Furthering Our Intellectual Development

[Dale]

We need an algorithm to make our decisions! Welcome to robot society!

 

;-)

 

And politics is a nothing thing....my god, where to start...

It's very difficult for me to explain everything here in this thread - I'd need to spend sometime explaining it all adequately or it would take for you to have the motivation to research certain areas but I imagine you may not be interested so we'll leave it there. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.

[chenGOD]

Want to learn about the world?

Get a goddamned jerb. Then travel. Leave your state/county/country by any available means.

 

If you want to learn about how some people think the world works, then read away.

 

Some recommendations:

Jared Diamond - "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

Niall Ferguson - "War of the World" (although Ferguson has an obvious political and economic bias, his ability as a historian is "quite good").

Samuel Huntington - "The Clash of Civilizations"

Anthony Giddens - "Runaway World"

 

Watch "The Power of Nightmares" and "The Century of the Self" - they are two brilliant documentary series by Adam Curtis (who unfortunately hasn't matched the quality of those two with his later output).

[Dale]

Watch "The Power of Nightmares" and "The Century of the Self" - they are two brilliant documentary series by Adam Curtis

[encey]

A waste of time? The relevance of Plato? Maybe his political discussions on how to run a state? Maybe because he asked questions which are still relevant today? Maybe because you can learn a lot about the concepts upon which our society is built?

 

It's OK to market Fresco's ideas and all, but to be dismissive about Plato is just stupid, IMO. That's like saying people shouldn't take the time to listen to the people who started to explore making electronic music.

 

So yeah, stay away from "certain philosophers"...... Sounds healthy. :thinking police:

I'd rather read about up-to-date scientific understandings of the world around us coupled with a social awareness. Politics is a nothing thing. Our societies are technical constructs which need competent, technical decision making on a scientific basis - not laws or politics for that matter. Politics is completely divorced from both the natural world and up-to-date understandings of human psychology/sociology.

Just to give one example: Science can tell us when an organism has developed organs, when it is capable of perception and self-movement, when its brain has gotten to a certain size and complexity -- but which of these factors counts as the organism being 'alive' is a philosophical, not a scientific, question. And you can see this from the fact that there is widespread disagreement about what scientific evidence is authoritative over the question when a fetus becomes 'alive' and deserving of the dignity of all living human beings. We're not disagreeing because we haven't found the right scientific fact yet; we're disagreeing because what it means for something to be a living human being is in dispute.

 

Also, your claim that politics is completely divorced from current understandings of human psychology and sociology is simply empirically false. Many politicians have a background in business, law, and/or political science, and each of these fields takes 'psychological' and 'sociological' claims, concepts and data into account in their respective inquiries. Now, maybe you're talking about statistical sociology and cognitive psychology, but again, facts about the number of people who get in car accidents before age 21 and the processing time of the visual nervous system are, on their own, neutral and uninformative when it comes to making political decisions. Only our interpretation of what those neutral facts mean for us will make them relevant to politics.

 

So I can't find the 'politics/science' distinction you're drawing convincing.

[goDel]

Sorry Bread, but to me your statements are so "out if this world" I really don't know where to start.

 

On one hand you're saying our societies are technical constructs, and on another you claim politics has lost touch with the natural world. And then you're simply putting law and politics into the same box and say they can be made redundant by "scientific decision making". The irony is that law and politics can be very technical, just like our "technical construct" of a society. I'd say that law and politics mimic that technical construct. Although I'm not sure what you mean with an abstract notion like that.

 

And I don't know what you think "scientific decision making" is, but to me it sounds like you imply that any issue in society can be resolved by scientific research. Or, to put it differently, it's all math and statistics. Apart from sounding like a contradiction, you just wipe away 2000 years (if not more) of history like it was all rubbish to begin with. What would science say about whether some decision would be ethical or not?

 

And what do you think Adam Curtis' The Trap was all about? Because going from those documentaries, politics was very much influenced by "scientific decision making" (game theory) if you ask me. Or was that bad science? Hey, "good", "bad" ....hmmmm interesting concepts. What makes science good science? And what makes it bad? What would Plato have to say? ;p

 

I think you're being way too dismissive about politics and law. And I'm not sure what you mean with society being a technical construct. Would you say a tribe of Bonobos is a technical construct as well?

