Watching this video prompted to the writing of this post.
And of course, I could also find countless of similar examples in my own country!
Does the 'one man, one vote' really works?
know I may be an elitist a**hole, but I really think there's a fundamental error in the way we conduct Democracy nowadays. How come my vote, the vote of a person who tries (maybe not succeeds) to stay informed, is worth the same as the vote of a person who only reads the newspapers to check out the score of last night's Soccer game? and that votes with his gut instead of his head?
I once told my dad there should be some sort of 'citizen exam' to regulate who has the right to vote in an election. He called me a fascist, because there would be countless poor people who would obviously not pass the exam, and it wouldn't be their fault.
So, what would be the right approach to practice Democracy? Should we go "Starship Troopers" and only let people who serve in the military be 'citizens'? Or adopt the Raelian idea of 'geniocracy', and only let the small percentage of people with the highest IQ run the government affairs?
The latter smells a lot like 'Brave New World', though; but would it be preferable than to let incapable persons (pick your favorite example) be in charge of the world? People who take decisions based primarily on popular ratings rather than what's best for the people?
Your thoughts?
Geniocracy
Geniocracy is the only solution. I'm more than willing to give up my right to vote and let people of higher intelligence vote and run for "office". Democracy as it is today should really be called "Mediocracy".
Well, it could be worse
Worse than "Mediocracy" is of course... "Idiocracy" ;-)
There's also a problem with this "Geniocracy" business: being a genius does not mean you're sympathetic for other people's lives: in fact there are cases when the most brilliant are also the more sociopathic and isolated (Unabomber, anyone?).
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
specialists
Very intelligent people are not necessarily vert good at anything in particular.
What we have currently is mostly bureaucracy, with a little technocracy mixed in, supposedly acting on the general direction of the general population. That's the public sector. Then there is the influential private sector, even if we discount theories such as those presented by Fahim Knight, and similar ideas.
And don't forget the illegal private sector. Places like Mexico, Colombia, Italy, Russia are just a few well known examples.
All these sectors (even the illegal ones) are made much less efficient by cleptocracy, which runs through the purposeful parts of these organizations like fat through back bacon.
Do I sound pessimistic? I am sure I left out some influences.
The influence of the old, on the authority that they are old.
The influence of the young, because they are excitable.
The influence of the mobile or nomadic, because they leave when a place is ruled by what they consider idiots. Thus strengthening the influence of the idiots.
So I don't think improved election laws would help much.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Ok...
So what would you suggest to improve Democracy? Or what kind for government do you think works better than Democracy?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
answers
With Mark Twain, I am gratified to be able to answer promptly: I don't know.
There are some things you can tweak though that will help. Separation of powers will help in the long run. The judiciary in particular has to be independent from the ruling government, and from the legislature. That is a constitutional issue of course, but so are voting rights.
something that hasn't been tried before: full disclosure of where the candidates get their money. In large print. And serious punishment when money was taken from inappropriate sources, not just giving back the money. Treat this as what it is - fraud in serious cases. Generally speaking, enforce laws rather than pass new ones.
Encourage multiple political parties, 2 or 3 are not enough. Term limits are good.
Something that is seriously under-used are "sunset" principles for most laws. Most laws should expire, unless they are re-approved periodically. This is because most laws and regulations are specific to conditions that change over time. The more special-purpose a law is, the shorter the duration for which it is useful.
A small revolution every now and then can be healthy too. But innocent people will suffer, if "only" economically.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Geniocracy
Worse than "Mediocracy" is of course... "Idiocracy" ;-)
There's also a problem with this "Geniocracy" business: being a genius does not mean you're sympathetic for other people's lives: in fact there are cases when the most brilliant are also the more sociopathic and isolated (Unabomber, anyone?).
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
And there are probably cases where the most stupid people are sociopathic and isolated. There are bad apples in each batch, but those particular traits will more than likely be "cured" by science, as those behaviors are symptomatic of a diseased brain. Scientists will cure it.
Geniocracy would allow us to give those with the most intelligence or those most capable of actually providing value added to society a chance to lead, rather than those with the most money in their pockets, capable of funding some worthless campaign. It's unfortunate that we Americans have to choose between either McCain or Obama, both who I feel are less than adequate. Idiocracy? You're right, because that's what we're going to see in the next 4 years.
Geniocracy is available as a free e-book from http://www.rael.org I invite you to read it and make your own decision. It's got to be better than Bush?
Thanks
Thanks for the link. I've visited that website a couple of times, BTW.
Let me ask you something: Have the Raelians as an organization endorsed a particular candidate in some country? Do they seek a specific political agenda, or are they minding their own business while they prepare for the return of the Elohim?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
With Mark Twain And Earthling, I Am Gratified To Answer Promptly
Red Pill,
I Don't Know!
But, I have some Ideas, and I think that we might be approaching this from the wrong perspective. The following are ideas that could be discussed:
1] Common Law traditions have inherent weaknesses that can undermine democratic government.
2] Rigid standards of honesty should be imposed on both leaders on all levels of government, and those who deciminate information to the public, and spin shouldn't be allowed.
3] Universal sufferage is necessary in a democracy; but, it could be limited to an age range, i.e. 20 years old to 80 years old.
4] Those who wish to run for public office should have to satisfy a set of qualification for that office.
5] Convicted felons should have keep a clean record for 10 from the time that they have finished paying their debt to society before they are allowed to vote.
6] Anybody caught cheating in an election and/or intentionally violating an election ordinance should lose their right to vote for a period of 10 years to life. Any second offence in this regard should result in the loss of the right to vote for life.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
One More Point For Possible Discussion!
Red Pill,
(Continued from my post above.)
7] No elected official should be allowed to pardon themselves.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
Makes sense!
All those are good ideas cnnek; specially the ones dealing with honesty, something that should always be expected from public servants. To lie or twist the truth should have a harsh punishment if you are holding a public office, or running for one.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Everyone
If memory serves me then in the UK only 30-40% of those entitled to vote do so, so maybe democracy would work better if everyone voted.
On the other hand if 60-70% of people do not vote then maybe the whole system should be abolished as most people dont really care enough about national politics and, democratically speaking, they are right.
Participation
Apathy is indeed a big problem, particularly in local elections, because those are the politicians that are supposedly closer to you and your personal problems.
Another problem, at least here in Mexico, is bought votes: poor people are given trinkets for their votes and they are all too happy to give them away. "You mean you'll give me new tires for my tractor if I draw a little cross in a piece of paper the way you want it? Sure thing!"
