Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:59 pm
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:59 pm
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!
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:32 pm
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:32 pm
I don't need a computer to reflect on myself or the environment.
But you need one to understand and predict the environment.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:32 pm
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?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:32 pm
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
People are fragile and fickle, a prediction one day does not result in a "tomorrow" that is defined.
We do the best we can.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:15 am
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?