If they don't happen within the next 5 years, they'll happen after the next depression which will cause a civil war here. The situation is becoming intollerable for the average person in the United States, they won't accept the dictatorship of Wal*Mart and Big Oil forever.
But seriously though.. what is the problem, and what is your solution? Who are you planning to invade, and why do you think it's necessary to do so?
Different fronts require different strategies. For the Islamo-fascists, we need to just pull out, accept a 40% ration on oil products, and wait until they self-destruct, or help them along with a nuke or six. For China, we need firewalls on every data line that crosses a national border, an end to foreign investment in the United States by law, withdrawl from the WTO treaties, and finally, punishment for any business that trades with China up to and including cancelation of articles of incorporation. Oh yeah, and a naval barricade of the straights of Taiwan.
While it's intersting you've already planned WWIII, it just seems like extremism and isolationist flamebait to me.
I didn't plan it. I'm not the one who decreased the American workforce by half in just 5 years.
We have a record trade deficit right now: money.cnn.com so China doesn't want to fight us, we consume way too much of their produced goods.
And with that trade deficit we'll be able to afford to do so exactly how long? We already can't feed our own population.
And we don't want to fight China, American buisnesses rely way too much on Chinese goods. On top of that, China and South Asia are among the largest emerging markets in the world... The only war both sides want is a price war.
Which is bad enough for the common American LABORER- for whom American businesses are already traitors in this war.
I certainly don't think there is any Nazi/Alexander the Great/Ghengis Khan expansionist ambition on any side that could lead to a world wide conflict.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what the Waltons are saying.
After Iraq, no one in the US wants to rule anything but the good ol' USA.
Which is bad enough- a Wal*Mart every three miles and no other stores at all.
And while there are huge issues with basic human rights, China is gradually making a shift towards a free society, which is probably the right way to go (see the former USSR, Easter Europe, and the Balkans, for the variety of problems: economic depression, civil war, etc. that emerge with even the best intentioned political upheaval).
Or at least they're pretending to- while they destroy jobs here and close our home retail outlets to sell their shoddy goods through traitors to America.
Taiwan could end up being a sticky issue, but neither side really wants it to result in violence.
Except for China, who has already stated that if we interfere with their next invasion they will nuke American cities.
Leisure time is something I had plenty of for three years thanks to the first front I mentioned. Did it ever occur to you that war may have changed, and that there are people starving to death in America due to WWIII already?
China is a separate front entirely- and is behind the problems with N. Korea, since they've been the biggest supporter of that government since the Korean War.
Actually, the last three wars we fought differently- of which we fought one to a stalemate, one we lost, and one other we won but failed to finish the job enough to avoid being back in the same place a decade later.
Sacrifice profit? I can't even imagine how much defense contractors and other large firms must have made during WW2!
Under 95% personal and corporate income taxes? Not very much. Profiteering was considered treason back then. And because we expended 120% of our Gross Domestic Product to win that war for the 6 years it took to do so (our buildup started before entry, of course), those taxes were continued for a decade or so afterwards to pay down governmental debt. The big winners were the middle class- the first postwar decade was by far the largest percentage expansion of the middle class ever seen in any nation throughout history.
Given that the way we won WWII was by throwing vast numbers of inferior equipment and troops at a nation who was more technologically advanced and had a population that was a small fraction of our own, then yes, I think we will wait this one out. You should actually look at how we won WWII before you spout.
Actually, there were three Axis nations- but yes. Vast numbers of inferior equipment is exactly what I had in mind- as well as a total mobilization of our workforce to create that inferior equipment. And notice that I mentioned two enemies- and neither one will allow us to just sit back and "wait this one out". Both have *already* attacked- but require vastly different forms of warfare to defend. The Islamo-fascists we can fight the same way we fought the Germans, true. But the Chinese will require a different set of parameters. A good way to defend against the Chinese attack would be to remove all tax credits for import from companies that sell goods in the United States. A second good way would be to withdraw from the WTO and blockade our own ports. A third good way would be to *require* intelligent, statefull inspection firewalls for any fiber optic line leaving the United States, as well as for any satellite link up.
The real answer to how we won WWII was "be coldhearted, xenophobic, creative, and willing to sacrifice 120% of our GDP to the fight". Specific tactics were created to fit specific situations back then, and we could do the same now.