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Huujuu - all should vote
No! This is the situation in Oz, and it doesn't work, full stop. Only those interested or informed enough should be allowed to exercise their right to vote. Here everyone must vote (or be fined), which means all the idiots who know nothing and care less go to the polls and make marks on a piece of paper regardless of who they are voting for or whether they have any idea if the person they select might do some good.
Some simply put 1, 2, 3 etc. down the list - something known as the 'donkey vote'. Candidates appear on the list in alphabetical order, so a candidate with a name beginning with a letter near the beginning of the alphabet has a better chance of being elected than a candidate with a name beginning with a letter near the end. A political party will often deliberately select a candidate based on this fact.
If you chosen candidate doesn't receive enough votes to win a seat, your vote for him will be passed on to another candidate (known as 'preferences'), so your vote may eventually count in another person's favour anyway.
That's democracy Australian style and it is an appalling system! We also mark our ballot papers in PENCIL - which is open to questionable practises after the voting event. This may be an unfair statement, but it could allow for possible devious practices which should be guarded against for the sake of fairness, openness and accountability.
Regards, Kathrinn
Not what i meant
I didnt mean everyone should be forced to vote, that is quite obviously ludicrous! Just that it would be more democratic if the majority did.
Sorry, huujuu, I misunderstood
Yes, I agree, it would be more democratic if the majority voted, but they would need to be an informed majority. If they were interested enough to be informed, then I think that they would automatically want to have their say at the ballot box.
And yes - forcing everyone to vote is ludicrous - but that's what happens here in Oz (along with the other built-in stupidities in our voting system). That's how some parties can rule for years with a minority vote - because they received enough preference votes from those who didn't get enough to be elected in their own right.
No-one can tell me that's democratic!
Regards, Kathrinn
There is Such Thing as Democracy: Just a Theory
The majority of the American people and the people of the world do not understand that there is no such thing as democracy—one man, one vote, this is only an illusion designed to give the impression and to pacify the ignorant masses into believing that they matter in the political systems of the world and it is just to the contrary. The Cabal will never leave picking their high power servants and operatives up to a ballot box and at the political discretion of an electoral process. Voting is only a matter of going through the motions and placating the ignorant masses, but the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberger they are the real POWER BROKERS, it is their job to lead and direct what the masses perceives as democracy.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight
Ok...
I agree that not any John Doe can become a candidate; this is particularly true now in Mexico, now that there can not be independent candidacies (can you believe that??!).
But what would happen if many people went to vote and they would annul their vote? It remains in the realm of possibility within the system.
One thing that bothers me of the Democratic system, is that there are very few means for the people to express their opinions and influence policies. There is voting and there are legal —and illegal— protests and manifestations, but that's it. Maybe there should be a public 'vote of no confidence' or something that would help remove incompetent public servants.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
ideally
Ideally i suppose it would be better to have a more flexible political system that responded to the needs of the community and, maybe more importantly, the honesty and capabilities of the politicians and voters. (But until we get that supercomputer to work it all out and decide on which system will be more effective...'this year only a dictatorship will save the crops')
Nothing wrong with voting for someone who gives you tractor tyres if you are a farmer and can be more efficient because of them. There is a lot of bribery going on in elections whether it be gifts or promises.
Once a community becomes the size of a nation the needs of people are so different and change so much that any of the systems we have now are not going to work.
Then of course we have fairness and effectiveness, 2 different things. What seems fair to people on a local level is not automatically going to be effective in improving things either locally or especially nationally.
Personally i don't think the way we live or politics is a long term solution for the problems we face. Locally at least people face similar conditions and goals and to some extent 'know' each other (I'm talking more tribal communities here) and i believe that we have to be a part of Gaia, or a more conscious part, for that to be the case. In the mean time, the systems of politics we have are just symptoms of a diseased way of life.
Tribality
When discussing poblems in China and the way the government uses its power to maintain the people subjugated, I once mentioned to Anthony North that the main problem with China was that it's size: it's just too damn big! Hence the only way to keep such a diverse population in cohesion was through force.
So I guess what you're suscribing to is a return to 'tribalism', or a modern globalization based on connected small communities. Indeed there are many countries —from Belgium to Bolivia— that right now are experiencing separatist movements.
I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of a global organization of small comunities, but the fact is that most nations grew and evolved over a very important necessity: big numbers means more strength to defend your resources. If you're not strong enough to defend your crops or minerals from your neighbor, you have to rely on someone else's big stick. That someone else is the modern state as we know it; that's the real purpose behind a government.
So, until we learn to live in harmony, we will have no other choice but to bear the necessity of Nation/States for the time being. What I'm concerned right now is the way corruption, apathy and ignorance are hindering the potential of what could oherwise be a very functional form of government—Democracy.
The very inventers of Democracy (the greeks) didn't really believe in their own system, or they viewed it in a much different way than us, because neither slaves nor women could vote.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to make people relalize the huge privilege and power they have when they go out and mark with an X that little piece of paper. And as Uncle Ben taught us: "With great power, comes great responsibility" :0)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Making people realise
I pretty much agree that without harmony we have put to put up with a far from ideal system of government. I would have to disagree that we need to make people realise anything though. There are Jehovah's witnesses knocking at my door every now and again who feel they need to make me realise things!
Most nations may well have grown out of the necessity to defend themselves, but small tribes remain, although they seem to be suffering from the decisions of larger nations!
Obviously I'm not offering up a solution here, I don't think it's that simple. I do however think we've evolved ourselves into quite an amusing (funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) situation that we can only evolve ourselves out of and evolution needs alternatives rather than forcing compliance or percieved understanding......although i think we need measures of that as well.
Not forcing!
I don't think we should force people into being good citizens! But people should show that they want to use their power to vote in a sensible way.
For instance, maybe if the polls show that a certain citizen has never voted, or has failed to vote in the last 4 elections, the system sould revoke his/her right to vote and cancel his/her voting card, until he/she shows up in the propper office and reactivate his voting card. The process would need a quiz of some sort, to ensure that person knows the minimum knowledge of the political system.
In that way, the voting card could become a more powerful incentive for the citizens, and they would seek to maintain it. The voting card could grant you special privileges, like faster lines when making some official proceedings —e.g. asking for a marriage certificate or something.
So, maybe instead of punishing those who fail to be good citizens, the system should reward those who follow the rules and take responsibility in the democratic process.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
rich and poor, real and fake
There is all this talk the last few weeks, how the filthy rich bakers are so dishonest.
Ok, there are these rich thieving dishonest men (and women).
As I walk the streets in many places, I see many comparatively poor people. I see many dishonest people too. Anyone trying to make an extra $0.05.
Bartenders, wait-persons, anyone in the service business - all they tell me is how poor they are. How they have to work all the time.
People who work in banks - all they do is shuffle around other folk's money. Oh it sooo hard to do that, to sit on your ass for a few hours a day. People who give out travel tickets, for the bus or airline.
Oh, it is so hard, and some customers complain because they paid the money and they can't get the transportation they paid for.
And then these kinds of people, who have no interest past their nose, complain that the rich and the government, don't run the country the right way.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
I hear ya
Last month there was this march in Mexico to protest about the insecurity in Mexico; the insecurity stems from the pervasive corruption in the system, and I do realize that everyone participates in that corruption: from the average Joe bribing the patrolman to avoid a speeding ticket, to the prison guard opening the cell of a drug lord so he can escape.
Having said that, I think the system should demand accountability based on how much power you have in said system. Lying in an interview is pretty dishonest, but lying in an interview when you're President of the Republic should be punishible by prison!
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Participation
Being able to use the system more freely in exchange for participating in the system seems like a good idea, eg.If you wanted to get rid of the old tractor tyres at the local recycling tip! But yes, incentives to participate in an effective system, one without bribery and where people were educated enough to make good decisions for everyone else would be better. (I say everyone else because although you vote for yourself, you would still need people with a sense of responsibility towards their community and not just because they could fast track a marriage or dispose of old tractor tyres!)
I guess that would also mean having in place effective opt out clauses for people not wanting to participate in the evolution of the system.
And i guess you would then need a good education system so people were best able to choose between the above.
Can you tell that I stopped smoking this weekend? I'm not usually this argumentative!
LOL
"TDG: Better than a Nicotine patch" :^)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Does it work?
Give it a go!
------
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
A general, personal view on Democracy
RPJ, I have only just come back to TDG and seen your post on Democracy and found it, and the many responses, very interesting.
I admit that Democracy has been corrupted by people who modify the rules in their favour. I also agree that there are many people who vote who either haven't any interest in the subject, or who have been encouraged to vote a particular way by corruption. There are also people who take a great interest in the subject who do their best to vote the way they think would be the best from informed perspective.
I think that firstly the age for voting is too low. I remember in the UK, the age dropped from 21 to 18 the year I was 21! At that time I thought I understood a lot about politics but frankly, over the years since I have realised that I actually was totally ignorant about the subject.
Many people used to vote the way their parents voted rather than decide for themselves.
But when we talk about democracy, we need to recognise that it doesn't work on a big scale. Even on a small scale it can be slow, and too unwieldly. I remember reading about an Ameri-Indian who said that his tribe did practice democracy, in its truest sense, but it took so long to get a decision it often proved useless, timeconsuming, and in the end worthless as the deadline for the decision invariably passed and a new debate had to take place. There are people within politics which ensure this sort of things happens, but not for the best of reasons, instead for the worst. In the UK it is possible for a parliamentary discussion to become so bogged down with people talking that the time allocated for the discussion is over before a vote is agreed and so the motion becomes null and void. The process has to start all over again.
As for democratic votes being the vote of the people, I can honestly say that in my area, I have never had a candidate become elected throughout the last 30+ years, because I chose the candidate that was not part of the incumbent political party. Independents rarely ever get elected and if they do they find it difficult to make any headway in pursuing constituents cases.
A truly democratic voting paper would allow a cross for those who "do not want to vote for any of the above" but of course this will never happen as it could be possible to have a vote where this particular section is the majority, and would require the parties to go through the whole thing again!
I admit I have thought about the idea of democracy quite a lot and come up with the idea that democracy can only work if everyone believes in the same ideas, which makes a mockery of democracy.
I like many of the points made by cnnek but disagree with the first - common law traditions are actually the only way that people will unite behind an idea/concept and let it go forward to fruition. The words, Common Law, mean rules that the people have "in common". These often include moral ideas, as well as official ones, and in the modern day have proved to be more efficient than the so-called "politically correct" laws.
Carol A Noble
I Disagree With You About Common Law On Balance!
Carol,
I'm not arguing that there are no upsides to Common Law traditions. I'm arguing that the down sides of Common Law traditions out weigh the up sides. In the first place, history has proven that they are not "The only way that people will unite behind an idea/concept and let it go forward to fruition". On the contrary, there are many examples in history of people who were definitely not from a Common Law tradition uniting behind ideas/concepts and bringing them to fruition. Examples of this in relatively recent history are the overthrough of the Soviet Union, the reuniting of Germany which included the destruction of the Berlin Wall (First proposed by JFK), and the Peoples Power Movement that overthrew Marcos in the Philippines. You do not need Common Law traditions to protect human rights. In fact, the only thing that common law traditions protect are the inalienable rights and human rights of the majority.
Yes, Common Laws traditions do a very good job of protecting the inalienable rights, human rights, and moral values of the majority. But, "What about the inalienable rights, human rights, and moral values of the minorities?" These rights could simply be inforced by the government in Non-Common Law traditions. Furthermore, "Why should the moral values of the majority be imposed on the minority?" Let's begin with civil rights. Civil right have been guarenteed in the U. S. Constitution since about 1868. But, it took 86 years (Four Score and Six Years) before they began to be recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court, and it took 96 years (Four Score and Sixteen Years) before a law that should have been unnecessary was finally passed to enforce them. When in a Non-Common Law tradition, they could have simply been enforced from the beginning! Another example is the disgraceful treatment of homosexuals in the U.S.. This is especially true when it comes to homosexual marriage. The majority has no right to impose their moral values on the minority. And, the same could be said for the plural marriage tradition of the Mormans. But, the disgraceful treatment of homosexuals angers me the most. When in a Non-Common Law tradition, the human rights and inalienable rights of homosexuals could simply be enforced; because, the morals of the majority should never be imposed on the minority. Finally, we come to the inalienable right to die. The inalienable right to die is implied in the right to life, and it is pursuent to the right to liberty, and the pursuite of happiness. It should be enforced.
(NOTE: For purposes of the above, I made a distinction between inalienable rights and human rights; but, from my perspective, human rights are inalienable rights!)
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
Human rights
From my perspective, human rights are inalienable rights too!
Of, course, trouble arises when defining what constitute a right, and what that right implies. The right of "pursuit of happiness" comes in conflict with other laws, if my particular definition of happiness happens to be getting stoned in front of the TV ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
An additional point
People with high intelligence are not necessarily the best people to govern/rule the rest.
What is needed is people with wisdom!
I was once admitted to Mensa, with an IQ of 159. Today, I think that has dropped as my health is beginning to affect my mind and memory a little.
I have heard of others who have said they were members of Mensa, but when I listened to them talk, I realised that they were only uttering ideas that others had told them about, and very little new information came to light. They also found it difficult to think in a truly independent way.
It was this which made me realise that IQ is actually only the equivalent of the standard of central processing speed, not anything to do with the actual process of thinking an idea through, or investigating in detail and coming up with sound concepts from the data.
So many scientists are poor at making deductions based on data. So often I hear of a statement, said to be based on recent surveys/experiments and as I listen to the process of the experiment, and hear their conclusions, I realise they have disregarded some very important aspects to the experiments which put a totally different picture on the whole process, but that is par for the course in the modern world where the need for money often encourages people to skew the results in favour of a sponsor's desires, rather than the proper perspective the data should have given.
Intelligence/High IQ is not the same as Wisdom.
Carol A Noble
Thank you
Thank you Carol, for offering your comments. As you usual thought provoking and intelligent; now I know why they admitted you in MENSA...159: WooooooooW!! o_O
I like that idea of having a "None of the Above" option in a ballot. One of the things that has affected modern Democracy is partisan politics; often politicians care more about following their party's guidelines than doing what's right, even if the idea comes from their political opponents.
And yes, the irony of Democracy is that it works best when all the people think the same, which is clearly contrary to the ideal of Democracy in the first place! Having said that, if there's something the Internet (and TDG) has taught me, is that you can be in total opposition with another person in many points, but still agree in some fundamental issues; the problem is people prefer to focus on the differences than the similarities.
Intelligence is definitely NOT the same as Wisdom. Albert Einstein was once asked to be the first Prime Minister of Israel, and honor that he humbly declined, because he knew he wasn't cut out for that kind of responsibility. On a more modern example, it's like that Simpsons episode when Lisa, Skinner, Comic Book man, and Springfield's mad scientist form a committee to make new town rules, and end up messing things more! ;-)
One of the reasons why Intelligence is not Wisdom, is because Wisdom implies humility, something scarcely found among the 'smartsy-pants' crowd. Just look at the last video posted by Greg of "Capt. Disillusion" ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Speed/Processes/Results
Mensa is not the great thing everyone believes it to be. My mind has always worked more quickly, and this has often took me into dangerous waters as I tend to speak before I have reconsidered what I have just thought and often say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Tactless they used to call me.
I was told that children usually find the most tortuous way of doing an action and then slowly find short cuts which make the action smoother and faster. For me, I could - sometimes - find the shortest route immediately but had to put barriers (reconsideration moments) in place to stop me going off at a tangent or reaching my goal too soon. In other words, my brain developed in the opposite mode to the way that others were said to develop.
This is what Mensa really test - the speed of the action and the thought which leads to it - not the comprehension or understanding as to the repercussions that the action will bring!
Democracy, in its truest form, places more and more barriers in the way for reconsideration, and in the end slows things down too much so that the opposite result is achieved. Democracy can only work when people are prepared to move quickly, through both the reconsideration process and the post-decision activity. If they move slowly, and add the reconsideration barriers to it, they fail to achieve their aim. What is required is less reconsideration barriers to enable a natural flow of results.
Our present leaders won't allow that because they are determined to control the whole process for their own ends, not the benefit of the general populace.
At least that is my considered opinion on the matter. What we replace democracy with for the large number of people that exist today,I don't know.
Carol A Noble
I Have Never Had Any Respect For Mensa!
Carol,
Although you seem to be an exception to this, I've known more than a few Mensa members in my life, and I think that they are a bunch of eletist snobs who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag if their lives depended on it. And, they try to rip off and crush anybody who will not willingly bow down to them and do their will. They can't stand it when somebody, like me, disagrees with them. They have ripped me off on many occasions and cost me a lot of money in my life; because, they think that is immoral for a person like me to use my brains to make money. Limited greed is not all bad, and if competent intelligent people had been running things in business, this economic crisis would not be happening; because, it never had to happen. Furthermore, truly intelligent people would not have asked for those rediculously high compensation packages that executives get; because, it is bad business to drain the resources of a company like that. So, like others that won't play ball with them, they have also tried to crush me; but, I have a built-in natural defence for that. I don't have a suspension of disbelief. In other words, I can't fantasize. I have no concept of what a fantasy is; because, I've never had a fantasy. But, I'm good at faking it when social necessity requires it. What does this mean? It means that I've never known what an ego is or what I am either. I simply am and I know what I like and what I don't like and it has never bothered me. In fact, I think that it helps me to think more deeply and observe more closely. And, with no fantasies running around in my head, I can think of many things at the same time when I have to do so. But usually, I'm only thinking about three or four things at any given time. You would think that people as intelligent as Mensa members seem to think that they are could figure this out. But, for some reason , they never have. And, for some reason, I have kept forgetting to tell them. About one person in a billion is like me. But, let's get back it intelligence. What is intelligence? Is it really quantifiable and measureable?
Intelligence is the ability to understand something or things on some level, and there is no relationship between intelligence and speed. Speed is related to body chemistry. Whereas, intelligence is related to mental activity. Body chemistry regulates the speed of mental activity; but, it does not regulate mental activity. So, Mensa's correlation between speed and intelligence is absurd. As such, the only measure of intelligence is the depth at which a person can understand something or things, and, viewing it from this perspective, intelligence is not general. Trust me, most Doctors or Physicists, for example, would make very bad Farmers. So, for example, who is more intelligent a Doctor, a Physicist, or a good Farmer? They are probably of equil intelligence in different ways. In other words, they have different intellectual abilities. So, who are the most intelligent people? That is a good question!:)
Thinking? What is thinking? It is the ability analyze, evaluate, and derive valid conclusions, not conclusions that sound good or look good on paper; but instead, valid conclusions that are good. Thinking, however, is a learned technique, and the ones ability to use it to understand things and solve problems in their own dicipline, whether it be Physics or Farming, could possibly be used as a measure of intelligence. So, who is more intelligent a good Physicist or a good Farmer? Maybe, a good Physicist who is a good Farmer.:) Who knows?
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
When it comes to rights it
When it comes to rights it is time we stopped giving rights and instead changed them to social responsibilities.
If we follow the social responsibilities - at ALL levels - we can all gain something from the situation. and in turn what we would today call rights. I may have the right to shout at the top of my voice for as long as I like, but I have a responsibility to ensure that others who are within earshot of my voice are not unduly offended/hurt/distracted by it. Whether you are one of the majority or the minority is irrelevant. But of course, today, responsibilities are invisible to all and sundry whilst rights to do what we like when regardless of the effect it will have on others is paramount. This is one reason why democratic voices of the majority are often accepted as the best method at present to maintain harmony and progressive decisions. Of course in today's world the rest of democratic processes and human rights of the minority override too much and so the idea that democracy may not work has become a debating point.
As for members of Mensa, I have to agree with a lot of what Cnnek says. Am I the exceptIon? I don't know, but what I have already said is how I view the organisation and the way in which Mensa perceive intelligence.
As for speed, I agree that it may not be necessary to have speed of mind to gain knowledge/thought/intelligence, but I have come to the conclusion that it is a factor, especially in this modern society which likes to do things at speed regardless of quality control.
Cnnek, you say you don't fantasize, and perhaps this is true, but then I believe a lot of people are having their creative, imaginative abilities curtailed by poor standard education, and limited access to the public domain for truly fantastic original ideas.
Certainly, up to very recent times, I have seen my imaginative abilities diminish greatly, and this was no less so than with my dreams, which in the past have been very vivid and imaginative. Only trouble is I cannot transpose those dream ideas into fictional scenarios. For the past few days however I have been having very vivid dreams again, what I term snippets, and these vivid images suggest that perhaps I am beginning to make progress, albeit slowly, in coming out of the fog which has minimised my fantasizing abilities. I think it may be because I have been concentrating on forming and taking some natural foods from nature. I have recently been creating rose hip syrup - good for the eyes, and cataracts, which I was told recently are beginning to form on my eyes. I have also realised that to overcome diabetes it is helpful to have grapeseed extract (I use an oil for shallow frying and salad dressings), bilberry/blueberry (I found some dried blueberries on sale recently), and turmeric (a spice I have used recently in curries/fried rice). There are others too that I am looking into.
However, whether or not these are helping my brain/body to function better, the fantasizing has temporarily at least returned and I am grateful. I often found my dreams to be more interesting than my actual life!
However, if the so-called democratic powers that be from the pharmaceuticals, big business and politicians, get their way and enforce different food standards, having corrupted and manipulated the democratic commitees that were supposed to prevent this (these are really the minority of the people concerned, but they have the power to go against the majority wishes, and in so doing create turmoil, perhaps the minority should not have so many "rights"?
Just a thought.
Carol A Noble
I Said That I Can't Fantasize! I Wasn't Born With That Ability!
Carol,
I wasn't born with a "Suspension Of Disbelief". So, I live in world of reality from which there is no escape, and I love it! About one person in a billion is like me. But, within the realm of reality, I can imagine what is realistically possible through research, experience, and anaslysis. No, I can't have a fantasy about a perfect dream world. Words like heaven and hell have no meaning for me.
Let me try to explain by using a few examples. I am a man, and that is fine with me. But, if I were a woman, that would be fine, too. I have no psychological gender specific identity. I like what I like, and I don't like what I don't like. And, what I like and don't like have nothing to do with fact that I'm a man. In fact, I have never done or wanted to do anything just because I'm a man. It's no big deal to me. Furthermore, I have nothing to defend or protect with what is called an ego. The only thing that I know about egos is that they are contraproductive, and that they cause more trouble than they are worth. I mean, if you have an ego, you can have it. I don't want it!:) I don't dream as such. I think about things, and I have memories. But, I know that I'm sleeping. And, if I'm having a memory that I don't like, I can stop it without waking up, and start thinking about or remembering something else. I never think that I'm awake when I'm asleep. I always know the difference. When I look at a woman, I see a woman, and that is all. Other men think about and fantisize about things sometimes; because, it's natural for them. It isn't natural for me. I don't know what a fantasy is. Do you, or anyone else, have any questions?
I touched on this in the first paragraph; but, I want to explain it a little more here. Imagination is not the same as fantasy. It does not have to be based on fantasy. It can also be based on rational realistic extensions reality.
I don't really have a temper in the emotional sense of the word; but, I show my displeasure when I'm not being treated fairly, treated like everyone else. And, I use my brains to rectify the situation, no emotion involved. In other word, I don't get mad. I get even.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
What do I think?
I think you might be an android, and you don't even know it! ;-)
I, like Carol, love having vivid dreams. The problem is the most vivid and interesting happen just when I'm supposed to be waking up for work :-(
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
fantasy, imagination, immaturity and such
I am a reasonably normal (ha!) middle aged western man. Not entirely average perhaps, but normal.
I have vivid dreams quite often, and they are interesting for me. They are also helpful, again just for me - my dreams seem to show connections of a sort. In those dreams, I mix up events and places and people from real life - but sometimes this reminds me that I mix these up in the day as well.
Vivid dreams can show us useful connections that are not apparent in waking hours. And they can also show us wake-time connections we make that are wrong, with some hindsight.
Now for my immaturity. This is a silly but true observation. I was immature when I was young, and occasionally I still am now when I am older. But now it is more or less by choice, and I know when do that. Sometimes it is more fun that way - a real life fantasy.
I should become a better writer :)
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Accuracy Is Most Important!
Carol,
Without accuracy, the only thing that speed can do is to make things worse faster. Solutions to the economic problems that are currently facing the world at the present time are detailed. Note that I said problems! The liquidity crisis and the credit crunch are merely surface manifestations of more fundamental problems. So far, speed has made these problems much worse in the long run.
The way to mitigate this is to continually analyize systems and ideas in order to find out what is wrong with them, and the problems that their down sides might cause. In this way, many defects can be corrected, and many problems can be solved before they happen. But, nothing will ever be perfect. So, this process of analysis and correction must be an on going process that is a central part of Standard Operating Procedure. Doing it this way, it will be easier to solve problems when they manifest themselves; because, some potental problems will not be totally solvable until they happen, and some problems will result from solutions to other problems. In other words, it's necessary to find out what can go wrong before it goes wrong, try solve them before they happen, and carefully analyze the solutions in order to find out what problems they might cause. Then, it will be easier to solve problems when they manifest themselves. But, ACCURACY is far more important than speed!
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
Cnnek - a response
Cnnek
I have been using computers for 40 years, usually in a practical sense within our everyday lives.
At first, like many others even today, I was all for the logical thinking processes that this brings, and tried to emulate this logic into other aspects of my daily life.
Over time, I have observed, not just in my own life but in the rest of society, how we are becoming enslaved to logic and ignoring that other aspect of our human nature, imagination/innovation/inspiration/creativity!
I am in many ways more practical now than I have ever been, yet, it is very easy to show that logical thought/deeds is as flawed as illogical thought/deeds. In fact, I blame a lot of the problems we have today on the determination to think in a so-called logical way instead of in a human way.
Yes, analyse problems, but it is impossible to take the human aspect out of situations unless you turn humans into robots (in their thinking processes) and they become no more than computers with only a limited series of thinking processes.
There is another aspect to our lives, and illogical thinking is a part of that. Without the combining of "illogical thoughts" we would never have had any ideas which brought about vast changes.
I have always found that whenever I learned how to do something, invariably a practical logical process, I found that the magical quality that goes with the original perception of that "something" is lost, and I wonder why I ever thought it to be special. I know that this feeling is due to having overcome the ignorance, but they say that "ignorance is bliss" and I can understand what they mean by that.
Today, I am trying to learn a lot more about nature, and how people used to use nature to help overcome their survival problems in the past. Even when I do find a process which helps me make what I need and I see that process work, I still accept that there is some part of nature which I don't understand which helps me keep that little bit of mystique/magical quality surrounding the concept. I prefer that rather than know exactly how something is made/created.
As a species we have been encouraged over several millennia to learn as much as we can about nature, right down to the smallest piece of material/energy known to man. Man has done its best to learn as much as it can about nature in all its aspects. Once known, the magic of the event/object diminshes and the purpose for life dissipates. That is why I am now learning more about nature than I ever did before. Strangely enough this is at the time when society is determined to make us know less about nature.
I hate the concrete jungle that man has been creating for its societies. They are bare, uninteresting, miserable places, and encourage a bland existence.
Give me the countryside anytime! I love it! I feel better within it! The air is purer, the water cleaner, the plants taste better, and the stars are more visible than in the town/cities. But society today is encouraging people to abandon the countryside/rural areas, and it wishes to create super cities. Once that comes, I will go into the countryside and try to survive there. If I fail, due to poor health I would rather die there than in a bland, dehumanising place known as a super city with little sparkle in life.
But that is me.
Clearly, Cnnek you think and act differently, and are quite happy in this inhuman environment. Perhaps you have been so programmed throughout your life that you have never been encouraged to develop the faculties within you to see alternative ways of living as being beneficial? Perhaps you have been encouraged to be so logical that you find it impossible to understand how other people can be illogical?
I have seen people act in a logical way and the result ends up totally illogical, but that is part of life. You can't get rid of logic (order) or illogic (chaos); both exist and will continue to exist. What is required is a way of making the two harmonise as much as possible. But there will be times when they are in discord, but fortunately, not for too long at any one period.
I would add that instinct has a part to play in life. Instinct can not be found within the human body, at least that is what they say. But I say that there are sensors (senses) within the body that we don't always realise are activated. Often another sensor will also alert us to the same information so we tend to think of that sensor (sense) as being the only one when others have also been confirming the fact.
But sometimes there are times when instinct tells you something is happening, but the other senses don't seem to be alerted so we aren't always sure, and not everyone listens to their "instinct". But these instincts, like the other senses are alerting us to information we need to be aware of, and when we listen we often seem to be illogical/mystical/imaginative because we come up with ideas/answers that as yet have not been brought to the mind of others through ordinary senses. We may seem to be predicting something without the obvious logical explanation to support it. The truth is, we have the information, through the instinct, but are we prepared to listen to it? Far too many do not.
Carol A Noble
Instincts, Logic, And The Real World!
Carol,
Instincts are the result of our subconscious mind informing our conscious mind. There are many aspects to our subscious mind. But, in terms of informing our conscious mind, it preforms three functions that help it to inform our conscious mind. First, it collects data that we don't preceive consciously. Second, it preserves memories that our conscious mind has forgotten. Thirdly, it analyzes the data with in it, and transfers information to our conscious mind when our conscious mind is in need of it. And, I have as many instincts as anyone else.
Logic provides the solution to a problem, and/or the answer to a question. If it does not do this, it is not logic. Just because something sounds logical doesn't mean that it is logical. It may be rational; but, that doesn't mean that it is correct or accurate. If it doesn't solve a problem, and/or answer a question, it is not logical. It may seem logical; but, it isn't logical. Syllogism, if A=B and B=C, then A=C, Induction, Dialectical Methodology, Thesis->Antithesis->Synthesis, etc. provide methods to solve problems, and/or answer questions. But, they are logic systems, and, at times, they can provide very illogical answers. For general purposes, I prefer Dialectical Methodology for two reasons. First, it isn't dependent on presuppositions. Second, it allows me to analyze problems in the course of events; but, I always think through my conclusions, and verify them with other logics. In highly defined situations, Syllogistic logic works very well; but, outside of highly defined situations, it's dangerous to try to use it. Induction allows the thinker to view a situation from different perspectives in order to gain a greater understanding of the situation. And, it is more of an aid to logic than a logic itself; but, in certain situations, it solves problems, and/or answers questions, usually answers questions. So, Induction can function as a logic. Most people simply don't know what logic really is. The fact that an explaination is rational doesn't mean that it is logical. There are more perfectly rational misconceptions in this world than you can possibly imagine.
I'm constantly surrounded, and immersed in The Real World and its Irrationality. I can neither escape it; nor, do I want to escape it. I find it to be very interesting, and I love analyzing it in order to understand it better! But, I neither fantasize about it; nor, get fooled be its fantasies and propaganda. Hype, gossip, rummors, spin, etc. are wasted on me; because, I'm not fooled by them.
Finally Carol, I can be as creative as anyone; but, I don't do it in the same way as others.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
Cnnek - I salute you
Cnnek
Thank you very much for the lesson in logic, and logical thinking. I admit I have not researched in depth to the extent that you have.
In a way you have demonstrated how this universe and our lives within it could be no more than a computer programme and for that I thank you.
However, I don't want to be as logical, or ordered, as you clearly are. The fact that you enjoy this type of living is good, for that is what is being presented to us all, whether we like it or not. But there are many people out there who don't think as you do, and for whom it is important to have "illogical" concepts. For some these may take the form of spiritual/religious beliefs and experiences which are subjective and cannot be proven under present logical criteria. For others it may be that they can only think in terms of themselves, and let the ego transcend any other possibilities.
If I had not had the experiences in life that I have had then I would have found many of your explanations as not only plausible and rational, but definite. However, the many experiences I have had force me to deny this logical concept of life as the only way life can exist. There are additional factors that no-one has been able to fathom, and logic does not at this moment's understanding enable us to comprehend. This is why so many quantam mechanic scientists are finding anomolies that present logic and knowledge cannot explain. However, with your own clear understaning of logic, certainly in greater terms than I can ever hope to impart, you may be the one who can advise us all of the rational logical processes at work on all levels.
I am not making fun of you in any way here, I mean what I say and actually look forward to hearing your logical rational explanations for so many things that at present are mysterious. No doubt I will disagree with some of the explanations because I think you have omitted some possible information which could modify the logical response, however, I will still be glad to hear of any ideas you have and will take the points on board. I will compare them with what I have experienced/know and see if my own views could be modified towards your explanations without compromising on the experience itself. I don't know if this can happen but I am certainly willing to give it a try.
There is only one thing which makes me feel sorry for you and that is that you will never experience true unexplained magic. The feeling this generates is unbelievable sometimes. However, I know that those who lack a particular ability/quality/skill often enhance their other traits and this results in an understanding that the rest of us cannot comprehend, or appreciate.
My own son is an example. He is mentally disabled and has several problems which are based on an inability to define structure. Whatever name we give to the problems this is what it boils down to. Dyspraxia is a difficulty with discerning spacial awareness/situations; Autism is the difficulty with discerning the social interactions of people and the world around him; learning difficulties means he has a problem with absorbing the information properly in a structured way. When he was 10 I learned that he couldn't discern 2D vision in his head, never mind 3D visual understanding. The big surprise is that he managed to learn to play chess from his father, and spends a lot of time at the library computers on the internet playing opponents, and his abilities to play this game, and the logic that it teaches has been a revelation. He can't do a jigsaw yet can look several moves ahead on a chess board, and win. Irrational, maybe, but I can only answer by saying my husband is a very good patient but unqualified teacher, and my son may be using a part of his brain that is not damaged. Whatever the reason, I look on in amazement at his ability to play chess, whilst I see him carry out everyday chores with a very childish inept ability and understanding. But that makes life more interesting, and allows us to realise there are other forms of thinking/living to the official "norm".
I am glad you enjoy living in this irrational world. I admit I sometimes find it very difficult, not because it is irrational, but because it tries to be so logical that the logic becomes flawed and the people following the logic can't see it. This is what causes frustration and anger within my being. This is why I want to escape it but can't - yet. Only death can do that and I am not quite ready for that.
Good luck to you Cnnek. I look forward to reading more of your logical/rational thinking. It will certainly be an antidote to my own mixed view on life.
Carol A Noble
Cold and Hot logic
One aspect that aggravated the current Financial crisis we're immersed in is the use of computers in Wall Street. When facing a decline in the stock market, the computers are pre-programmed to start selling. This didn't cause the crisis, but it helped to accelerate it.
Somehow humans think there are some problems where the slow thinking of a biological brain would get in the way; another example of this trend is the Defense program: men in uniform love to have computers monitoring things in case a quick response is needed. There are many stories—understandably not much advertised— of junior officers in the US Army or the former Soviet Military, that had to override the automatic computer programming of launching an attack because of some glitch or misidentification. We've been more close to nuclear annihilation than most people know about it, or care to know...
At the same time, there's this famous Turing test—of which Kat gave a little news yesterday— where the purpose is to see whether a computer program can fool a human being in thinking he/she is chatting with another human. So far no 'chatbot' has ever achieved this.
Isn't surreal that we live in a world where computers are still unable to grasp the simple act of conversation, and yet we charge them with our financial markets and our military protection?
So, some AI researchers have theorized that what is currently lacking in our efforts to create a truly Artificial Intelligence is not found in logical algorithms, but maybe we need to give computers feelings. We are successful in giving robots the intelligence of an insect, but to create a robot that could have the intelligence of a dog, or maybe even a man, emotions and feelings might be a necessity more than an evolutionary burden.
Maybe we need to stop thinking in terms of cold hard logic, and begin to address the advantages of emotions and 'gut-feeling'. After all, 2 million years of evolution can't be THAT wrong ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
As Long As It Works Both Ways, "Live And Let Live" Is My Moto!
Carol,
I'm looking forward to our correspondences on the Grail. I enjoy them, too. I find you to be a very interesting person. But, there is one thing that I want you to understand very clearly. I don't have an ego. So, I don't have an inner need to make myself look good. Furthermore, I've learned far more from my mistakes, and the times that I've been wrong than I have ever learned from being correct. I enjoy constructive criticism. So, I would never omit anything that might modify my logic, which I prefer to call reasoning. The way that I use the words, logic and reasoning mean the same thing.
My only limitation is that I'm a one finger typer with bad eye hand coordination. I'm not coordinated enough to touch type. I even trip over my own feet on flat surfaces. So, it takes me a while to type and edit things. I probably hit the edit button more than anyone else on TDG. "Instinct, Logic, And The Real World" took about a hour to type. So, in order to give you properly detailed responses, I will type out as much as I can type and type {To Be Continued} when I can't finish in one post. In Japanese it is tsuzuku ｛つつ”く｝. May I type つつ”く when I can't finish?
Over the years I have worked people with mental disabilities on an irregular basis. I do it now about 6 times a year. I teach them English. And, in 60 years of life, I have learned that their disabilities do not hinder their ability to think. In fact, in many cases, they can think out problems much better than people who don't have disabilities. Furthermore, I play chess, and it wouldn't suprise me if your son beat me in a game of chess. He is probably a very good thinker who could have a little difficulty communicating his thought. I have trouble communicating my thought in an understandable manner sometimes. Most of the really great thinkers had some trouble communicating their thought at times. I'm suprised that you are suprised that your son can think. This shocks me! Dispraxia, Autism, etc. don't impair the ability to think. They impain the ability to communicate the thought. And, trust me, there is a primafacia difference between thinking out anything on any level that is deeper than a surface level, and communicating that thought. It's not as easy as it sounds. Most people don't really understand thought on deeper levels.
"Live And Let Live" -> To Be Continued -> つつ”く
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
"Live And Let Live" Continued -> つつ”く
Carol,
Tsuzukeru, つつ”ける, means To Continue in Japanese. The つつ”く form of this verb is very convenient. It can be used to note that something will be continued, and it can be used to note that something is being continued. But, most importantly, it is easier, and faster for me to type it. So, may I use it at the beginning of continuations also.
Let me get back to one thing that I neglected to mention in my first post. The ability to play chess requires a mental understanding of 2D space. And, the ability to play chess well requires an excellent mental understanding of 2D space. Even though he can't visualize it, discern it in his head, he has an excellent mental understanding of 2D space, and the same probably holds true for 3D space. So, don't be suprised that he can play chess well. Be happy! You are learning things about his ability to understand that he can't communicate to you verbally; because, he can't visually discern them in his head. And, thought is like that, it is very difficult, at times, to communicate it in an understandable manner for one reason or another.
