ain't gonna contribute a dime towards keeping the drugs out of Ohio, or Indiana, or North Dakota either. Only thing that makes 'em do it now is those damned activist judges on the Supreme Court taking power away fromn the states and giving it to Washington.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Once you give the feds the power to regulate "interstate" commerce
I think you need to take that up with the founding fathers... The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Oakman wrote:
There's enough marijuana grown in California to keep us all stoned every weekend from now on out. Once States Rights becomes paramount, Cali will be growing poppy and hemp everywhere it doesn't grow maryjane.
Well, until they collapse under the weight of such stupidity.
Oakman wrote:
And you can bet your bottom dollar that the folks in New York and Massachusetts ain't gonna contribute a dime towards keeping the drugs out of Ohio, or Indiana, or North Dakota either. Only thing that makes 'em do it now is those damned activist judges on the Supreme Court taking power away fromn the states and giving it to Washington.
And the constitution, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Once you give the feds the power to regulate "interstate" commerce
I think you need to take that up with the founding fathers... The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Oakman wrote:
There's enough marijuana grown in California to keep us all stoned every weekend from now on out. Once States Rights becomes paramount, Cali will be growing poppy and hemp everywhere it doesn't grow maryjane.
Well, until they collapse under the weight of such stupidity.
Oakman wrote:
And you can bet your bottom dollar that the folks in New York and Massachusetts ain't gonna contribute a dime towards keeping the drugs out of Ohio, or Indiana, or North Dakota either. Only thing that makes 'em do it now is those damned activist judges on the Supreme Court taking power away fromn the states and giving it to Washington.
And the constitution, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think you need to take that up with the founding fathers...
No, you do. because you are arguing is that if the feds say it's all right to transport and sell marijuana, your state, city, or neighborhood block has no right - none at all - to demur. You also argue that if the Feds say the the manufacture of and display of confederate flags is illegal, a bunch of state legislatures will have to redesign their state flags - unless of course, you suddenly decide that flags are protected by the First Amendment after all. If you are the Constitutional scholar you say you are, you know that there has been much debate over the meaning of the 16 words that you have quoted and that a fair number of scholars would side with Jefferson when he said, "the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . .”
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion.
Thats very true. But we are talking about civilization, not an individual's ability to be civil. It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
But what good are rules and standards if there is no police force to ensure they are obeyed? And yet you sided with Ayn Rand in saying that there is no need for a police force to keep us safe. You ultra-libertarians will bring about the ruin of this country, I do declare.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
What do you think of a society governed by science and science only? A society so mechanized and organized that it can be viewed as a machine and controlled with variables. Tweaking the variables in the machine would cause a cascade effect effecting every individual. Everyone would be thoroughly cataloged, everything from what they buy, where they drive, where they walk, facial expressions noted using AI that analyzes CCTV footage 24/7. Psychology would certainly be used in the system. The mentality of people would be manipulated with social engineering. The media would be the major outlet of such manipulation. Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license. Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated. Education would be highly regulated, everyone from childhood to collage would be required the necessary conditioning to be a "productive member" of society. Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous. Everyone has to work and continue to work, except the privileged "disabled". Savings would be stealthed away and debt is the only way to stay afloat in the economy. People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say. Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.. There would be nowhere to run or hide, you would have no choice as you are owned by the ruling elite. You must do what you are told to do or suffer the punishments. You would be a cog in a highly organized and controlled machine, unable to think for yourself or do what you want. You would not be a human, but a unit. The science of tyranny is absolute law.
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Intel 4004 wrote:
Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous.
Dude, wtf are you smoking? Can you explain why things will be like you claim in your pretend society or do you need to watch Wizards again to figure that out?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates? Okay - opiates and caffeine.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Okay - opiates and caffeine.
I hope no one finds my stash of Jamaican Blue Mountain.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Some manage to be civilized without drugs or religion.
Thats very true. But we are talking about civilization, not an individual's ability to be civil. It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
But will those who do not see things "our" way permit "us" to set (or maintain) the rules? Why should they?
