Just like nature, power abhors a vacuum. If it's not one institution that holds power, it will become consolidated around another. These power centers can be governments, businesses, or (in old times) individuals. Abuse can only be minimized if at least one of the following happens: there is sufficient counterbalance between the major power structures, each keeping a check on the others, or the main central power structure is led by benevolence. Unfortunately, the former configuration is generally unstable, and the latter is unrealistic, given human nature.
Both of you made good points; I only want to comment on the following:
> we developed society and civilization by having some sense of "we're all in it together", not "fuck you"
While this may be nice to believe, it's not representative of reality. Look at how civilization actually developed:
- we start off as foragers living in tribes where you know everyone in the tribe personally, and things are more or less egalitarian
- we discover agriculture
- the increased efficiency and per-unit-land density of food production allow, respectively, division of labor, and increased population density together with settlement
- due to division of labor, segments of the population engage in other tasks, some of which have to do with managing a growing settlement population and the complexities that entails
- size and complexity require a hierarchy to be managed, and now there are those who are free from the job of food production, and their skills allow them to engage in that management
- the lack of personal relations with the lower rungs of the ladder of the hierarchy means that those in the upper levels often don't care that much about those below, and certainly nothing close to how the foragers cared about their tribesmates
- abuse is inevitable, as the abusers have singificant potential advantages in such a system, with evolutionary social adaptations being subverted by the impersonalized nature of civilization (the 10,000 years of civilization is hardly enough time for our brains to have evolved from their configuration that was optimized for tribal life over millions of years)
- the hierarchy is a pyramid where the top of the pyramid benefits from ever growing it; thus, in a feedback loop, the usual human civilization is, historically, both the result and enabler of pyramid building
Note that I fully agree that there is often a sentiment of altruism in many people involved in public works. Unfortunately, this is not the dominant factor in a highly hierarchical civilization. The major force is the pyramid building impetus behind the propaganda, institutionalized power structures, and other mass influence like organized religion (especially in the past), educational indoctrination, and, especially nowadays, media and marketing.
I'm not sure what the solution is. This talk about capitalism and socialism is really just a small cross-section of the problem. We clearly cannot go back to a tribal lifestyle, but all other options seem equally bad (such as genetic engineering the population to be better adapted to the unnatural environment we've built up around us).
I don't think your post is conductive to changing anyone's mind, so you're either trolling or have given up on trying to reach people and this is just your venting. If you're trolling, well done; if not, perhaps you can try to put forward a reasoned out case for your position, and then there would be at least a chance for a useful discussion--even here.
Where the market forces completely and utterly fail is that the very high cost of widespread antibiotic resistance is NOT being directly felt by the industries that are using them the most.
Mod parent up. This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen on Slashdot today; it both gets to the root of the matter, and generalizes well to many related issues.
In the case of doctors, I doubt it's because of greed. I live in Canada, and the doctor gets paid a fixed rate for my visit by the provincial government, whether he prescribes an antibiotic or not. And yet, I've still had doctors do so for what were either clearly viral colds/flu, or at least without even bothering to do a throat swab. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, older doctors seem more likely to prescribe antibiotics, suggesting it may be the increasing emphasis on antibiotic resistance over the past decade or two that is an issue--one of education and habit, rather than greed.
> the lower the probability that any theory you match to the observe data will correctly generalize, hence why less complex theories tend to be more correct when going outside the sample data
So what's old is new again, eh? The probabilistic justification for Occam's razor is far older than Mr Aaronson, dating decades back to decision trees. I suggest that next time you give credit where credit is due.
Your musings are explicitly addressed in the paper. As usual, the journalist reporting on the research, and worse, the slashdot summary, manage to completely misrepresent and sensationalize. Go to primary sources: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225
"someone" in this case refers to a respected physicist and quantum information theorist who at least deserves that you at least bother to criticize what's in the actual paper rather than a lousy slashdot summary, rather than putting up a strawman completely unrelated to anything the author actually claims. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225
PS the author explicitly states that someone may simulate the decider's decision process faster than the decider and predict the outcome of the decision before the decider makes it. What's discussed is the indeterminancy of the decision to the decider himself.
The only thing sloppy here is the slashdot summary and poor journalistic reporting. This is not what the original paper reasons at all. A usual, go to the primary reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
No, he doesn't assume that. This is what you get for reading a slashdot summary rather than the original paper, which contains sentences such as
The indeterminate nature of a decision to the decider persists even if a neuroscientist monitoring her neural signals accurately predicts that decision before the decider herself knows what it will be.
Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
Nope. The author actually cites Dennett's book and the argument made is completely different. Instead of reading third-hand reporting written by a journalist, try the original paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
It is important to note that satisifying the criteria for ass igning oneself free will does not imply that one possesses consciousness. Having the capacity for self-reference is a far cry from full self-consciousness."
I think you have an issue with reading comprehension, as nothing I suggested implies I don't listen to his argument; quite the contrary, I said it was insightful, but that he undercuts himself by mixing in something he should have kept out. That in itself makes your post completely redundant, its only purpose to promote the insult to those you see as "little people". Moreover, being principled does not equate to mere sentimentality. The AC could have had the same information content while presenting it in good form.
Ah, unity. The best analogy here is the difference between colonies of single-celled eukaryotes and the cells of a multicellular organism. The former and the latter are genetically and structurally similar. But there's a tremendous difference: in the former, the organisms are individual, though they benefit each other by being part of the colony. In the latter, there is runaway specialization to serve the needs of the organism, and individual cells are irrelevant and subjugated to the unity of which you speak--it's the only thing that matters in that context. I don't know about you, but I know which I'd rather be part of, and one of these isn't better than the other merely because its unity makes it more powerful as an aggregate.
Not really. A large portion of the US debt is owed neither to foreign entities nor to members of the population, but is between treasury and Fed--it's an accounting fiction. It's about as meaningful as the deb between a husband and wife. It doesn't need to be repaid. This is a common confusion and another example of mixing up concepts from microeconomics with macroeconomics. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218
>The little people live their lives by a small handful of metaphors.
Your post is otherwise insightful, but the derision expressed by that statement counteracts the value you've brought to the discussion. As for your comment on bankers: holding your money is indeed half of the job of retail bankers (the other half being to lend to loan-worthy borrowers, which includes the oft-neglected part of actually determining who is loan-worthy). I'm pretty sure laymen have no issue distinguishing between retail and investment banking.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I learned something new today; thanks. :)
Just like nature, power abhors a vacuum. If it's not one institution that holds power, it will become consolidated around another. These power centers can be governments, businesses, or (in old times) individuals. Abuse can only be minimized if at least one of the following happens: there is sufficient counterbalance between the major power structures, each keeping a check on the others, or the main central power structure is led by benevolence. Unfortunately, the former configuration is generally unstable, and the latter is unrealistic, given human nature.
Both of you made good points; I only want to comment on the following:
> we developed society and civilization by having some sense of "we're all in it together", not "fuck you"
While this may be nice to believe, it's not representative of reality. Look at how civilization actually developed:
- we start off as foragers living in tribes where you know everyone in the tribe personally, and things are more or less egalitarian
- we discover agriculture
- the increased efficiency and per-unit-land density of food production allow, respectively, division of labor, and increased population density together with settlement
- due to division of labor, segments of the population engage in other tasks, some of which have to do with managing a growing settlement population and the complexities that entails
- size and complexity require a hierarchy to be managed, and now there are those who are free from the job of food production, and their skills allow them to engage in that management
- the lack of personal relations with the lower rungs of the ladder of the hierarchy means that those in the upper levels often don't care that much about those below, and certainly nothing close to how the foragers cared about their tribesmates
- abuse is inevitable, as the abusers have singificant potential advantages in such a system, with evolutionary social adaptations being subverted by the impersonalized nature of civilization (the 10,000 years of civilization is hardly enough time for our brains to have evolved from their configuration that was optimized for tribal life over millions of years)
- the hierarchy is a pyramid where the top of the pyramid benefits from ever growing it; thus, in a feedback loop, the usual human civilization is, historically, both the result and enabler of pyramid building
Note that I fully agree that there is often a sentiment of altruism in many people involved in public works. Unfortunately, this is not the dominant factor in a highly hierarchical civilization. The major force is the pyramid building impetus behind the propaganda, institutionalized power structures, and other mass influence like organized religion (especially in the past), educational indoctrination, and, especially nowadays, media and marketing.
I'm not sure what the solution is. This talk about capitalism and socialism is really just a small cross-section of the problem. We clearly cannot go back to a tribal lifestyle, but all other options seem equally bad (such as genetic engineering the population to be better adapted to the unnatural environment we've built up around us).
I don't think your post is conductive to changing anyone's mind, so you're either trolling or have given up on trying to reach people and this is just your venting. If you're trolling, well done; if not, perhaps you can try to put forward a reasoned out case for your position, and then there would be at least a chance for a useful discussion--even here.