I'm interested in science in general, especially physics. My main interest is in Black Holes; but, I'm also interested in String Theory, Parallel Universes, Quantam Mechanics, Relativity, etc.. Physicists presume that, "The laws of physics are the same everywhere under all sets of circumstances". This has never been proven, and it may very well not be true. But, physicists continue to opperate on the assumption that somehow it must be true. Well, based on this assumption, both General Relativity, and Quantam Mechanics cannot be valid. But, both are valid. The question that physicists should be asking themselves is, "Why do the laws of physics have to be the same everywhere under all sets of circumstances?" Logically, there is no logical reason why the laws of physics have to be the same under all sets of circumstances. But, this would destroy the idea of the neat and orderly universe that is held by scientists in general, and physicists in particular. In other branches of science, it has been shown that there are exceptions to general rules, and that thing react differently under different sets of circumstances which means that different laws might apply under different sets of circumstances. Now I need to give you a couple of simple examples. In terms of general rules, in most cases the liquid form of a substance is denser than the gaseous form, and the solid form is denser than the liquid form. But, the liquid form of H2O, water, is denser than the solid form, ice. In the early stages of the evolution of life on Earth, the atmosphere was high in carbon dioxide, and, with an atmosphere like we have today, life may never have evolved. Why are we continually searching for Extra Terrestrial Intelligent Life Forms in the Universe that are like us, and for planets like ours for them to evolve on? Isn't it possible that what we call a habitable zone around a star may not be habitable for all intelligent life forms? Do all intelligent life forms have to be similar to us? Does all intelligence have to be similar to ours? Personally, I think that we are far too humanocentric in our thinking.
つつ”く
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
To RPJ
I agree that there is a danger in using computers to do our thinking and actions for us. We can use them as tools to aid us, but not to override or control us.
Some day they may be able to do something about giving computers "feelings" but until then we will must accept that they will never be as good as humans.
I would also add that the reasons they have not managed to give computers that "human aspect" is because humans don't understand fully the role of emotions in our lives. Perhaps that is why they are trying to dehumanise us by ignoring and suppressing our emotions, so that we can work like computers and so be easier to control.
Carol A Noble
To CNNEK
Cnnek
You are only a few months older than I am, and it is clear in your posts that your have spent a lot of time thinking and trying to understand the world around you.
Yes, my son is a great thinker yet finds it difficult to express his views. However, many of his views are based on a world that for the rest of us does not exist. I often think his instinct is better than mine, and he often "knows" something that the rest of us don't, but that must be because he is able to perceive via sensors the rest of us either ignore or subjugate to other more major sensors (senses).
As for 2D visualisation. I was told that at the age of 10 he could not follow a column of writing, even with the aid of lines, on a piece of paper. It was this which made me realise that the dimensional aspect of "sight" is not determined in the eyes themselves but in the brain. I also realised that blind people can find their way around a set predicted area without difficulty because they have already learned where everything is placed, and put those objects into a spacial environment within their heads. My son had difficulty doing that, and although he thought he knew where everything was that he could see he was often wrong because what he remembered was not the same as what was actually in place.
He was also very clumsy, and had poor hand/eye co-ordination. This is also part of dyspraxia and from what you have written about yourself you may well have a slight anomoly in your own head as to how to co-ordinate and use the space around you. Don't despair, I know what it is like, because I found out that I too have a slight problem in certain areas with my own spacial awareness. This isn't helped by my own poor sight and I do rely on memory a lot for certain things, but my movements in space can be rather erratic, another sign of dyspraxia!
There are different levels of mental disability and for some it is slight whilst for others it is much greater, enough to make life very difficult for others. I think you and I belong to the earlier group.
If I am wrong about this then I apologise, but it is what is being suggested from the limited amount of information you have given me, and under my past experiences and knowledge of the conditions I have drawn this conclusion. I have been right about people's conditions more than I have been wrong and stated the case before the people had it confirmed from the experts. You have indicated that you think differently to other people and this is also a factor. People do have their brains wired differently depending upon the experiences and knowledge they gain and via this form different neurones.
As for having no ego, I can believe this and if I suggested differently then I again apologise. But you are not a robot. You are a person, and as such should have some spark of energy within you that is called Cnnek, that is different to the personality of Cnnek with the personality being the "programme" we form in our heads throughout our lives. In that, and that way alone, you have an ego. I am not referring to those who are normally considered to have egos but actually are being arrogant, selfish, self-centred, and over-confident. Their egos are actually based on anti-social acts/thoughts, and again the word, "ego", has been taken slightly out of context, and slewed in interpretation.
I have to applaud you for the long posts you have given considering you are only a very slow, poor typist. I couldn't face doing that if I wasn't a touch typist.
I do enjoy our on-line conversations and look forward to more of them.
By the way, Sorry to RPJ, as I seem to have changed this thread into something different. Not intentional, just a natural turn of events from a general debate on the subject.
Carol A Noble
To Carol and Cnnek
I've found your above exchanges very interesting - thanks for letting me in on your conversation!
It's not only people with autism who have difficulty communicating. I am very much an empath who operates on 'feelings'. This so often leaves me short of words when I'm trying to talk to, or explain something, to another person whose preferred method of communication is hearing or sight - 'feeling' people don't have a large vocabulary.
There is a very good book on this subject written by a psychologist Susan Forward - the book is "Try to Feel it My Way". Although she doesn't at any time specifically mention empaths, so much of what she wrote applies, and the whole book made so much sense to me that I felt I'd found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and wasn't so very strange after all. I try never to get into arguments with people as I'm doomed to failure before I begin - I can always be outdone with words and I just can't find the right ones to get my point across!
Best wishes, Kathrinn
Thanks for the comments
Kathrinn, your feelings come across in your writing and I hope mine do too.
Carol A Noble
Don't worry!
It's great to have people commenting on many different things on account of my blog post. Besides, you guys helped me break my comments record! :-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Thanks, Carol
I do find it easier to communicate with written words than spoken ones - perhaps I should pretend I can't speak and always carry paper and pencil around with me!
My husband and I ran charter boat day cruises at one time and one day two of our passengers communicated to me (on paper) that they were deaf mutes. There was a group of about 10 of us that day, so we all decided to communicate the same way and had a really riotous time! Pens and paper were flying around the group and there was a lot of laughter.
Best wishes, Kathrinn