[goDel]

I'd recommend reading "Human Web: A Bird's Eye View of World History" by McNeill & McNeill, btw. It really gives a convincing and explanative picture of our history.

[Guest Shit Attack]

uhhhhh shit attack

[Guest Ricky Downtown]

read at least one book on each topic: philosophy, sociology, psychology, physics. if you are going to college, take an intro course in each of these subjects. they have been invaluable to me and i know that i will use what i have learned in these courses throughout my life.

 

and i agree with chenGOD, get out there and explore. hear, don't listen. see, don't look. but while you are getting ready to travel you should read as much as you can!

[SR4]

If you claim that politics are outside of science or a non-issue, you could not possibly be more incorrect or uninformed. Politics isliterally the study of human organization, i.e. "the relation of citizens to polity". Political organizations or ideologies are created upon a scientific premise, a hypothesis on how human organizations work, their faults, and how feasible an alternative can be implemented. This is why there is such a thing as "political science".

 

 

And furthermore, Plato's conception of the ideal Republic and Aristotelian ethical dilemmas are still used to set certain conditions today in application to the feasibility of everything from economic organization, central planning, architectural projects, landscaping, agriculture, etc. etc.

 

This is nonsense.

[rixxx]

I'm currently reading David Deutsch's 'The beginning of infinity'

 

 

http://beginningofinfinity.com/

 

It's really nicely written and interesting.

[Dale]

Just to give one example: Science can tell us when an organism has developed organs, when it is capable of perception and self-movement, when its brain has gotten to a certain size and complexity -- but which of these factors counts as the organism being 'alive' is a philosophical, not a scientific, question. And you can see this from the fact that there is widespread disagreement about what scientific evidence is authoritative over the question when a fetus becomes 'alive' and deserving of the dignity of all living human beings. We're not disagreeing because we haven't found the right scientific fact yet; we're disagreeing because what it means for something to be a living human being is in dispute.

Attempting to reach a definition of whether something is 'alive' or not can become a subjective discussion I appreciate that. It's something I honestly have not given much thought about come to think of it. What I'm trying to put across is that if you don't use the tools of science, then certain discussions can become less valid in regards to attempting to reach an objective measurement of something. I don't have anything more to say on the example you have put across because I need to think about it more. However, I don't think that the whole of scientific decision making comes under scrutiny if you cannot reach a scientific decision on when something is categorised as 'alive' or not.

 

Also, your claim that politics is completely divorced from current understandings of human psychology and sociology is simply empirically false. Many politicians have a background in business, law, and/or political science, and each of these fields takes 'psychological' and 'sociological' claims, concepts and data into account in their respective inquiries. Now, maybe you're talking about statistical sociology and cognitive psychology, but again, facts about the number of people who get in car accidents before age 21 and the processing time of the visual nervous system are, on their own, neutral and uninformative when it comes to making political decisions. Only our interpretation of what those neutral facts mean for us will make them relevant to politics.

I agree that many politicians come from backgrounds relating to business and law - this is precisely the problem though - because business and law are not there to utilise optimum understandings of human psychology/sociology for the benefit of ALL people. If the area of law was truly advanced, then lawyers and judges would take into account that environment shapes behavior and that we are products of our culture therefore don't punish them - help them. Business, within the capitalist sense of it, is based on the profit motive therefore the psychological understandings associated with the business world are flawed and are not for assisting with social progress but for finding what is the best way to take advantage of a customer or compete with another company - again, these are socially irrelevant understandings if we want a more saner world.

 

Politicians don't solve problems - they can't because they don't know how. They lack the relevant tools to do so - hence the problems you see today. We need a much more 'competent' democracy and this competency is derived from scientific processes. We all interact with technical systems everyday of our lives - our toasters, our laptops, our washing machines, our iphones, the internet - all are technical and improve our lives. Just think about this for a moment - where do antiquated political systems fit into all of this? I know that no politician improves my life directly - if they made my shower hot in the morning, then I would think differently of course, but they act in accordance with the monetary economic system which is an extremely narrowed way of navigating a society.

[SR4]

...and politics would be the study of how one implements these scientific, more efficient processes within a larger community.

[Dale]

On one hand you're saying our societies are technical constructs, and on another you claim politics has lost touch with the natural world. And then you're simply putting law and politics into the same box and say they can be made redundant by "scientific decision making". The irony is that law and politics can be very technical, just like our "technical construct" of a society. I'd say that law and politics mimic that technical construct. Although I'm not sure what you mean with an abstract notion like that.

The systems you've outlined can be technical but I'm talking about physical, referential, scientific technicalities which politics is not derived from. For example, politicians do not arrive at decisions by using the scientific method. Please see the last part of the response I made to encey above.

 

And I don't know what you think "scientific decision making" is, but to me it sounds like you imply that any issue in society can be resolved by scientific research. Or, to put it differently, it's all math and statistics. Apart from sounding like a contradiction, you just wipe away 2000 years (if not more) of history like it was all rubbish to begin with. What would science say about whether some decision would be ethical or not?

I wipe away the past because I still see wars, poverty and inadequate governing systems. If I didn't see these problems around me, I'd obviously be thinking a lot differently. Political systems are the same repetitive pattern throughout history. They do not solve our problems and it's time to evolve out of them otherwise nothing will change for the benefit of everyone.

 

Aligning scientific decisions with social sustainability in mind is key when it comes to the discussion on 'ethical decision making'. Ask yourself, does a particular proposal help to promote social sustainability? - plus, the term 'sustainability' can be measured with the tools of science so that subjectivity is out of the equation.

 

And what do you think Adam Curtis' The Trap was all about? Because going from those documentaries, politics was very much influenced by "scientific decision making" (game theory) if you ask me. Or was that bad science? Hey, "good", "bad" ....hmmmm interesting concepts. What makes science good science? And what makes it bad? What would Plato have to say? ;p

Adopting science into politics today doesn't help anything because you already have a messed up social system (namely, the capitalist/monetary system itself - call it whatever you like). Motives and value systems today associated with scientific research to 'assist' with political decision making is not free from corruption in today's society due to money and vested interests relating to the capitalist system.

[Dale]

If you claim that politics are outside of science or a non-issue, you could not possibly be more incorrect or uninformed. Politics isliterally the study of human organization, i.e. "the relation of citizens to polity". Political organizations or ideologies are created upon a scientific premise, a hypothesis on how human organizations work, their faults, and how feasible an alternative can be implemented. This is why there is such a thing as "political science".

 

 

And furthermore, Plato's conception of the ideal Republic and Aristotelian ethical dilemmas are still used to set certain conditions today in application to the feasibility of everything from economic organization, central planning, architectural projects, landscaping, agriculture, etc. etc.

 

This is nonsense.

Political systems are embedded in today's cultural norms - they are not exempt from this. Science seeks to rid itself from cultural bias as best as possible. As per my post to godel a minute ago - bringing science into political decision making is an invalid way of doing things due to vested interests/corrupt motives derived from the money system itself (such a system rewards corruption).

 

Did Plato utilise the idea of 'social and environmental sustainability'? I'm still not convinced that I can learn anything of use from Plato or a particular tool to improve my life. His ideas belong in the past as far as I am concerned - there are no roads to yesterday.

[SR4]

Lemme refer to one of my new fave philosophers, Mr. Hegel. Hegel, in an incredibly generic and compressed version of his philosophy of thought/knowledge, and understanding claims that all forms of thought are measurements and means to accomplish the same goal. This of course happens achronologically, but nonetheless, in order to understand how a scientific method was developed, we must also understand the history of the events that came to create it, the philosophy that influenced the individual participants, and so on and so on. Part of the immense importance of philosophy and to a lesser extent history and politics is that philosophy is one of the best means to crack holes in not only proposed scientific theorems, but in the very means of arriving to those scientific conclusions themselves!

 

If you claim that politics are outside of science or a non-issue, you could not possibly be more incorrect or uninformed. Politics isliterally the study of human organization, i.e. "the relation of citizens to polity". Political organizations or ideologies are created upon a scientific premise, a hypothesis on how human organizations work, their faults, and how feasible an alternative can be implemented. This is why there is such a thing as "political science".

 

 

And furthermore, Plato's conception of the ideal Republic and Aristotelian ethical dilemmas are still used to set certain conditions today in application to the feasibility of everything from economic organization, central planning, architectural projects, landscaping, agriculture, etc. etc.

 

This is nonsense.

Political systems are embedded in today's cultural norms - they are not exempt from this. Science seeks to rid itself from cultural bias as best as possible. As per my post to godel a minute ago - bringing science into political decision making is an invalid way of doing things due to vested interests/corrupt motives derived from the money system itself (such a system rewards corruption).

