Flat Earth Theory Contradictorly Argued by Physics.

[Eodnhoj7]

The fact we are discussing this over a computer rather than face to face is social ostracism...

False dichotomy.

If it wasn't for computers/internet - do you think you and I would be having this conversation at all?

The face-to-face option has not been taken away from us.
Only an alternative (that didn't exist 50 years ago) has been added.

Actually it results in a regressive contradiction considering the majority of people just argue...would we be arguing regardless of this conversation? True dichotomy.

Second, all technology does is complicate the social construct. Where a person would be discussing "x" with the person in front of them, now they are discussing "x" with a person a distance away while another person is respectively in front of both people.

Add the fact communication over a computer does not take into account tone of voice, body posture, eye contact, etc and the dichotomy itself is observed at a deeper level in communication itself. Where the 5 senses are involved as a fuller degree of movements, this is limited to strict downgrade of the sense of sight and a much lesser degree of hearing and touch.

The dichotomy is still there, and technology creates as many problems as it solves. It takes the standard thetical/antithetical aspects of "being" and complicated them further.

[Logik]

Actually it results in a regressive contradiction considering the majority of people just argue...would we be arguing regardless of this conversation? True dichotomy.

You can't blame that on technology. Philosophers have been doing that since day 1.

Second, all technology does is complicate the social construct.

That's not how I see it. Technology helps us to manage complexity.

Where a person would be discussing "x" with the person in front of them, now they are discussing "x" with a person a distance away while another person is respectively in front of both people.

And I find that to be incredibly valuable. When I was growing up (10-11 years old) I was surrounded by people of dogma, religion, racism and close-mindedness. At that age I already had contact and relations with people all over the world (whom I had never met) so I had broad exposure to cultures without ever having left my own country.

It chances one's perspective when you hear people speak in stereotypes "Muslims are so and so...", "Arabs are so and so....", "Blacks are so and so....". Because I knew people from all creeds, colours and nationalities before I was 15 I learned to recognise lazy thinkers from a very early age.
I was surrounded by them.

Add the fact communication over a computer does not take into account tone of voice, body posture, eye contact, etc and the dichotomy itself is observed at a deeper level in communication itself. Where the 5 senses are involved as a fuller degree of movements, this is limited to strict downgrade of the sense of sight and a much lesser degree of hearing and touch.

Yes. No free lunch. This is probably why I am not very good at reading social queues. I learned to interact through a screen and keyboard.

The dichotomy is still there, and technology creates as many problems as it solves. It takes the standard thetical/antithetical aspects of "being" and complicated them further.

Back to "technology helps us manage complexity". Ultimately complexity is THE problem we are facing. We invent technology to manage complexity.
Technology becomes too complex, so we invent technology to help us manage the complexity of the complexity of technology.

Turtles all the way down.

It's not our fault that we find ourselves in this huge, complicated place. And that we are curious as to how it works. Evolution wired us that way.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually it results in a regressive contradiction considering the majority of people just argue...would we be arguing regardless of this conversation? True dichotomy.

You can't blame that on technology. Philosophers have been doing that since day 1.

Technology is just an extension of how people view the world and as such is really dealing with the nature of "knowledge" in the human condition. Most technology is strictly an extension of want rather than need. Take for example all the algorithms, and the corresponding advances in technology, used to develop a simple emoji.

Second, all technology does is complicate the social construct.

That's not how I see it. Technology helps us to manage complexity.

With all perspectives rise an antithetical perspective to negate it to meaninglessness.

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-finds- ... -facebook/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -condition
https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigo ... e-you-feel
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nd-smarter

Manage what "complexity" when not only is "man" complex enough, but that very technology causes further complexity in that nature.


Technology changes nothing, it just inverts reality.

Where a person would be discussing "x" with the person in front of them, now they are discussing "x" with a person a distance away while another person is respectively in front of both people.

And I find that to be incredibly valuable. When I was growing up (10-11 years old) I was surrounded by people of dogma, religion, racism and close-mindedness. At that age I already had contact and relations with people all over the world (whom I had never met) so I had broad exposure to cultures without ever having left my own country.


It chances one's perspective when you hear people speak in stereotypes "Muslims are so and so...", "Arabs are so and so....", "Blacks are so and so....". Because I knew people from all creeds, colours and nationalities before I was 15 I learned to recognise lazy thinkers from a very early age.
I was surrounded by them.