Quite possibly both will be required before this is over, but in reality all I meant was "be coldhearted, creative, xenophobic, and willing to sacrifice large amounts of profit and manpower to the task".
Sort of- only it will be much more surprising, and MUCH more coldhearted. Oh yeah, and probably will NOT come from the current US Government, because they're a bunch of wimp traitors who have already joined the other side.
I've been saying all along that China is a threat- and this is really the third front of WWIII. The first front was China as an economic threat, joined by the WTO and US Retail corporations. The second front was the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat. This is the third front. Do we really have to wait for a fourth front to open up before we get serious and begin fighting this the same way we won WWII?
How does this prevent him from giving Bush Campaign Contributions? Also, didn't Cleveland use Diebold machines, as reported in several of the independant media links? All he promised was to deliver the vote to Bush, how he did it is completely up in the air, but he did succeed.
Oddly, I don't read that much stuff... I'm one of those crackpots who could really say that their ideas are their own. I've come up with this stuff essentially without any literary or authoritarian backing. I have people say things like "This is just you calling on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem which is wrong outside of formal logic" and I'm like "whosa ma whatsit? I thought that up myself...:( or at least I may have been inspired by something else that I no longer recall"
I've slowed down quite severely on reading myself since having a kid and figuring out how to put television on my PDA:-). But I was well-read before then, for me, the ultimate application of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem *outside* of formal logic was that infamous hacker classic: Goedel, Escher, and Bach: The eternal golden braid. Highly entertaining- and includes some nice Zen Koans as well.
Hey, a question, you got some way to contact you without runnig a thread on slashdot for pages that has nothing to do with the topic of the article?
2 ways- you can either use my journal, or you can hit my recorded public e-mail.
Oddly, I've come to realize that we share a lot of fundamental layers of belief. That belief is layered upon subjective axioms that one must plainly accept as truth. I've just kept it confined to culture and religion before speaking with you.
I'm not surprised. We are both western thinkers to some extent. It's amazing how many people never get past the deconstruction phase to the construction phase however.
I use this very notion to justify my belief in God. They tell me that I can't believe in God, because how do I know I'm worshiping the right God? Well, I don't, but I've chosen this one. Some tell me that's not a good enough reason to believe in God, and I tell them that at some level, if we have free-will that we must have chosen our beliefs at some point, and that in that case, everyone has chosen to believe in God, and that my justified need for the belief in God is no worse than anyone else's.
Exactly! And, it's possible (since God is an infinite being and we are finite) that the choice isn't really a choice at all- a good mythos for describing this *might* come out in theaters in about 7 years, if the first book of the children's series does well in theaters this winter (Chronicles of Narnia, book 7, deals with the idea of infinity, and onion layers, and in fact, the idea that it doesn't matter which God you worship. If they get that far, it'll be a surprising day for many American Fundamentalists, but it's a common thread throughout that segment of Christian Philosophy. CS Lewis was an Anglican after all).
That's probably also why I've caught your notion before I just ignored you and left you on my foes list. Now I look forward to reading what you have to say.
I hope I live up to expectations! The neat thing is that you've seen through the act- and we can now recommend reading to each other that explores in depth the philosophy we've touched on the surface. A very large space to explore indeed.
Personally, up until this point, I've had no better luck than you either, because I've been attempting to use formal logic to establish my position to others. Of course, they immediately attack it, since- as I know understand- it's not based on traditional logic.
I've had some luck in person- more than online. But it's hard to get most people to realize just how much culture and religion affect their thinking, let alone the rest.
Perhaps this same "mythos" standing-in-the-shoes-of thing is the same reason why I'm so excellent at switching levels of abstraction in my work, and programming. I treat everything at the best level of abstraction, rather than try and bash something into the wrong layer.
I don't know if the imprecision here is intentional, or simply negligent. Most people, some of the time, can make a statement that does not encompass error. You're not reading me very carefully: I said "things that check out" - not "things that always check out.
For authority to be trusted, things would ALWAYS have to check out. Only part time is only part truth.