 

Did Plato utilise the idea of 'social and environmental sustainability'? I'm still not convinced that I can learn anything of use from Plato or a particular tool to improve my life. His ideas belong in the past as far as I am concerned - there are no roads to yesterday.

 

Im sorry Bread, we have had decent discussions before, but if you are honestly taking the position that the past has no relevance to the present, I can no longer believe you are of a sane mind.

[Dale]

Lemme refer to one of my new fave philosophers, Mr. Hegel. Hegel, in an incredibly generic and compressed version of his philosophy of thought/knowledge, and understanding claims that all forms of thought are measurements and means to accomplish the same goal. This of course happens achronologically, but nonetheless, in order to understand how a scientific method was developed, we must also understand the history of the events that came to create it, the philosophy that influenced the individual participants, and so on and so on. Part of the immense importance of philosophy and to a lesser extent history and politics is that philosophy is one of the best means to crack holes in not only proposed scientific theorems, but in the very means of arriving to those scientific conclusions themselves!

 

If you claim that politics are outside of science or a non-issue, you could not possibly be more incorrect or uninformed. Politics isliterally the study of human organization, i.e. "the relation of citizens to polity". Political organizations or ideologies are created upon a scientific premise, a hypothesis on how human organizations work, their faults, and how feasible an alternative can be implemented. This is why there is such a thing as "political science".

 

 

And furthermore, Plato's conception of the ideal Republic and Aristotelian ethical dilemmas are still used to set certain conditions today in application to the feasibility of everything from economic organization, central planning, architectural projects, landscaping, agriculture, etc. etc.

 

This is nonsense.

Political systems are embedded in today's cultural norms - they are not exempt from this. Science seeks to rid itself from cultural bias as best as possible. As per my post to godel a minute ago - bringing science into political decision making is an invalid way of doing things due to vested interests/corrupt motives derived from the money system itself (such a system rewards corruption).

 

Did Plato utilise the idea of 'social and environmental sustainability'? I'm still not convinced that I can learn anything of use from Plato or a particular tool to improve my life. His ideas belong in the past as far as I am concerned - there are no roads to yesterday.

 

Im sorry Bread, we have had decent discussions before, but if you are honestly taking the position that the past has no relevance to the present, I can no longer believe you are of a sane mind.

I never said that the past has no relevance to the present - please address my points.

[SR4]

Science is insanely biased by culture. And yes, I am serious when I say that. Why? Because the science (a supposedly concrete fact about the nature of things that exists independent from thought processes) is arrived to by a human, a human with a mind that is distinctly similar to all other humans (ie. we think), but incredibly different and infinitely nuanced at the same time (ie. we think differently). One scientist performing an experiment may have claimed that experiment was to be conducted in a certain way because of personal ideology, which inspired him to investigate natural mechanisms, which then led him to the scientific discovery. Well, that scientific discovery was also reached because of funding from interested parties, each with their own individual motivations, ambitions, and ideologies themselves. None of these are inherently compatible with each other, but, they are similar enough to result in the discovery of a natural occurrence.

 

Science changes and the process shows itself to be neverending and in constant need of revision once another scientist from another background funded by other people with other backgrounds discovers a seperately occurring phenomena in nature; this discovery comes into direct conflict with the previous' scientists theorem. Thus, the circular process begins again.

 

 

My point is this: you speak of "science" as if it is this known endpoint. But, even if these laws exist and are waiting to be found, something in the mechanics of human nature is required to spur us onto those discoveries. "Science" is not just what is discovered, but how it is discovered, by what means, by whom, and how each successive discovery alters our previous amalgamations of "scientific" process.

[goDel]

I'm flabbergasted. It's like have a discussion with someone from Scientology: a brick wall.

 

We live in different worlds.

[Dale]

Science is insanely biased by culture. And yes, I am serious when I say that. Why? Because the science (a supposedly concrete fact about the nature of things that exists independent from thought processes) is arrived to by a human, a human with a mind that is distinctly similar to all other humans (ie. we think), but incredibly different and infinitely nuanced at the same time (ie. we think differently). One scientist performing an experiment may have claimed that experiment was to be conducted in a certain way because of personal ideology, which inspired him to investigate natural mechanisms, which then led him to the scientific discovery. Well, that scientific discovery was also reached because of funding from interested parties, each with their own individual motivations, ambitions, and ideologies themselves. None of these are inherently compatible with each other, but, they are similar enough to result in the discovery of a natural occurrence.