Where the market forces completely and utterly fail is that the very high cost of widespread antibiotic resistance is NOT being directly felt by the industries that are using them the most.
Mod parent up. This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen on Slashdot today; it both gets to the root of the matter, and generalizes well to many related issues.
In the case of doctors, I doubt it's because of greed. I live in Canada, and the doctor gets paid a fixed rate for my visit by the provincial government, whether he prescribes an antibiotic or not. And yet, I've still had doctors do so for what were either clearly viral colds/flu, or at least without even bothering to do a throat swab. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, older doctors seem more likely to prescribe antibiotics, suggesting it may be the increasing emphasis on antibiotic resistance over the past decade or two that is an issue--one of education and habit, rather than greed.
Apologies!
As usual, the devil's in the details. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf
A momentary web search for the title immediately returns the free preprint version: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf
> the lower the probability that any theory you match to the observe data will correctly generalize, hence why less complex theories tend to be more correct when going outside the sample data
So what's old is new again, eh? The probabilistic justification for Occam's razor is far older than Mr Aaronson, dating decades back to decision trees. I suggest that next time you give credit where credit is due.
Your musings are explicitly addressed in the paper. As usual, the journalist reporting on the research, and worse, the slashdot summary, manage to completely misrepresent and sensationalize. Go to primary sources: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225
"someone" in this case refers to a respected physicist and quantum information theorist who at least deserves that you at least bother to criticize what's in the actual paper rather than a lousy slashdot summary, rather than putting up a strawman completely unrelated to anything the author actually claims. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225
I couldn't figure it out until I saw the last question and the images from Bladerunner popped up in my memory.
Well done, sir.
As usual, everything is about context. I suggest you refer to the primary reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
PS the author explicitly states that someone may simulate the decider's decision process faster than the decider and predict the outcome of the decision before the decider makes it. What's discussed is the indeterminancy of the decision to the decider himself.
The only thing sloppy here is the slashdot summary and poor journalistic reporting. This is not what the original paper reasons at all. A usual, go to the primary reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
No, he doesn't assume that. This is what you get for reading a slashdot summary rather than the original paper, which contains sentences such as
The indeterminate nature of a decision to the decider persists even if a neuroscientist monitoring her neural signals accurately predicts that decision before the decider herself knows what it will be.
Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
Nope. The author actually cites Dennett's book and the argument made is completely different. Instead of reading third-hand reporting written by a journalist, try the original paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
That's what happens when the slashdot summary is based on a third-hand reporting of the original paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
Oh come on, this is already answered in TFP:
It is important to note that satisifying the criteria for ass igning oneself free will does not imply that one possesses consciousness. Having the capacity for self-reference is a far cry from full self-consciousness."
Source: the horse's mouth http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf
I think you have an issue with reading comprehension, as nothing I suggested implies I don't listen to his argument; quite the contrary, I said it was insightful, but that he undercuts himself by mixing in something he should have kept out. That in itself makes your post completely redundant, its only purpose to promote the insult to those you see as "little people". Moreover, being principled does not equate to mere sentimentality. The AC could have had the same information content while presenting it in good form.
Ah, unity. The best analogy here is the difference between colonies of single-celled eukaryotes and the cells of a multicellular organism. The former and the latter are genetically and structurally similar. But there's a tremendous difference: in the former, the organisms are individual, though they benefit each other by being part of the colony. In the latter, there is runaway specialization to serve the needs of the organism, and individual cells are irrelevant and subjugated to the unity of which you speak--it's the only thing that matters in that context. I don't know about you, but I know which I'd rather be part of, and one of these isn't better than the other merely because its unity makes it more powerful as an aggregate.
Not really. A large portion of the US debt is owed neither to foreign entities nor to members of the population, but is between treasury and Fed--it's an accounting fiction. It's about as meaningful as the deb between a husband and wife. It doesn't need to be repaid. This is a common confusion and another example of mixing up concepts from microeconomics with macroeconomics. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218
>The little people live their lives by a small handful of metaphors.
Your post is otherwise insightful, but the derision expressed by that statement counteracts the value you've brought to the discussion. As for your comment on bankers: holding your money is indeed half of the job of retail bankers (the other half being to lend to loan-worthy borrowers, which includes the oft-neglected part of actually determining who is loan-worthy). I'm pretty sure laymen have no issue distinguishing between retail and investment banking.