"Authority" is not absolute authority, it is relative authority: a programmer usually knows a lot more about the C language than a veterinarian. Not all programmers know more about C than all veterinarians, of course; but let's take the average C programmer and the average veterinarian. Who are you going to ask a question about C?
Neither. I'd go to the absolute authority and check out a book by Kerigan and Ritchie, since C is a subjective subject that they invented. Only absolute authorities are useful for proof; the rest is just opionion. And since nobody is an absolute authority on everything, the ultimate absolute authority simply doesn't exist.
And no, it's not a model that supports a model: it is the same process, recursively applied to new individuals. There are a number of verification protocols (publication, tenure process, &c.) which, while not perfect, of course, do tend to weed out the most obviously unfit.
And yet- MDs with degrees still kill people from time to time, they make mistakes too.
The claim that a degree is worthless, by the way, is an obvious falsehood: when you're sick or injured, do you go to an MD or to someone who works at Wal-Mart?
Neither- I go to the guy who has *proven* to me that he has the experience and is open to new ideas. The degree is just a piece of paper from a verification protocol which has been proven to be untrustworthy in the past. The third rule of the hacker's ethic is judge people on what they DO, not on bogus criteria.
Degrees are not absolute markers, no, but they do tend to guide you to people more likely to have expertise in the subject area at hand than the average bloke.
What they really guide you to is a person trained in a given dogma. Bogus criteria all the way around.
You're making a lot of absolute statements and building a lot of straw men, but there's no argument here - merely assertion.
Yes, that's the point- there is no argument, can be no argument, assertions are all we have.
"Zero real creativity." "Parrot what we already think we know." Sure, that's what you'll hear out of the average undergrad student pissed off because he got a B on a test; but the fact is that many academic programs do teach people how to learn and how to create: if they did not, the marketplace of knowledge would have selected them out a long time ago, as they tend to select out those individual programs that don't provide the necessary training.
The flip side of that is that you don't graduate students that can think outside of the "necessary training"- only those who fit the dogma already established.
I'm not asserting that the process doesn't make mistakes, only that it is far more useful than some kind of Feyerabendian non-process.
Depends on what you're searching for. If what you want is dogma- then yes, the degree will lead you to the person who knows the dogma. If what you want is somebody who can think outside of the dogmatic box- that person will *always* be much harder to find.
Maybe wrong is the wrong word here. More like, may not be the best for attracting people willing to even listen to your meta-model.
Possible. So do you have an idea for a better way?
Well, the position is logically valid. It's just a damned hard viewpoint to keep consistent with. I mean, you could take a meta-meta-model from what I'm considering that even logic is just a mythos that we all have established, and that in that case, it's ridiculous to argue anything at all, since it's very likely that our logic is wrong.
Yep- it's useful how those tied to a single mythos can get sucked in by argument- when the argument itself is just an onion layer. It's when you get past the argument that things get really interesting.
Your statement about models is typical. It appears to be deep, but it is just a truism derived from the meanings of the words themselves, providing neither new information nor any insight into anything. What you are saying is that a model models.
It's more than just that. I'm saying that any model devised by a human being models IMPERFECTLY. And always will.
Please oh please, do not mix Gödel into anything but formal logic. Gödel's theorem does not apply to anything but the formal theories it applies to, and in particular, it does not apply to anything even remotely related to "real life". Of course, there are no extensions of none of Gödel's theorems that apply to anything related to "real life" either.
So you say. And I believe that within your worldview it is correct.
Mentioning Gödel is very "post-". It also usually signals the mind it is a good time to start thinking about dinner, because the speaker has no idea what he is talking about and it is not worth devoting neuron cycles to him. Unless, of course, you are discussing formal logic.
Actually, I'm discussing the basic flaw of human thinking modeling systems- of which formal logic is one such system.
There is an endearing discussion by Jacques Bouveresse, a philosoher who knows his logic, in his book "Prodiges et vertiges de l'analogie", of the Gödel-citing madness... I do not know if the book is available in English, though.
And I'm sure within his worldview, limiting Godel to formal logic makes sense as well- but his worldview is no better than any other religion.
That thing you are "battling" against is simply sillyness. And, much as fire is well-known to be a bad weapon against fire, sillyness does not fight sillyness with any effectiveness at all. Throwing words like "axiom" and "Gödel" around is not much more than an attemt at doing precisely that---well, that, or an misguided attemt at tryingto gain others' respect by sounding deep.