Bob Emmett
-
Oakman wrote:
Is that all you've got?
Thats the only point I was trying to make.
Oakman wrote:
Pity. I think there's more job security in being an MD than in selling car parts.
Tell me about it... I was just put off by the requirement of going to medical school to pursue the things I was interested in. I didn't give a shit about the liver, I just wanted to study brains. It was more of an engineering interest for me than a medical one. I didn't want to save lives, I just wanted to see if a brain could be reverse engineered so to speak.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the only point I was trying to make.
Again, it's such a trivial point as to be meaningless in any actual study of the brain - and if you'll remember, it was CSS's purported amazing insight into how humans work, which is what I was taking issue with. Computers are designed to be tools for rapid discrete determinant sequential operations, whereas the brain cannot be considered to be discrete or determinant (at least, to the best understanding of physics AFAIK) or sequential in any non-trivial way.
- F
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous.
Dude, wtf are you smoking? Can you explain why things will be like you claim in your pretend society or do you need to watch Wizards again to figure that out?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Is not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
Yes, perfectly adequate; however, it's wrong, and in the same way that there has never been more than a minority of atheists, there has never been more than a tiny minority of people that understand time dilation. So, is this perception of time merely adequate for civilisation, or required, and is religion merely adequate, or required?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think you need to take that up with the founding fathers...
No, you do. because you are arguing is that if the feds say it's all right to transport and sell marijuana, your state, city, or neighborhood block has no right - none at all - to demur. You also argue that if the Feds say the the manufacture of and display of confederate flags is illegal, a bunch of state legislatures will have to redesign their state flags - unless of course, you suddenly decide that flags are protected by the First Amendment after all. If you are the Constitutional scholar you say you are, you know that there has been much debate over the meaning of the 16 words that you have quoted and that a fair number of scholars would side with Jefferson when he said, "the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . .”
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Jon, I just quoted the actual constitution to you for god's sake. If Jefferson didn't like that, he should have been paying more attention to what was actually being put in it. I agree that the commerce clause has become ever more broadly interpreted, way beyond any sane interpretation of its original meaning, but until we amend the constitution to remove it, it is there. If California begins transporting marijuana to New York, it would make sense that the states in between should expect the federal government to make them stop. But without a commerce clause at all there would be 50 completely separate economies within the US. Even the most radical inerpretation of state's rights never considered that as an objective.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
But what good are rules and standards if there is no police force to ensure they are obeyed? And yet you sided with Ayn Rand in saying that there is no need for a police force to keep us safe. You ultra-libertarians will bring about the ruin of this country, I do declare.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
But what good are rules and standards if there is no police force to ensure they are obeyed? And yet you sided with Ayn Rand in saying that there is no need for a police force to keep us safe. You ultra-libertarians will bring about the ruin of this country, I do declare.
We were discussing an abstract, theoretical possibility, not a statement of a goal that is going to be practical in the foreseeable future.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is precisely those among us who desire to be civil who need rules and standards to compel those who do not to see things our way.
But will those who do not see things "our" way permit "us" to set (or maintain) the rules? Why should they?
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
But will those who do not see things "our" way permit "us" to set (or maintain) the rules? Why should they?
The wouldn't. Thats why the religion or the drugs become necessary. There is simply no other way to maintain a civil society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Is not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
Yes, perfectly adequate; however, it's wrong, and in the same way that there has never been more than a minority of atheists, there has never been more than a tiny minority of people that understand time dilation. So, is this perception of time merely adequate for civilisation, or required, and is religion merely adequate, or required?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is not.
Is so.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yes, perfectly adequate; however, it's wrong, and in the same way that there has never been more than a minority of atheists, there has never been more than a tiny minority of people that understand time dilation. So, is this perception of time merely adequate for civilisation, or required, and is religion merely adequate, or required?
What?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the only point I was trying to make.