But you knew those people "as they are", not through a strict filtering device.

Second it does not address the problem. Why should one being talking to someone on a phone when a person is right in front of them?

Add the fact communication over a computer does not take into account tone of voice, body posture, eye contact, etc and the dichotomy itself is observed at a deeper level in communication itself. Where the 5 senses are involved as a fuller degree of movements, this is limited to strict downgrade of the sense of sight and a much lesser degree of hearing and touch.

Yes. No free lunch. This is probably why I am not very good at reading social queues. I learned to interact through a screen and keyboard.

And those interactions are easily over read or misinterpreted in lack of basic social etiquette as well as basic socializing.

The dichotomy is still there, and technology creates as many problems as it solves. It takes the standard thetical/antithetical aspects of "being" and complicated them further.

Back to "technology helps us manage complexity". Ultimately complexity is THE problem we are facing. We invent technology to manage complexity.
Technology becomes too complex, so we invent technology to help us manage the complexity of the complexity of technology.

Turtles all the way down.

It's not our fault that we find ourselves in this huge, complicated place. And that we are curious as to how it works. Evolution wired us that way.


So complexity leading to further complexity effectively negates the intention of "simplifying" the world.

Evolution is a process of adapatation to chaos, when technology creates the world in such a manner that it becomes overly chaotic, life will adapt and over route technology.

Physics is a priest class for the materialist value system western culture exalts. All religions entropy and die.

[Logik]

Technology is just an extension of how people view the world and as such is really dealing with the nature of "knowledge" in the human condition. Most technology is strictly an extension of want rather than need. Take for example all the algorithms, and the corresponding advances in technology, used to develop a simple emoji.

You are far too cynical.

Yes. Computers/computation are extensions of "self". But mechanical minds are far more useful than emojies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_genomics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_epigenetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology

With all perspectives rise an antithetical perspective to negate it to meaninglessness.

Lets say it's the thesis is +5 and the anti-thesis is -4. Nett is still 1.

Manage what "complexity" when not only is "man" complex enough, but that very technology causes further complexity in that nature.

I don't know... computation teaches us how to learn. And learn quickly!

Technology changes nothing, it just inverts reality.

Yes. Creationism. We got it backwards.

But you knew those people "as they are", not through a strict filtering device.

To this day I have never met them!

Second it does not address the problem. Why should one being talking to someone on a phone when a person is right in front of them?

Because it's good to get out of your echo-chamber for some fresh ideas from time to time.

]And those interactions are easily over read or misinterpreted in lack of basic social etiquette as well as basic socializing.

Yeah, but now that I have learned how to learn I find it very easy to learn how to read people.

Turns out it's all prediction/science. If/then

So complexity leading to further complexity effectively negates the intention of "simplifying" the world.

I don't know. We have more power/control now. Is that not what we want? Control over our environment?

Evolution is a process of adapatation to chaos, when technology creates the world in such a manner that it becomes overly chaotic, life will adapt and over route technology

OK, but if you use the yardstick of "human survival" as a criterion for "are we adapting?" I think you'll find all evidence agrees.

We have solved infant mortality. We live longer. Population growth is exponential. Our economies, literacy rates and whatever else we care to track is improving.

If you think we should be tracking/measuring/improving some variable that is important to the well-being of humans point it out.

It sounds to me as if you aspire to the ideal of the Noble Savage ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage )

[Eodnhoj7]

Technology is just an extension of how people view the world and as such is really dealing with the nature of "knowledge" in the human condition. Most technology is strictly an extension of want rather than need. Take for example all the algorithms, and the corresponding advances in technology, used to develop a simple emoji.

You are far too cynical.

Yes. Computers/computation are extensions of "self". But mechanical minds are far more useful than emojies

Technology overwriting natural law is a cynical view of existence. Computer programming is one of the more cynical careers which exist.

With all perspectives rise an antithetical perspective to negate it to meaninglessness.

Lets say it's the thesis is +5 and the anti-thesis is -4. Nett is still 1.

Yes and a technological computation vs non-technological computation still results in computation as a synthetic product. I am not arguing against "reasoning". I am arguing about the "how" of reasoning.

Manage what "complexity" when not only is "man" complex enough, but that very technology causes further complexity in that nature.

I don't know... computation teaches us how to learn. And learn quickly!

I don't need a computer to reflect on myself or the environment. As a matter of fact technology effectively eliminates the human responsibility to seek truth through rational and intuitive thought by negating the human element.

Technology changes nothing, it just inverts reality.

Yes. Creationism. We got it backwards.

Technology is just a form of creationism, and an argument that is just as ambiguous.

But you knew those people "as they are", not through a strict filtering device.

To this day I have never met them!

Then do you really know them?

Second it does not address the problem. Why should one being talking to someone on a phone when a person is right in front of them?

Because it's good to get out of your echo-chamber for some fresh ideas from time to time.

Talking to a stranger face to face solves that.

]And those interactions are easily over read or misinterpreted in lack of basic social etiquette as well as basic socializing.

Yeah, but now that I have learned how to learn I find it very easy to learn how to read people.

Turns out it's all prediction/science. If/then

People are fragile and fickle, a prediction one day does not result in a "tomorrow" that is defined.

So complexity leading to further complexity effectively negates the intention of "simplifying" the world.

I don't know. We have more power/control now. Is that not what we want? Control over our environment?

ROFL!!!! Power over what? The world is in chaos or is just stagnating. You are confusing a self-pleasuring lifestyle with "value" or "growth".

Evolution is a process of adapatation to chaos, when technology creates the world in such a manner that it becomes overly chaotic, life will adapt and over route technology

OK, but if you use the yardstick of "human survival" as a criterion for "are we adapting?" I think you'll find all evidence agrees.

Actually most futurists believe our lifestyles, managed through technological innovation, are wiping out the human condition physically, emotionally and mentally.




We have solved infant mortality. We live longer. Population growth is exponential. Our economies, literacy rates and whatever else we care to track is improving.

Actually we have not solved infant mortality when infants have to be aborted for financial reasons and population control. Add the fact that the average person 200 years ago lives to thier late 60's early 70's and the myth of "dying by thirty" did not take into accounts the death of children...nothing has really changed.

Mankind will always be stuck with a yin/yang type of dualism, overwriting it will not happen but just make things more "painful".

If you think we should be tracking/measuring/improving some variable that is important to the well-being of humans point it out.

It sounds to me as if you aspire to the ideal of the Noble Savage ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage )

I am aspiring to an idea of "equilibrium" through unity....the savages had their virtues, but problems as well.

[Logik]

Technology overwriting natural law is a cynical view of existence.

Natural law is child mortality, premature death and inevitable extinction. I am not sure how much more cynical than you can get.

Computer programming is one of the more cynical careers which exist.

Then don't make it a career. Use computation as a tool to solve interesting and important problems.
We have plenty of those!

I am arguing about the "how" of reasoning.

In so far as we can tell the HOW of all reasoning is mechanical. Decision theory.
What to use reasoning FOR. That's not a question for science.

I don't need a computer to reflect on myself or the environment.

But you need one to understand and predict the environment.

As a matter of fact technology effectively eliminates the human responsibility to seek truth through rational and intuitive thought by negating the human element

Truth-seeking is a religion. What are you going to do with it when you find it?
Admire it? Frame it? Eat it? Fuck it?

Technology changes nothing, it just inverts reality.

Yes. Creationism. We got it backwards.

Technology is just a form of creationism, and an argument that is just as ambiguous.

Then do you really know them?

Certainly not as good as I know my family and my fiance, but I know them better than I know my neighbours.

Talking to a stranger face to face solves that.

No it doesn't. You live in the same community. Same society. You consume the same media. Same news. Experience the same problems. Use the same social institutions. Think using the same language. Use the same metaphors. Eat the same food. Your context has more impact on you than you realise.

And you only realise this when you begin speaking to people who have lived in different setting to yours!
Only then can you locate that which makes us human from the "furniture".

People are fragile and fickle, a prediction one day does not result in a "tomorrow" that is defined.

We do the best we can.

Power over what? The world is in chaos or is just stagnating. You are confusing a self-pleasuring lifestyle with "value" or "growth".

So which human era would you prefer to have lived in then?

Actually most futurists believe our lifestyles, managed through technological innovation, are wiping out the human condition physically, emotionally and mentally.