Nope, that's not the reason. You might want to guess again- but I fear the answer would damage your orthodoxy.
Solipsism is not a steping astone on any journey towards anything: it is just another form of sillyness; a logically sound one, surely, but an useless one in so far as it as it precludes everything else, and a solipsist can be nothing but that.
If one stops at solipsism, then yes this is true- but if one sees the truth behind solipsism, it becomes a doorway to step through to other forms of thought, forms that aren't bound by silly rules like formal logic.
If that is really what happened, I guess we are all living in the Matrix, while you guys have unplugged from it because the reality in every rational, sane person in the country thinks Bush won fair and square.
You mean he helped deliver Ohio by legally contributing money to his campaign and help to fundraise for him?
Possibly- that's certainly the spin that Karl Rove wants to implant in your brain.
Or are you trying to imply that he helped to rig the machines and conspire to illegally and unlawfully rig the election?
Possibly- that's certainly the spin that Black Box Voting.Org wants to implant in your brain.
I'd like to post any credible evidence for that assertion because a lot of wackjobs run around saying it without backing it up.
Fine- nobody's stoping you from posting credible evidence for either assertion. But the only thing I've seen that is credible is that this CEO promised to do "everything in his power" to deliver Ohio to Bush.
If that is really what happened, I guess we are all living in the Matrix, while you guys have unplugged from it because the reality in every rational, sane person in the country thinks Bush won fair and square.
We don't know. We only know for sure that he promised to do "everything in my power" to deliver Ohio to Bush, and that in the end, Ohio went to Bush. His efforts, legal, illegal, or otherwise, helped that end- which means he served his purpose.
As for people who believe that Bush won fair and square- or in fact that any president since Eisenhower won fair and square- well, reality is very subjective. But that was another thread entirely.
And why should I care more about your grandchildren than theirs?
You shouldn't. You shouldn't care about either my grandchildren or theirs- but rather about the people who will be taking care of YOU in your old age- YOUR grandchildren. If those people are in slavery to a trade deficit, you're fsckd. If those people don't exist- don't expect any help from governments bent on no longer providing services. If you're in a country that is currently growing in manufacturing, instead of shrinking, then you've got a half a chance at having an ok retirement.
First of all, by your own logic, you have no way of knowing if I "have *no* way of knowing if what I perceive is correct". So why claim it as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of your own personal opinion?
Nobody can write anything that is actually fact- so of course it's a matter of my own personal opinion. So is your belief in an objective reality. So is the Pope's belief in God. It's all the same.
Second, you claim that some myths "mirror reality better than others", but this contradicts your thesis that we have no idea what reality is, let alone whether or not we're mirroring it accurately at all.
Just because some myths mirror reality better than others does not mean we have any way of knowing which are which and in what situations. If we did, we'd all be atheists- because we would have become our own Gods.
Then you claim that these myths give us valuable insight, even though your logic rejects the very notion of value altogether.
I have never claimed to have any logic. However, that's my very point- all myths are equally valuable for teaching you something about how the world works. To reject some because they are dark and ugly is just as bad as rejecting some because they're green. It's just prejudice.
Finally, you claim that there is a "reality that is greater than all the myths combined", but again your own logic is (ironically) absolutely clear that you cannot possibly have any idea at all if reality is really that great, or even that it exists at all.
Quite true. I choose to believe it exists, and for the purpose of this discussion it either must exist or we don't exist; but beyond that, we cannot say.
You keep talking about certain things as if they are equally true for both of us--the nature of reality, the value of our myths, the limits of human perception and enlightenment. But your own logic insists that these kinds of objective facts are impossible.
Only their objectivity is impossible- thus the only trap is if you think that stuff must be objective to exist. I don't. Never have. It's a useful theory in some situations, but not in others- and it will never be more than a theory. Don't let it chain your mind down.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't happen within the next 5 years, they'll happen after the next depression which will cause a civil war here. The situation is becoming intollerable for the average person in the United States, they won't accept the dictatorship of Wal*Mart and Big Oil forever.
But seriously though.. what is the problem, and what is your solution? Who are you planning to invade, and why do you think it's necessary to do so?
Different fronts require different strategies. For the Islamo-fascists, we need to just pull out, accept a 40% ration on oil products, and wait until they self-destruct, or help them along with a nuke or six. For China, we need firewalls on every data line that crosses a national border, an end to foreign investment in the United States by law, withdrawl from the WTO treaties, and finally, punishment for any business that trades with China up to and including cancelation of articles of incorporation. Oh yeah, and a naval barricade of the straights of Taiwan.
While it's intersting you've already planned WWIII, it just seems like extremism and isolationist flamebait to me.
I didn't plan it. I'm not the one who decreased the American workforce by half in just 5 years.
We have a record trade deficit right now: money.cnn.com so China doesn't want to fight us, we consume way too much of their produced goods.
And with that trade deficit we'll be able to afford to do so exactly how long? We already can't feed our own population.
And we don't want to fight China, American buisnesses rely way too much on Chinese goods. On top of that, China and South Asia are among the largest emerging markets in the world... The only war both sides want is a price war.
Which is bad enough for the common American LABORER- for whom American businesses are already traitors in this war.
I certainly don't think there is any Nazi/Alexander the Great/Ghengis Khan expansionist ambition on any side that could lead to a world wide conflict.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what the Waltons are saying.
After Iraq, no one in the US wants to rule anything but the good ol' USA.
Which is bad enough- a Wal*Mart every three miles and no other stores at all.
And while there are huge issues with basic human rights, China is gradually making a shift towards a free society, which is probably the right way to go (see the former USSR, Easter Europe, and the Balkans, for the variety of problems: economic depression, civil war, etc. that emerge with even the best intentioned political upheaval).
Or at least they're pretending to- while they destroy jobs here and close our home retail outlets to sell their shoddy goods through traitors to America.
Taiwan could end up being a sticky issue, but neither side really wants it to result in violence.
Except for China, who has already stated that if we interfere with their next invasion they will nuke American cities.
Leisure time is something I had plenty of for three years thanks to the first front I mentioned. Did it ever occur to you that war may have changed, and that there are people starving to death in America due to WWIII already?
China is a separate front entirely- and is behind the problems with N. Korea, since they've been the biggest supporter of that government since the Korean War.
Actually, the last three wars we fought differently- of which we fought one to a stalemate, one we lost, and one other we won but failed to finish the job enough to avoid being back in the same place a decade later.
Sacrifice profit? I can't even imagine how much defense contractors and other large firms must have made during WW2!
Under 95% personal and corporate income taxes? Not very much. Profiteering was considered treason back then. And because we expended 120% of our Gross Domestic Product to win that war for the 6 years it took to do so (our buildup started before entry, of course), those taxes were continued for a decade or so afterwards to pay down governmental debt. The big winners were the middle class- the first postwar decade was by far the largest percentage expansion of the middle class ever seen in any nation throughout history.
Given that the way we won WWII was by throwing vast numbers of inferior equipment and troops at a nation who was more technologically advanced and had a population that was a small fraction of our own, then yes, I think we will wait this one out. You should actually look at how we won WWII before you spout.
Actually, there were three Axis nations- but yes. Vast numbers of inferior equipment is exactly what I had in mind- as well as a total mobilization of our workforce to create that inferior equipment. And notice that I mentioned two enemies- and neither one will allow us to just sit back and "wait this one out". Both have *already* attacked- but require vastly different forms of warfare to defend. The Islamo-fascists we can fight the same way we fought the Germans, true. But the Chinese will require a different set of parameters. A good way to defend against the Chinese attack would be to remove all tax credits for import from companies that sell goods in the United States. A second good way would be to withdraw from the WTO and blockade our own ports. A third good way would be to *require* intelligent, statefull inspection firewalls for any fiber optic line leaving the United States, as well as for any satellite link up.
The real answer to how we won WWII was "be coldhearted, xenophobic, creative, and willing to sacrifice 120% of our GDP to the fight". Specific tactics were created to fit specific situations back then, and we could do the same now.
Nuke them to hell? Get help from the Russians?
Quite possibly both will be required before this is over, but in reality all I meant was "be coldhearted, creative, xenophobic, and willing to sacrifice large amounts of profit and manpower to the task".
