Liberty Student,
(1) I object to the arrogance of the claim that someone who presents a dissenting argument is “on the wrong forum”.
(2) I would rather not waste my time searching your posts to substantiate my subjective claim of “many times”.
Either accept or defend my criticism constructively; I would rather not engage you in a stereotypical internet forum argument (complete with ridiculous pictures).
Ryan, your ‘criticism’ is hardly worthy of comment.
Barely. Stick around here and learn some economics.
Have I engaged the wall of hate? This is an interesting development.
well isn’t this a turn up for the books…
…and other such platitudes…
that move us along… to the end of this thread.
The answer is yes, there are many problems that cannot be resolved algorithmically. I suggest since you’re a CS or possibly CIS major that you should take at least one class on Foundations of Computer Science. It will probably briefly cover Complexity Theory, but what’s important about this field of study in CS is that there are telltale signs of when a problem cannot be solved by a computer or an algorithm.
It doesn’t work that way. The functions of the human brain and mind evolved in separation from other functions, more or less. As such, the nature of the human brain and mind cannot be meshed together. Each person due to environment, genetics, and even free will have varied epistemologies, goals, and intentions. Thus, no greater “homoculus” can be created from other human beings. All one can do is simply get out of the way by producing networks in which these people do the connecting themselves. That’s what made the Ron Paul Revolution happen. That the barriers to acquisition of information was lower than it was in the last twenty years. And it seems that lower barrier has scared the crap out of many politicians great and small. If you want to do anything quasi-political, then do this: oppose any bill that will regulate ISPs either in pricing or in content management. Be it phone campaigns, blogs, youtube channels, RSS feeds (text and podcasts), and so on as your choice of fighting such measures. As once Congress offers such authority to the Executive Branch over the content and pricing of the Internet, it will be game over for any spontaneous order as found like the Ron Paul Revolution.
Well maybe if you could have articulated this “rhetorical approach” to begin with you wouldn’t have appeared to be such an a–, and yes it’s my perception but you need not imply anything otherwise.
just a state of being
Well, I would stick around and learn. Individuals reason not this state of being you’re referring to. I know what you’re talking about. The only way to make it possible is a State type mechanism, which is thereby injustice, or persuade people to voluntarily go along with your sales pitch, thereby understand free-will. It is people on their own free-will meeting up to do something about the injustices occurring. It’s not cause we are following some kind of pre-ordained plan. Free-will does exist, as you said, so I would stick with that.
If you want to figure out how folks did their systems like reddit or Stack Overflow, try this Google Talks video by one of the creators of Stack Overflow to get an idea how it could be done.
I think you contradict yourself here.
As is your right. Object with all of your body, soul and resources. Don’t do anything halfway. I endorse this 100%.
I would rather you did not waste my time either.
I was trying to improve an existing discussion by adding value through brand synergy.
welcome, you joined like a week after me and your intro thread has like 50 more posts than mine -.-
How so? There’s no contradiction in my statements so far. I pointed out that individuals are fundamentally different creatures from one and other in many different ways, thus to even create a “giant person” or “greater homoculus” out of them isn’t logically possible. All that’s possible is to allow them to connect on their based on their own given circumstances.
It’s like building a highrise in New York. First, you get the plans from engineers and architects. Then, you get permits along the way. And capital funding. And so on. Each step eventually leads to the highrise being built. But all along the way, from the first few plans to the full boardroom meetings with potential investors, each one of those people came on their own circumstances. Whether it’s the architects and engineers trying to build something “beautiful” from their own mind’s eye. Or whether it’s shrewd investors looking for a sure thing. Or even the laborers and construction workers that will help you erect that building bit by bit, just looking for a good paycheck. Everyone involved works independent from one and other, never knowing the full scope of the structure of their relationships with each other than the most immediate ones. The other relationships beyond the immediate seem like wisps of clouds, barely detectible, but ever present on the horizon of causality. Yet, this is how it is for every other participant in that hypothetical social order. Even the entrepreneur that acts as conductor of the whole order, doesn’t know the absolute minute details of it all. He works on best guesses, experience, and sometimes trained instinct for good measure. As such, his influence over the social order that forms from his venture isn’t one that is direct, but rather one that is indirect, based in the independence inherent to every human being involved.
In simpler terms: the network forms based not on the optimal design of nodes/participants, but on the circumstantial want/need of the nodes/participants.
This is just more of the Peter Joseph/Zeitgeist/Venus Project type rubbish dressed up as deus ex machina fetishism.
LS, pretty much. It’s sad because it’s a perversion of the rigor of computer science. Folks don’t get that computers are awful; they only give you answers (in the vein of Pablo Picasso’s take on them).
Now just that, but it seems to be the new collectivism, this techno-fetishist approach.
Instead of “I am my brother’s keeper”, it is “my brother is the keeper of my system”.
What do you think free market capitalism is going to look like in 300 years?
what kind of art do you think will be popular in 300 years?
No one can know, because the future hasn’t been made yet.