We are evolving. I am not particularly attached to the "human condition". There's a bunch of things I would change if I could.

Actually we have not solved infant mortality when infants have to be aborted for financial reasons and population control. Add the fact that the average person 200 years ago lives to thier late 60's early 70's and the myth of "dying by thirty" did not take into accounts the death of children...nothing has really changed.

I am aspiring to an idea of "equilibrium" through unity....the savages had their virtues, but problems as well.

Sure. Solidarity is a great message, but it doesn't translate to anything practical.

Equilibrium also means "steady state". Do you think we should stall any and all attempts for progress and change then? In order to preserve equilibrium?

[Eodnhoj7]

Technology overwriting natural law is a cynical view of existence.

Natural law is child mortality, premature death and inevitable extinction. I am not sure how much more cynical than you can get.

"Inevitable extinction" you mean like the technological wastelands we produce? No, natural law is strictly cycles of death and rebirth.

Why don't you look at abortion, euthanasia, mass technological wars, a generation of millennials with no purpose-no balance-no families, people trying to avoid the truth that they are mortal and accountable for their actions by living in a perpetual merry go round of cathartic entertainment, atomic war, perpetual terrorism...etc. Should I go on?

There is not statistical evidence for a mass extinction under natural law.

Computer programming is one of the more cynical careers which exist.

Then don't make it a career. Use computation as a tool to solve interesting and important problems.
We have plenty of those!

Yes...how to eliminate the modern way of life and the weakness it induces in men.

I am arguing about the "how" of reasoning.

In so far as we can tell the HOW of all reasoning is mechanical. Decision theory.
What to use reasoning FOR. That's not a question for science.

Still requires a localization of some variable resulting in a branching of those variables. Also the "or" status of most decisions can be negated when synthesized.

I don't need a computer to reflect on myself or the environment.

But you need one to understand and predict the environment.

But we can't predict the environment. Statistical probabilities always necessiate .000001 as inevitable over the course of time. Prediction is an exercise in futility.

As a matter of fact technology effectively eliminates the human responsibility to seek truth through rational and intuitive thought by negating the human element

Truth-seeking is a religion. What are you going to do with it when you find it?
Admire it? Frame it? Eat it? Fuck it?

"Be it".

Technology changes nothing, it just inverts reality.

Yes. Creationism. We got it backwards.

Technology is just a form of creationism, and an argument that is just as ambiguous.

Then do you really know them?

Certainly not as good as I know my family and my fiance, but I know them better than I know my neighbours.

Talking to a stranger face to face solves that.

No it doesn't. You live in the same community. Same society. You consume the same media. Same news. Experience the same problems. Use the same social institutions. Think using the same language. Use the same metaphors. Eat the same food. Your context has more impact on you than you realise.

And technology just makes the context for everyone the same and we are left with point 1.

And you only realise this when you begin speaking to people who have lived in different setting to yours!
Only then can you locate that which makes us human from the "furniture".

I have "lived" with foreigner's before out of Ukraine, Brazil, U.K., various parts of the U.S....I am more than well aware.

People are fragile and fickle, a prediction one day does not result in a "tomorrow" that is defined.

We do the best we can.
Not in my observation.

Power over what? The world is in chaos or is just stagnating. You are confusing a self-pleasuring lifestyle with "value" or "growth".

So which human era would you prefer to have lived in then?

A new one.

Actually most futurists believe our lifestyles, managed through technological innovation, are wiping out the human condition physically, emotionally and mentally.

We are evolving. I am not particularly attached to the "human condition". There's a bunch of things I would change if I could.

Ahh...but with "man as measurer" you are stuck with it.

Actually we have not solved infant mortality when infants have to be aborted for financial reasons and population control. Add the fact that the average person 200 years ago lives to thier late 60's early 70's and the myth of "dying by thirty" did not take into accounts the death of children...nothing has really changed.

I am aspiring to an idea of "equilibrium" through unity....the savages had their virtues, but problems as well.

Sure. Solidarity is a great message, but it doesn't translate to anything practical.

Actually it does because certain industries effectively become useless. Tell me what is so "practical" about what you are espousing by negating the human condition?



Equilibrium also means "steady state". Do you think we should stall any and all attempts for progress and change then? In order to preserve equilibrium?

Let it all die, so something new may be reborn.