Sort of- only it will be much more surprising, and MUCH more coldhearted. Oh yeah, and probably will NOT come from the current US Government, because they're a bunch of wimp traitors who have already joined the other side.
And this is different from inheritance wrapping into a translation class exactly how?
I've been saying all along that China is a threat- and this is really the third front of WWIII. The first front was China as an economic threat, joined by the WTO and US Retail corporations. The second front was the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat. This is the third front. Do we really have to wait for a fourth front to open up before we get serious and begin fighting this the same way we won WWII?
It seems you will only spout absolutes, and demand that you be given only absolutes. This is religion, not epistemology. Basta!
You've mistaken absolutes for opinions. See my most recent journal entry.
How does this prevent him from giving Bush Campaign Contributions? Also, didn't Cleveland use Diebold machines, as reported in several of the independant media links? All he promised was to deliver the vote to Bush, how he did it is completely up in the air, but he did succeed.
Oddly, I don't read that much stuff... I'm one of those crackpots who could really say that their ideas are their own. I've come up with this stuff essentially without any literary or authoritarian backing. I have people say things like "This is just you calling on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem which is wrong outside of formal logic" and I'm like "whosa ma whatsit? I thought that up myself... :( or at least I may have been inspired by something else that I no longer recall"
:-). But I was well-read before then, for me, the ultimate application of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem *outside* of formal logic was that infamous hacker classic: Goedel, Escher, and Bach: The eternal golden braid. Highly entertaining- and includes some nice Zen Koans as well.
I've slowed down quite severely on reading myself since having a kid and figuring out how to put television on my PDA
Hey, a question, you got some way to contact you without runnig a thread on slashdot for pages that has nothing to do with the topic of the article?
2 ways- you can either use my journal, or you can hit my recorded public e-mail.
Oddly, I've come to realize that we share a lot of fundamental layers of belief. That belief is layered upon subjective axioms that one must plainly accept as truth. I've just kept it confined to culture and religion before speaking with you.
I'm not surprised. We are both western thinkers to some extent. It's amazing how many people never get past the deconstruction phase to the construction phase however.
I use this very notion to justify my belief in God. They tell me that I can't believe in God, because how do I know I'm worshiping the right God? Well, I don't, but I've chosen this one. Some tell me that's not a good enough reason to believe in God, and I tell them that at some level, if we have free-will that we must have chosen our beliefs at some point, and that in that case, everyone has chosen to believe in God, and that my justified need for the belief in God is no worse than anyone else's.
Exactly! And, it's possible (since God is an infinite being and we are finite) that the choice isn't really a choice at all- a good mythos for describing this *might* come out in theaters in about 7 years, if the first book of the children's series does well in theaters this winter (Chronicles of Narnia, book 7, deals with the idea of infinity, and onion layers, and in fact, the idea that it doesn't matter which God you worship. If they get that far, it'll be a surprising day for many American Fundamentalists, but it's a common thread throughout that segment of Christian Philosophy. CS Lewis was an Anglican after all).
That's probably also why I've caught your notion before I just ignored you and left you on my foes list. Now I look forward to reading what you have to say.
I hope I live up to expectations! The neat thing is that you've seen through the act- and we can now recommend reading to each other that explores in depth the philosophy we've touched on the surface. A very large space to explore indeed.
Personally, up until this point, I've had no better luck than you either, because I've been attempting to use formal logic to establish my position to others. Of course, they immediately attack it, since- as I know understand- it's not based on traditional logic.
I've had some luck in person- more than online. But it's hard to get most people to realize just how much culture and religion affect their thinking, let alone the rest.
Perhaps this same "mythos" standing-in-the-shoes-of thing is the same reason why I'm so excellent at switching levels of abstraction in my work, and programming. I treat everything at the best level of abstraction, rather than try and bash something into the wrong layer.
Yes, it certainly helps with programming....
I don't know if the imprecision here is intentional, or simply negligent. Most people, some of the time, can make a statement that does not encompass error. You're not reading me very carefully: I said "things that check out" - not "things that always check out.
For authority to be trusted, things would ALWAYS have to check out. Only part time is only part truth.
"Authority" is not absolute authority, it is relative authority: a programmer usually knows a lot more about the C language than a veterinarian. Not all programmers know more about C than all veterinarians, of course; but let's take the average C programmer and the average veterinarian. Who are you going to ask a question about C?
