I understand and many do. I point out the Philosophy of Science and Scientific Knowledge. They co-mingle in a lot of areas. In some areas the data is handled properly. Take for example a court case with DNA evidence. The scientist on the stand states the Odds and the reasons the odds are what they are. He does not state that the defendant is guilty based on those odds. To do so would require an assumption that isn't his job. He just states the results and probabilities.
I see this as important for many reasons. A person trying to prove a theory is bias in proving the theory. So if you let him make the conclusions and/or steer the questions into a particular direction, the end result can be flawed and will be flawed at a higher rate.
Remember the eminent scientist from the London Museum, he had to resign because it was found that he discovered what "he" wanted to discover in Carbon Dating. After close examination, he didn't even know how to run the Carbon Dating Machine.
Good Studies are Double Blind to eliminate personal wants and desires.
Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 121. (Read 288348 times)
Basically a pure Scientist would make no claims or conclusions, just report results. Ask a scientist what the weather will be tomorrow, he will tell you; it is 70 degrees right now, but I can't tell you what it will be 1 min. from now. That is left up to philosophers.
I disagree with your assessment of a "pure scientist" and what he will do. The vast body of accumulated knowledge that scientists rely upon to formulate hypotheses is something that allows us to make reasonable predictions about physical phenomenon. Science isn't just about taking measurements, it is used to describe the way the universe work in a continuously evolving, changing and growing manner with increasingly higher levels of resolution and detail. Science differs from philosophy in that historical and reproducible data and results can be used to predict the outcome of specific situations. Philosophy has no such data or results. Just an increasingly elaborate and voluminous library of opinions. This is why we need to choose to let technical processes and information be our guide to resolving technical problems. Philosophy gets in the way and is generally a hindrance to people starving to death while the economists debate about how much profit there would be in feeding them.
I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.
That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge.
If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost.
There are different kinds of knowledge, Spiritual Knowledge, Cultural Knowledge, Philosophical, and Scientific.
The last two are where science comes from but there are misunderstandings about the relationship.
Philosophical Knowledge asks, ponders, questions, and theories.
Scientific Knowledge - Observes experiments, and test, the key is it makes no claims of truth and/or fact. It just reports observations, and kicks the results back to the Philosophical Knowledge branch to determine its conclusions based on those observations.
Basically a pure Scientist would make no claims or conclusions, just report results. Ask a scientist what the weather will be tomorrow, he will tell you; it is 70 degrees right now, but I can't tell you what it will be 1 min. from now. That is left up to philosophers.
There is a lot of philosophy in papers produced today. But it is only a matter of perspective, using results from science.
For example; science has said gravity was a fundamental force. But know that is being questioned in scientific papers.
My point being is Philosophy produces the conclusions not Science. All Science says it at the time of the experiment from this height, within these parameters, an object fell at 32 feet per sec squared.
So they are related, but should always be taken as fact or truth because of the philosophical element.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKRDvSZ-igA
Reality does have hidden costs. Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.
Reality does have hidden costs. Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.
I really like Khan Academy, really fun to learn new stuff there!
As noted though, entropy isn't hidden from us. We have identified and can plan and account for it to a certain degree.
Efficiency is a technically and scientifically determined value, economic theory is unnecessary and is in fact a destructive concept.
When it comes to the elimination of money, most individuals with have to trust that their needs will be met as they do their jobs. This has to be assured and would usually require government-force.
This is where it all falls apart.
This is where it all falls apart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKRDvSZ-igA
Reality does have hidden costs. Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.
Reality does have hidden costs. Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.
I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.
That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge.
If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost.
Reality has no hidden costs. Economics is a restraint on our development, not an enabler.
I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.
That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge.
If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost.
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.
Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.
I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.
Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.
These RBE folk seek technology to allow humans to allocate resources effectively.
Bitcoin IS THE TECHNOLOGICAL breakthrough that these RBE people seek!
Bitcoin will allow humans to allocate scares resources effectively!
All RBE people should start adopting Bitcoin!
Q.E.D.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but it has the potential to be highly disruptive and is obviously a better and more efficient currency system. Most of the alt-currencies that are being used in local chapters are more like time-banks and the like meant for community cohesion. What this offers is a global economy free of the old institutions in every way, and that is something that should really be exciting. I look forward to this better model making the current one obsolete, and that is really the way to get things adopted. It's not exactly in line with what an RBE is, but it is lightyears beyond what is being done now, and that is an encouraging development in my opinion.
Thanks to all of you who are engaging me in this discussion about these ideas. I very much enjoy having my thoughts challenged and I hope you do as well.
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.
Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.
These RBE folk seek technology to allow humans to allocate resources effectively.
Bitcoin IS THE TECHNOLOGICAL breakthrough that these RBE people seek!
Bitcoin will allow humans to allocate scares resources effectively!
All RBE people should start adopting Bitcoin!
Q.E.D.
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.
Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.
Quote
I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.
There are steps to accomplishing Goals. You don't start with the end Goal, and get everyone to accept it.
Here is a Goal, lets colonize Mars.
You don't start by selling the tickets though. If you did, imagine the results as ticket holders died waiting to get there.
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Quote
I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.
There are steps to accomplishing Goals. You don't start with the end Goal, and get everyone to accept it.
Here is a Goal, lets colonize Mars.
You don't start by selling the tickets though. If you did, imagine the results as ticket holders died waiting to get there.
It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.
This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.
Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions.
The most elegant and efficient technical solution is of no matter if nobody implements it. The only thing the Zeitgeist Movement is engaged in now is philosophical and semantic arguments through the instrument of the media it produces and promotes. The reason Fresco and Merola can not delve into the origins of the Zeitgeist philosophy is that it would begin to unravel... And that is all they have.
I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.
It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.
This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.
Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions.
This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.
A whole bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.
Some people test the waters before they jump in, others just jump in, others wear blindfolds and follow the noise.
But some sit back, and laugh.
But some sit back, and laugh.
It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.
We should declare the earth and all its resources as the common heritage of all people, as we recognize that we are transient caretakers of a finite planet. We recognize that all people can work together for the benefit of mankind in a collaborative and cooperative effort to allow each person to reach their highest potential.
You use the word "we" a lot. Who does "we" include, and not include? Clearly it doesn't include the people who are criticizing your ideas, because all "we" seems to do is agree with them. So what happens to the people who don't fall under the category of "we"?
I refer to the people who understand the ideas and goals of an RBE and work towards those ends. Admittedly there are very few, but we are working towards helping people come to understand what we're doing and why it is a better alternative to what is being done now. We intend to build a model that makes the current paradigm obsolete, so the number of people who disagree or don't understand will be reduced significantly as they are able to see how these ideas are beneficial to all people. Nothing "happens" to them.
Jump to: