Scientific Civilization [modified]
-
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
-
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:
Jon, I just quoted the actual constitution to you for god's sake.
And you go on to admit that there are quarrels about what it means. As far as i can tell, you are agreeing with me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Why? Because that is your interpretation of regulation?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Even the most radical inerpretation of state's rights never considered that as an objective.
Actually that is exactly what happens if we say that the 10th amendment trumps everything else - which is your viewpoint, isn't it? I not for instance that the Constitution does not exclude the states from regulating commerce within their borders - therefore we can have tarriffs set up between North and South Dakota. Indeed, we already do when states collect sales tax they "lose" when a citizen buys something in another state. I'm wondering if you live in the center of a state where there is little border war between two economies. You might be surprised at how many North Carolinians shop on my side of the border where the taxes are lower - and the difference in gas taxes pretty much pays for the trip.
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:
not a statement of a goal that is going to be practical in the foreseeable future.
You said I was wrong to want a police force and ayn Rand was right to think we didn't need one. "It wasn't difficult to understand; nor was it any more abstract than any of the debates in here. Of course, you're welcome to admit you were wrong and I was right. . . .
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
-
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?
Intel 4004 wrote:
ust to implant the thought so people can think it out for themselves. Can you think for yourself?
I can and I am asking you how you came to your conclusion before I dismiss it off hand as a fantasy based on wild assumptions and zero knowledge. This is how theories are developed, propose something and back it up with thoughtful data.
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:
ust to implant the thought so people can think it out for themselves. Can you think for yourself?
I can and I am asking you how you came to your conclusion before I dismiss it off hand as a fantasy based on wild assumptions and zero knowledge. This is how theories are developed, propose something and back it up with thoughtful data.
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:
I can and I am asking you how you came to your conclusion
A central bank such as the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporations. A quasi-private bank that has a complete monopoly on the issuance of money. Every single dollar in circulation was and is loaned out by this bank at interest. What do people want when they have all the money in the world? Power, and world politics is the ultimate game. Think as if you owned your own country, could purchase its leaders, control the media, and its money. It would be like your personal force in the world to accomplish even greater power. Think about it. It is the ultimate highest lifestyle, nobody can get in your way, you are on top of the world.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
I can and I am asking you how you came to your conclusion
A central bank such as the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporations. A quasi-private bank that has a complete monopoly on the issuance of money. Every single dollar in circulation was and is loaned out by this bank at interest. What do people want when they have all the money in the world? Power, and world politics is the ultimate game. Think as if you owned your own country, could purchase its leaders, control the media, and its money. It would be like your personal force in the world to accomplish even greater power. Think about it. It is the ultimate highest lifestyle, nobody can get in your way, you are on top of the world.
None of this is unique to a society based on rational thought as it would be if it were a "scientific civilization." What you have described is clearly an Oligarchy[^] and there are some thories[^] in political science that all human political systems lead to this. Just look at today's democracies and republics. I'd say they all share all or some of the problems you've cited. Look back in history at the systems of Hereditary rule, many would argue these were equal corrupt. You can keep looking back in time and you will see a pattern of behavior. Personally, I think this is a flaw in humanity not secularism, super-naturalism or, any any dogmatic political stance.
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
-
None of this is unique to a society based on rational thought as it would be if it were a "scientific civilization." What you have described is clearly an Oligarchy[^] and there are some thories[^] in political science that all human political systems lead to this. Just look at today's democracies and republics. I'd say they all share all or some of the problems you've cited. Look back in history at the systems of Hereditary rule, many would argue these were equal corrupt. You can keep looking back in time and you will see a pattern of behavior. Personally, I think this is a flaw in humanity not secularism, super-naturalism or, any any dogmatic political stance.
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
-
Tossing naming semantics aside, how do you feel this society you've described is unique from what we've seen historically or what we see in numerous instances these days? Do you disagree that what you've described could be labeled as an oligarchy (or technically a possible plutocracy)?
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
-
Tossing naming semantics aside, how do you feel this society you've described is unique from what we've seen historically or what we see in numerous instances these days? Do you disagree that what you've described could be labeled as an oligarchy (or technically a possible plutocracy)?
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:
Tossing naming semantics aside, how do you feel this society you've described is unique from what we've seen historically or what we see in numerous instances these days?
We have technology and knowledge never imagined before which can be used in dangerous ways. That is where I got the 'science' from.
Chris Austin wrote:
Do you disagree that what you've described could be labeled as an oligarchy (or technically a possible plutocracy)?
No.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Tossing naming semantics aside, how do you feel this society you've described is unique from what we've seen historically or what we see in numerous instances these days?
We have technology and knowledge never imagined before which can be used in dangerous ways. That is where I got the 'science' from.
Chris Austin wrote:
Do you disagree that what you've described could be labeled as an oligarchy (or technically a possible plutocracy)?
No.
Intel 4004 wrote:
No.
Why? [Edit] Never mind, I misread the response.
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:
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:
Is so.
Is not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What?
The rise of civilisation has perfectly coincided with the belief in absolute time, in the same way that is has with the belief in religion. Why then is religion absolutely necessary and temporal absolutism merely sufficient?
-
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.
-
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
Sounds like a cool movie, to me. I hope you don't think it's real, or could be real. Except for
Intel 4004 wrote:
Everyone has to work and continue to work
This may be your nightmare, but it's reality for most people.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )