Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 6870/7006
(08-Dec-2011 at 09:17)


Quote:
Not the most docile of individuals.
Not docile. Care to explain exactly what is so reasoned and stable about killing three people and injuring 23 others?


Quote:
But what does all this have to do with the substance of what someone says? That's Ad Hominem. You well know this Mr. Linguist.
Mr Linguist also knows that your appeal to authority is itself an ad hominem argument, though to be accurate that is a matter of rhetorical logic and hence in the field of literature rather than linguistics. No problem though, my BA is English Lit. so I can do both.

All I am pointing out is that if you are going to go with "it is right because [insert name] said it" (the obverse of "it is wrong because [insert name] said it") then appealing to the authority of a crank philosophy, dreamt up by a serial killer, who was trying to make his murders appear noble, is not the most convincing of arguments.


Quote:
I merely used the wisdom of Aristotle to riposte your assumption that just because you arn't a farmer doesn't mean you can't be one. The fact is that you ARN'T one, you simply don't live this way, therefore there is no way that you could possibily know that self-sufficiency brings a lot of virtues which surburia lacks.
The wisdom of Aristotle doesn't refute my assumption. I chose not to be a farmer because i have the autonomy to that. If I chose to be a farmer, I could. Give me one good reason why I can't.

I don't need to hack off my arm with a chainsaw to know that it would hurt like hell. I don't need to go back to primitive subsistence farming to know I wouldn't enjoy it. If Unabomber likes that sort of thing, good for him. What I don't believe is his nonsense about machines reducing autonomy. How is using a car to get from A to B less 'autonomous' than riding a 100% natural horse?


Quote:
Bit by bit you can apply this pattern to other machines in your life, and the increasing turnover of power of the individual - you - to 'them'.
You keep repeating this, but - just like Mr Unabomber - you don't explain *how* me using the tools available to me reduces my power, or in fact why they don't increase my power by allowing me to do things that would otherwise be impossible for humans. The whole position is built on an unproven premise.


Quote:
You seem to think that the distance travelled matters.
It does matter. You are saying machines reduce my power. I am saying that as machines allow me to travel, in any given time, further than I could on foot, they are increasing my power.

How is the power to travel 100 miles in an hour *less* than the power to travel 5 miles in an hour?


Quote:
In the end, all you do is sit down and wait for a machine to do the work for you. That's the principal I'm setting here.
Yes, the machine does the work. So what? As I control the machine my autonomy is unaffected, and as I can do useful things like traveling very fast, flying in the air, crossing oceans and continents while I sleep, talking in real to time to anywhere in the world, etc, these machines increase my power. What is bad about that?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1480/1637
(09-Dec-2011 at 05:27)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Not docile. Care to explain exactly what is so reasoned and stable about killing three people and injuring 23 others?

Mr Linguist also knows that your appeal to authority is itself an ad hominem argument, though to be accurate that is a matter of rhetorical logic and hence in the field of literature rather than linguistics. No problem though, my BA is English Lit. so I can do both.

All I am pointing out is that if you are going to go with "it is right because [insert name] said it" (the obverse of "it is wrong because [insert name] said it") then appealing to the authority of a crank philosophy, dreamt up by a serial killer, who was trying to make his murders appear noble, is not the most convincing of arguments.
Whoever said it is irrelevant. I am just refering to the idea and crediting who said it.

Quote:
The wisdom of Aristotle doesn't refute my assumption. I chose not to be a farmer because i have the autonomy to that. If I chose to be a farmer, I could. Give me one good reason why I can't.
I don't need to. You're not a farmer. This thing you call autonomy is an abstract pipedream until you utilize it.

Quote:
I don't need to hack off my arm with a chainsaw to know that it would hurt like hell. I don't need to go back to primitive subsistence farming to know I wouldn't enjoy it. If Unabomber likes that sort of thing, good for him. What I don't believe is his nonsense about machines reducing autonomy. How is using a car to get from A to B less 'autonomous' than riding a 100% natural horse?
Yes, well, a horse is much more responsive and engaging than a cold machine like a car. It takes more skill and work to ride a horse, thus it gives you more personal power.

Quote:
You keep repeating this, but - just like Mr Unabomber - you don't explain *how* me using the tools available to me reduces my power, or in fact why they don't increase my power by allowing me to do things that would otherwise be impossible for humans. The whole position is built on an unproven premise.

It does matter. You are saying machines reduce my power. I am saying that as machines allow me to travel, in any given time, further than I could on foot, they are increasing my power.

How is the power to travel 100 miles in an hour *less* than the power to travel 5 miles in an hour?

Yes, the machine does the work. So what? As I control the machine my autonomy is unaffected, and as I can do useful things like traveling very fast, flying in the air, crossing oceans and continents while I sleep, talking in real to time to anywhere in the world, etc, these machines increase my power. What is bad about that?
I've explained it a few times already in how you do less work. Giving out orders from afar like a manager, or general, or a car-driver would, seems empowering, but really all you are doing is pointing fingers. I'm talking about power as in personal engagement in an activity. I'm talking about power in relation to input, not output. Since you need to have power to make any input, the output is really inconsequencual to instrinsic power.
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6871/7006
(09-Dec-2011 at 09:31)


Quote:
Whoever said it is irrelevant. I am just refering to the idea and crediting who said it.
Yet you saw fit to mention the name, twice. But forgot to mention the Unabomber bit...

If you really thought it irrelevant, why credit it? If the idea was the main argument you would simply state the argument - then it wouldn't be an ad hominem appeal to authority.


Quote:
I don't need to.
You can't.


Quote:
This thing you call autonomy is an abstract pipedream until you utilize it.
I use my autonomy every time I choose to do something, and choose the tools I will use to do it. Whether I cut a piece of wood by using a power saw or gnaw through it with my teeth is irrelevant in terms of autonomy - it is still my choice.

The only difference is that by using a power saw I can chop through a lot more pieces of wood, and more accurately. That still looks like an increase in my power...


Quote:
It takes more skill and work to ride a horse, thus it gives you more personal power.
No it doesn't. It just means you are putting in a lot more effort for less result, which is a decrease in power.


Quote:
I've explained it a few times already in how you do less work
You haven't explained how less work for more result = less power.


Quote:
I'm talking about power as in personal engagement in an activity. I'm talking about power in relation to input, not output. Since you need to have power to make any input, the output is really inconsequencual to instrinsic power.
Redefining power as "effort" or "labour" doesn't work. Digging a tunnel with a teaspoon is probably very hard work and will take a long time, but it is measurably less powerful than the guy who wheels up a high tech machine and bores the tunnel in a few days with little effort on his part.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1482/1637
(09-Dec-2011 at 21:19)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Yet you saw fit to mention the name, twice. But forgot to mention the Unabomber bit...

If you really thought it irrelevant, why credit it? If the idea was the main argument you would simply state the argument - then it wouldn't be an ad hominem appeal to authority.
My inital post was actually fairly concise but it was asked that I elaborate. I didn't expect that I would have to explain it myself, but now that I am, I am happy to ignore the person and focus on the idea.

Quote:
Digging a tunnel with a teaspoon is probably very hard work and will take a long time, but it is measurably less powerful than the guy who wheels up a high tech machine and bores the tunnel in a few days with little effort on his part.
Here's where we disagree.

You are correct in saying that when technology is involved the result is greater than the sum of the parts. The thing is that it's not Your power that is being augmented. It is the combination of Your power and the machine's power. You are simply claiming the machine's power to be your own, which is a false impression.

It's simple - if you are working less and achieve a greater result, then some other mechanism outside yourself is doing the difference in work for you. It doesn't matter if your using a spoon or a borer, power comes down to personal capacity.

Take another example, President Obama is said to be the most powerful man on the planet. But this is false. It is the mechanisms in place which are powerful, not the man himself. The man is fairly disposable. In fact, if a truely powerful man where to hold the whitehouse, the world would actually change. But, ironically, the most powerful job on the planet is generally expected to be held by someone quite submissive and lacking in personal power.
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6873/7006
(10-Dec-2011 at 09:53)


Quote:
The thing is that it's not Your power that is being augmented. It is the combination of Your power and the machine's power.
This is where we disagree. The machine has no power of its own. It exists only because humans built it, and does only what humans designed it to do. Without humans, there would be no machines. Therefore, the machines *are* augmenting human power - that is the only reason they exist at all and their sole purpose.


Quote:
Take another example, President Obama is said to be the most powerful man on the planet. But this is false. It is the mechanisms in place which are powerful, not the man himself.
Where did those mechanisms come from? Put there by *humans*, by any chance?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1485/1637
(11-Dec-2011 at 00:19)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Without humans, there would be no machines. Therefore, the machines *are* augmenting human power - that is the only reason they exist at all and their sole purpose.
You are right, you need a human to activate the machine. But that is not to say that the reactions henceforth are also due to the human, or directly augment human power. After initation, the machine is largely autonomous until the desired result is acheived. Therefore, is not the human power that is augmented, but that the human desire is augmented. The machine is largely an external power built to achieve some end which the human is otherwise not capable of achieving. But towards that end - and this is my problem with machines - the human power is in turn diminished. In the relationship with the machine, the emphasis on personal toil is reduced to mere activation of various mechanism which satisfy a desired result.
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6875/7006
(11-Dec-2011 at 04:53)


A machine is not largely autonomous at all. It does what only humans tell it to, when humans tell it to do it. It has *no* autonomy at all, and as such is a tool to increase human power.

Unabombers mistake, and yours, is to think that delegating a task is a reduction of power. It is not. You can delegate only from a position of power.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1486/1637
(11-Dec-2011 at 05:52)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
A machine is not largely autonomous at all.
So then when you turn on an engine, is it designed to keep running? Or does it take constant human effort and thus defeat the purpose of being an engine?

Machines harness physics and chemistry to run as autonomously as possible, otherwise they would not be machines!
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6878/7006
(11-Dec-2011 at 10:53)


Clearly you don't know what 'autonomy' means, which explains your confusion.

From OED:

"independence from external influence or control, self-sufficiency"

The engine starts when a human tells it too (human control), runs at the speed a human tells it to (human control), and stops when a human tells it to stop (human control), and can't choose to do anything else because it has no autonomy.

Even a very sophisticated machine such as an airliner that has autopilot and can apparently 'fly by itself' is doing nothing of the sort. It is following a set of human instructions (human control) called 'software', and can't choose to do anything else because it has no autonomy.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1488/1637
(11-Dec-2011 at 13:12)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Clearly you don't know what 'autonomy' means, which explains your confusion.

From OED:

"independence from external influence or control, self-sufficiency"

The engine starts when a human tells it too (human control), runs at the speed a human tells it to (human control), and stops when a human tells it to stop (human control), and can't choose to do anything else because it has no autonomy.

Even a very sophisticated machine such as an airliner that has autopilot and can apparently 'fly by itself' is doing nothing of the sort. It is following a set of human instructions (human control) called 'software', and can't choose to do anything else because it has no autonomy.
Okay then, autonomy might better be described as chemistry or physics.

You are avoiding the fact that there is power which exists outside of the human.
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6879/7006
(11-Dec-2011 at 13:25)


Quote:
You are avoiding the fact that there is power which exists outside of the human.
I am not avoiding it all. I have pointed out several times how humans harness machinery to extend their own power.

What I don't agree with is the conclusion from you and the Unabomber that using machines reduces human autonomy or power, when in every measurable way machines increase human power. You have yet to give a rational explanation of how machines are enslaving humans or reducing human power.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as B1ackAurora)
Posts: 431/469
(11-Dec-2011 at 13:27)


Quote:
You are avoiding the fact that there is power which exists outside of the human.
I think before you can speak of power you would ave to look at what power is. I'd define power in this sense as the ability to influence things by performing an action after a decision. The president decides to bomb the regime meaning his decisions ring heavily throughout the world.

A machine, while being able to influence things, has no decision making power. Any 'decision' an automated system would make are outcomes of algorythms built by humans leading to certain actions, designed by humans, if the outcome is within parameters defined by humans. The machine (the bomb) might be powerful in it's capabilities, but it has no power of it's own, it just grants power to whoever is in control of them.
#32  
View Public Profile Visit Black Oranje's homepage Find more posts by Black Oranje Add Black Oranje to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1490/1637
(11-Dec-2011 at 16:33)
Re: A new religion...

He who has the biggest stick wins.

Is that the conclusion we are drawing to?
#33  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6882/7006
(12-Dec-2011 at 14:05)


There is nothing to win, but he who has the biggest stick will have the power to move the biggest rock, because the big stick extends his power.

I am still waiting for you to explain how that big stick reduces his power or autonomy...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1493/1637
(13-Dec-2011 at 00:27)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I am still waiting for you to explain how that big stick reduces his power or autonomy...
The leverage is something that the stick creates as an external power, or should I say potential power, which cannot be utilized without human intervention. This much is true.

However, the big stick increases desired outcomes but doesn't increase human power. Indeed, humans can harness that power, but that power, once untilized, is still largely automomous. As I'll explain thusly:

The only reason why the stick is not totally independant. is because the stick doesn't desire anything, so humans make one up for it. But once engaged, the stick is still an external power. Yes, connected to human deligation and input, but the stick remains critically self-sufficent in producing the desired result.

This illusion which augmented desire creates gives one the impression that power has also been augmented. This instills apathy and diminishes an individuals assertiveness and thus true power, for the sole reason that an individual in general won't exert himself if that task can be deligated to the stick.

One cannot simultaneously deligate the task to leverage and still be said to apply himself to the task equally. Therefore, using a big stick reduces personal power and autonomy. I argue that it is more empowering to attempt an insurmoutable task an fail, than to deligate that task to a machine and claim that you had personally succeeded in this achievement.
#35  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6883/7006
(13-Dec-2011 at 15:07)


I have met a lot of sticks in my time. Not one of them has ever made a decision, or even moved by itself. In fact they have done nothing except lay around being totally inert.

It takes a real stretch of the imagination to turn a mindless, inert, lump of wood into 'an external power'. Still, if you are seriously suggesting that going through life failing is a display of power, I shouldn't be too surprised by that.

I guess losing a race shows that you are the fastest runner, and being unable to buy a car is a display of wealth?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#36  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1495/1637
(14-Dec-2011 at 00:29)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I have met a lot of sticks in my time. Not one of them has ever made a decision, or even moved by itself. In fact they have done nothing except lay around being totally inert.
Which is what I agreed.

Quote:
It takes a real stretch of the imagination to turn a mindless, inert, lump of wood into 'an external power'.
It takes human imagination and desire. Again, I've qualified this with you.

Quote:
Still, if you are seriously suggesting that going through life failing is a display of power, I shouldn't be too surprised by that.
Deep down I know you enjoy our little play dates, so you don't have to pretend that you don't. It's okay though, I know you're too proud to admit it.

Anyway, you seem to have skewed my statement to the extreme. Just because you embrace personal empowerment doesn't mean you automatically fail at everything.

You will become smarter and more resourceful by striving to achieve of your own power, and if you wanted to beat the man with stick, you could strategize to disconnect the stick from use, or go straight to the weaker individual who is arrogant and delusional enough to think that he is more powerful.

I am reminded of that scene in fight club where the main character beats himself up in his boss' office to recieve financial compension. He won that despute, despite using nothing but his own personal power, to exploit the mechanisms of power in place and gain advantage. "The worker bees can leave the hive anytime but the queen is enslaved forever."

It's assymetric warfare taken to the most pure level.
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6886/7006
(14-Dec-2011 at 15:17)


If you agree that the stick is mindless, and can only do anything under the command of a human, how can it be an external force?

I don't really see how struggling like hell to achieve something that can be done with ease by employing the right tool makes you smarter. I would say it makes you look quite stupid...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#38  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1499/1637
(15-Dec-2011 at 02:49)
Re: A new religion...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
If you agree that the stick is mindless, and can only do anything under the command of a human, how can it be an external force?
The human is mindful. The stick is mindless. The stick is given mindfulness.

The human is internal. The stick is external. The stick is given internalness.

That's the relationship. The stick does not become human. The human merely gives attributes to the stick in order to get the stick to perform in a certain why to fulfull the desire of the human. If the stick really was an internal force, this process, this relationship would not be needed. But in reality, an artifical mindfulness is given to the stick which has this aspect of internalness alongside is mechanical externalness. The power aspect of the stick is external, but its internal aspect is human.

Quote:
I don't really see how struggling like hell to achieve something that can be done with ease by employing the right tool makes you smarter. I would say it makes you look quite stupid...
The process does make you smarter, since it welcomes more input etc. The matter on whether you look stupid depends on your values. I would say that you are made weak by that assumption.

It's a common system of modernity: those spoilt by technology look to the past as barbaric and stupid, and the modern time as the best it has ever been. Which is retarded.
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6888/7006
(15-Dec-2011 at 05:37)


Quote:
The stick is given mindfulness.
A mindful stick? Really? Have you got an example of this stick-with-a-mind?


Quote:
That's the relationship.
That is nonsense. Stick have no mind - full stop. They do not somehow absorb a human mind to become 'mindful'.


Quote:
If the stick really was an internal force, this process, this relationship would not be needed.
The stick is not a force. It is a tool.


Quote:
The process does make you smarter, since it welcomes more input etc.
So you keep saying, but you never offer any rational explanation of how spending months clearing a pile of rubble by hand makes anyone smarter than clearing it with a digger in a matter of hours.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments AsianAmerican Religious Discussions 54 27-Aug-2005 14:08
The illogic of religion Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 46 05-Aug-2005 12:28
On the topic of Evangilism and Finding your religion. pump Religious Discussions 17 31-Jul-2004 11:13
Religious survey,all input welcomed Jean831112 Religious Discussions 29 13-Apr-2004 16:52
Question on Religion from an outsider Cleyra Religious Discussions 52 16-Jul-2003 05:24


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 02:59.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.