Neither. I'd go to the absolute authority and check out a book by Kerigan and Ritchie, since C is a subjective subject that they invented. Only absolute authorities are useful for proof; the rest is just opionion. And since nobody is an absolute authority on everything, the ultimate absolute authority simply doesn't exist.
And no, it's not a model that supports a model: it is the same process, recursively applied to new individuals. There are a number of verification protocols (publication, tenure process, &c.) which, while not perfect, of course, do tend to weed out the most obviously unfit.
And yet- MDs with degrees still kill people from time to time, they make mistakes too.
The claim that a degree is worthless, by the way, is an obvious falsehood: when you're sick or injured, do you go to an MD or to someone who works at Wal-Mart?
Neither- I go to the guy who has *proven* to me that he has the experience and is open to new ideas. The degree is just a piece of paper from a verification protocol which has been proven to be untrustworthy in the past. The third rule of the hacker's ethic is judge people on what they DO, not on bogus criteria.
Degrees are not absolute markers, no, but they do tend to guide you to people more likely to have expertise in the subject area at hand than the average bloke.
What they really guide you to is a person trained in a given dogma. Bogus criteria all the way around.
You're making a lot of absolute statements and building a lot of straw men, but there's no argument here - merely assertion.
Yes, that's the point- there is no argument, can be no argument, assertions are all we have.
"Zero real creativity." "Parrot what we already think we know." Sure, that's what you'll hear out of the average undergrad student pissed off because he got a B on a test; but the fact is that many academic programs do teach people how to learn and how to create: if they did not, the marketplace of knowledge would have selected them out a long time ago, as they tend to select out those individual programs that don't provide the necessary training.
The flip side of that is that you don't graduate students that can think outside of the "necessary training"- only those who fit the dogma already established.
I'm not asserting that the process doesn't make mistakes, only that it is far more useful than some kind of Feyerabendian non-process.
Depends on what you're searching for. If what you want is dogma- then yes, the degree will lead you to the person who knows the dogma. If what you want is somebody who can think outside of the dogmatic box- that person will *always* be much harder to find.
Maybe wrong is the wrong word here. More like, may not be the best for attracting people willing to even listen to your meta-model.
Possible. So do you have an idea for a better way?
Well, the position is logically valid. It's just a damned hard viewpoint to keep consistent with. I mean, you could take a meta-meta-model from what I'm considering that even logic is just a mythos that we all have established, and that in that case, it's ridiculous to argue anything at all, since it's very likely that our logic is wrong.
Yep- it's useful how those tied to a single mythos can get sucked in by argument- when the argument itself is just an onion layer. It's when you get past the argument that things get really interesting.
Your statement about models is typical. It appears to be deep, but it is just a truism derived from the meanings of the words themselves, providing neither new information nor any insight into anything. What you are saying is that a model models.
It's more than just that. I'm saying that any model devised by a human being models IMPERFECTLY. And always will.
Please oh please, do not mix Gödel into anything but formal logic. Gödel's theorem does not apply to anything but the formal theories it applies to, and in particular, it does not apply to anything even remotely related to "real life". Of course, there are no extensions of none of Gödel's theorems that apply to anything related to "real life" either.
So you say. And I believe that within your worldview it is correct.
Mentioning Gödel is very "post-". It also usually signals the mind it is a good time to start thinking about dinner, because the speaker has no idea what he is talking about and it is not worth devoting neuron cycles to him. Unless, of course, you are discussing formal logic.
Actually, I'm discussing the basic flaw of human thinking modeling systems- of which formal logic is one such system.
There is an endearing discussion by Jacques Bouveresse, a philosoher who knows his logic, in his book "Prodiges et vertiges de l'analogie", of the Gödel-citing madness... I do not know if the book is available in English, though.
And I'm sure within his worldview, limiting Godel to formal logic makes sense as well- but his worldview is no better than any other religion.
That thing you are "battling" against is simply sillyness. And, much as fire is well-known to be a bad weapon against fire, sillyness does not fight sillyness with any effectiveness at all. Throwing words like "axiom" and "Gödel" around is not much more than an attemt at doing precisely that---well, that, or an misguided attemt at tryingto gain others' respect by sounding deep.