If you nurtured a culture based upon social sustainability - research will only be carried out if it bears some social relevance. Today, we have people in labs looking to create the move destructive weapons for governments - this is not a sane approach. Yes - culture influences, I don't deny that. Let me rephrase: if we can attain a socially sustainable culture, any scientific research or proposal would have to bear some social relevance otherwise it is rendered useless to society. The culture we have today is nowhere near social sustainability.

 

Science changes and the process shows itself to be neverending and in constant need of revision once another scientist from another background funded by other people with other backgrounds discovers a seperately occurring phenomena in nature; this discovery comes into direct conflict with the previous' scientists theorem. Thus, the circular process begins again.

You're thinking in terms of today's capitalist system where you use the word 'funded' - I'm talking about a totally different system where science can be applied to social concern - where the question is never 'do we have the money?' but always 'do we have enough resources to carry out the task?'

And yes I agree that science is ever evolving - I don't deny this at all. We're always gaining new information.

 

My point is this: you speak of "science" as if it is this known endpoint. But, even if these laws exist and are waiting to be found, something in the mechanics of human nature is required to spur us onto those discoveries. "Science" is not just what is discovered, but how it is discovered, by what means, by whom, and how each successive discovery alters our previous amalgamations of "scientific" process.

I don't and have never stated that science is an endpoint - let me clarify - I am fully aware that it constantly evolves and we're always gaining new information on things. However, I do think that science as a tool is the best we have so far when it comes to arriving at the most optimal decisions available.

 

I'm flabbergasted. It's like have a discussion with someone from Scientology: a brick wall.

 

We live in different worlds.

We more than likely come from different backgrounds and come from different cultural settings so I understand why communication is difficult. I'm trying my best, as I'm sure you are. There is no need to be offensive and imply I'm from a cult.

[goDel]

I know that no politician improves my life directly - if they made my shower hot in the morning, then I would think differently of course, but they act in accordance with the monetary economic system which is an extremely narrowed way of navigating a society.

 

The irony is that societies having electricity, clean water, sewer, roads and what not has very much to do with politics and very little with science. Yes, there's a scientific start to every invention. But to have an entire society having electricity and clean water requires lots of politics and laws. I really don't understand how you can ignore such basic things. Perhaps you should study more history to do so.

[Dale]

On a sidenote - to the original poster - sorry for hijacking the thread. I'll stop here.

 

I know that no politician improves my life directly - if they made my shower hot in the morning, then I would think differently of course, but they act in accordance with the monetary economic system which is an extremely narrowed way of navigating a society.

 

The irony is that societies having electricity, clean water, sewer, roads and what not has very much to do with politics and very little with science. Yes, there's a scientific start to every invention. But to have an entire society having electricity and clean water requires lots of politics and laws. I really don't understand how you can ignore such basic things. Perhaps you should study more history to do so.

You're thinking in terms of the current system again.

 

Last post.

[SR4]

yes, we should probably all stop

[eugene]

oh what a shame, it actually get much more entertaining when bread starts on explaining how to begin to implement his utopian ideas.

[goDel]

On a sidenote - to the original poster - sorry for hijacking the thread. I'll stop here.

 

I know that no politician improves my life directly - if they made my shower hot in the morning, then I would think differently of course, but they act in accordance with the monetary economic system which is an extremely narrowed way of navigating a society.

 

The irony is that societies having electricity, clean water, sewer, roads and what not has very much to do with politics and very little with science. Yes, there's a scientific start to every invention. But to have an entire society having electricity and clean water requires lots of politics and laws. I really don't understand how you can ignore such basic things. Perhaps you should study more history to do so.

You're thinking in terms of the current system again.

 

Last post.

 

Due to the current system you can have a hot shower. Yes that is my point. It's clear you want to dismiss the current system. Not acknowledging any benefits from the current system is in my eyes quite simply due to cognitive dissonance. Sorry, that is my opinion.

[Guest boo]

if you read some plato or whatever and arrogantly decide it's crap and irrelevant, it probably still furthered your intellectual development

 

 

 

maybe

 

 

 

 

unconciously

 

 

 

 

 

maybe