Again, it's such a trivial point as to be meaningless in any actual study of the brain - and if you'll remember, it was CSS's purported amazing insight into how humans work, which is what I was taking issue with. Computers are designed to be tools for rapid discrete determinant sequential operations, whereas the brain cannot be considered to be discrete or determinant (at least, to the best understanding of physics AFAIK) or sequential in any non-trivial way.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Again, it's such a trivial point as to be meaningless in any actual study of the brain
Trivial to you perhaps but very interesting to me. I find it odd that you would combine interests in computer science and (I assume) a study of the biological principles of the human brain yet argue that there is no commonality between the two methods of processing data. Why back when, my interests were purely how one might incorporate elements of neurological based processes into computer design, or to directly interface two such systems in some way. To have the best of both worlds, so to speak. Unless your interests are similar, I don't understand in what other way the two areas of study have much in common.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This has nothing to do with following the crowd. You posted a hypothesis and I am asking for your reasoning? Why did you post it here if you don't intend to at least try and explain why you think this is true?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
This has nothing to do with following the crowd. You posted a hypothesis and I am asking for your reasoning? Why did you post it here if you don't intend to at least try and explain why you think this is true?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
It would be a waste of time to try to explain anything to a brick wall.
So, no real conviction, thought or, supporting data behind your hypothesis then? And, you didn't answer the question, why did you post the hypothesis if you won't explain your position?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
It would be a waste of time to try to explain anything to a brick wall.
So, no real conviction, thought or, supporting data behind your hypothesis then? And, you didn't answer the question, why did you post the hypothesis if you won't explain your position?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
So, no real conviction, thought or, supporting data behind your hypothesis then?
Yes and lots of it too, but I'm busy watching the Simpsons.
Chris Austin wrote:
why did you post the hypothesis if you won't explain your position?
Just to implant the thought so people can think it out for themselves. Can you think for yourself?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Again, it's such a trivial point as to be meaningless in any actual study of the brain
Trivial to you perhaps but very interesting to me. I find it odd that you would combine interests in computer science and (I assume) a study of the biological principles of the human brain yet argue that there is no commonality between the two methods of processing data. Why back when, my interests were purely how one might incorporate elements of neurological based processes into computer design, or to directly interface two such systems in some way. To have the best of both worlds, so to speak. Unless your interests are similar, I don't understand in what other way the two areas of study have much in common.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I find it odd that you would combine interests in computer science and (I assume) a study of the biological principles of the human brain yet argue that there is no commonality between the two methods of processing data.
I'm not arguing there's no commonality, I'm saying that to call the brain a computer doesn't help you understand the brain, much less human behavior - for example, a computer can add fifty million items in a list together in less than a second, but a human brain cannot do that. A computer can remember fifty million numbers the first time it's told - a human brain can remember about 7. The way they process information is very, very different, and it's simply a mistake to think of the brain like a computer. I will grant after reflection that perhaps I'm being too picky, but nevertheless I would argue that the ability to discretize information is an emergent property of the workings of a brain, but the fundamental purpose of computers is explicitly the handling of discrete information (hell, music and TV are in discrete chunks simply played fast enough to resemble the type of continuous data that our brain interprets). A computer takes continuous information, discretizes it, then processes it. A brain takes continuous information, processes it, then if necessary discretizes it (with great effort - for example, as far as I know smaller brains like dog brains can't 'count' things because they don't have the cortical wiring necessary - but hell, why would they need to?). Looking back over how wordy that was, yeah, maybe I am being too picky about it. Nevertheless! Despite my persistent desire to re-enact decades of terrible science fiction stories warning us about the dangers of AI, I personally think it's doubtful that computers will ever be able to truly act like a brain simply because it's probably not possible to discretize down to the fidelity of continuous data that a brain processes.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why back when, my interests were purely how one might incorporate elements of neurological based processes into computer design, or to directly interface two such systems in some way.
Neurology is an utterly fascinating field, they use computers in endless ways to try to understand and manipulate the brain - EEGs, fMRIs, electrode implantation for seizure studies, stuff like that. Right now, it's one of those fields where the joke is "neurology is