Nope, that's not the reason. You might want to guess again- but I fear the answer would damage your orthodoxy.
Solipsism is not a steping astone on any journey towards anything: it is just another form of sillyness; a logically sound one, surely, but an useless one in so far as it as it precludes everything else, and a solipsist can be nothing but that.
If one stops at solipsism, then yes this is true- but if one sees the truth behind solipsism, it becomes a doorway to step through to other forms of thought, forms that aren't bound by silly rules like formal logic.
If that is really what happened, I guess we are all living in the Matrix, while you guys have unplugged from it because the reality in every rational, sane person in the country thinks Bush won fair and square.
2nd reply in case you missed my correction- I don't believe in reality which makes it a bit hard to believe that other people are rational and sane, let alone your assertion that rational and sane people think that Bush won fair and square.
Ooops- make that This discussion in which I gave my view of reality and the lack of ability of human beings to recognize it.
You mean he helped deliver Ohio by legally contributing money to his campaign and help to fundraise for him?
Possibly- that's certainly the spin that Karl Rove wants to implant in your brain.
Or are you trying to imply that he helped to rig the machines and conspire to illegally and unlawfully rig the election?
Possibly- that's certainly the spin that Black Box Voting.Org wants to implant in your brain.
I'd like to post any credible evidence for that assertion because a lot of wackjobs run around saying it without backing it up.
Fine- nobody's stoping you from posting credible evidence for either assertion. But the only thing I've seen that is credible is that this CEO promised to do "everything in his power" to deliver Ohio to Bush.
If that is really what happened, I guess we are all living in the Matrix, while you guys have unplugged from it because the reality in every rational, sane person in the country thinks Bush won fair and square.
We don't know. We only know for sure that he promised to do "everything in my power" to deliver Ohio to Bush, and that in the end, Ohio went to Bush. His efforts, legal, illegal, or otherwise, helped that end- which means he served his purpose.
As for people who believe that Bush won fair and square- or in fact that any president since Eisenhower won fair and square- well, reality is very subjective. But that was another thread entirely.
He delivered Ohio to Bush, as promised.
And why should I care more about your grandchildren than theirs?
You shouldn't. You shouldn't care about either my grandchildren or theirs- but rather about the people who will be taking care of YOU in your old age- YOUR grandchildren. If those people are in slavery to a trade deficit, you're fsckd. If those people don't exist- don't expect any help from governments bent on no longer providing services. If you're in a country that is currently growing in manufacturing, instead of shrinking, then you've got a half a chance at having an ok retirement.
First of all, by your own logic, you have no way of knowing if I "have *no* way of knowing if what I perceive is correct". So why claim it as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of your own personal opinion?
Nobody can write anything that is actually fact- so of course it's a matter of my own personal opinion. So is your belief in an objective reality. So is the Pope's belief in God. It's all the same.
Second, you claim that some myths "mirror reality better than others", but this contradicts your thesis that we have no idea what reality is, let alone whether or not we're mirroring it accurately at all.
Just because some myths mirror reality better than others does not mean we have any way of knowing which are which and in what situations. If we did, we'd all be atheists- because we would have become our own Gods.
Then you claim that these myths give us valuable insight, even though your logic rejects the very notion of value altogether.
I have never claimed to have any logic. However, that's my very point- all myths are equally valuable for teaching you something about how the world works. To reject some because they are dark and ugly is just as bad as rejecting some because they're green. It's just prejudice.
Finally, you claim that there is a "reality that is greater than all the myths combined", but again your own logic is (ironically) absolutely clear that you cannot possibly have any idea at all if reality is really that great, or even that it exists at all.
Quite true. I choose to believe it exists, and for the purpose of this discussion it either must exist or we don't exist; but beyond that, we cannot say.
You keep talking about certain things as if they are equally true for both of us--the nature of reality, the value of our myths, the limits of human perception and enlightenment. But your own logic insists that these kinds of objective facts are impossible.
Only their objectivity is impossible- thus the only trap is if you think that stuff must be objective to exist. I don't. Never have. It's a useful theory in some situations, but not in others- and it will never be more than a theory. Don't let it chain your mind down.