Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

That's not backpedaling at all. It is simply a demonstration of how poor I consider the Venus project's ideas to be. Communism at least has had serious intellectuals, and they have at least presented arguments that seem semi-cogent.


Um... yes, it really does. I've programmed before. When you write a computer program, the computer does exactly what you tell it to do. No more, no less.


I certainly don't have the answers. But when someone proposes demolishing our current, mostly-workable system in favor of some new system which allegedly promises to solve all our problems, then yes, I expect them to have some damn good answers.


Are you even literate? I think I've been pretty clear in stating that the complexity of economic problems renders attempts at finding an optimal solution impossible. Certainly such a solution is not going to be "self-evident." When you've* solved P=NP, developed an algorithm to solve the Traveling Salesman problem, found explicit formulas for the three-body problem, and discovered the quadrature of the circle, I'll be willing to listen to your plans for running the economy.

*"you" used in the rhetorical sense here. You can take it to refer to the Venus Project if you like.


Social and economic redesign is a fool's errand. If you knew how to read, you would have seen my skepticism regarding the possibility of solving all economic problems. Again, the economy is nonlinear, as are social systems. Attempts to design either will not be successful.


There aren't any simple answers to complex questions. If you don't understand that, there isn't much I can explain to you.


Your response bears no relation to what you quoted whatsoever. I am not referring to our current system. I am referring in general to what can actually be done with computers. Some things literally are not computable, no matter how much computing power and how much time you have. Even if the amount of computing power available to us increases by a thousand orders of magnitude, we still will not be able to solve these problems.


I have never said that. If you had even the remotest understanding of the theory of computing I wouldn't have to explain this a half dozen times, but SOME THINGS ARE NOT FREAKING COMPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW FAR TECHNOLOGY PROGRESSES.


Several problems here: No, it is not a limitation in the current system, it is a limitation in this little thing called REALITY that you tend to ignore. We can't move faster than c. We can't reverse entropy. We can't solve the three-body problem. We can't square the circle. We can't find a consistent set of mathematical axioms that is complete enough to prove all true statements within mathematics. And we can't compute the economy.

Secondly, technological unemployment does not exist in the long run. It's only a temporary phenomenon, so I see no reason to worry about it.


I don't see a way to get rid of money; besides, money is convenient. I don't see what is so horrible about fractional reserve, and I've already stated that technological unemployment does not exist in the long run. Various regulations will probably restrict corporate pollution. The world's governments seem to trend toward globalism, if you want to call that unity then sure.


No, the issue really is inherent to the problem of resource allocation. It is too complex a problem to have an algorithmic answer.

Speak for yourself. I can do all of those things, and with my hands tied behind my back as well.

Well then, I just submit the claim that Jacque Fresco is not as awesome as you.

You know why you perceive these ideas as you do? Because I am your vessel for understanding it. And I am not perfect, and I think that you are either scared of checkjing it out for yourself, or cannot be botherd coz you find it easier to criticise me.

How about this. If you go to the www.thevenusproject.com and www.thezeitgeistmovement.com and pick anything you wish that you disagree with or you want explaining, as long as you tell me exactly where you got the quote (coz to be honest I don't trust you not to provide something false), I will act as an explanatory liason. At least that way you will be criticising the ideas themselves from the source as opposed to my projections of them.



After your previous statements concerning mathmatics, I find this interesting.



Let me pose a situation to you. Say you lived in England in 1880. You work as an elevator operator and good old Werner von Siemens has developed an electric elevator that makes your occupation null and void.
Howabout if you lived in 1922 and worked as an "Ice Man" that regularly visited households to refill their ice boxes. Then Electrolux commercialise the modern refridgerator.

Would you still consider technological unemployment only a temporary problem and nothing to worry about?



And yet you demanded an algorithmic answer.

AG has developed the impression that he is more "awesome" than everyone. That is one reason why I don't take him seriously.

Ugh, massive quote fail.

Was that directed at me?

You do realize that the two of us were passing jokes between each other, don't you? I obviously can't do any of the things he mentioned. He pulled up a list of things that are well established as physically impossible.

In any case, "awesomeness" is part of an ongoing schtick.


Yes, if you look at your last post, then you'll see how the organization of it will make it hard to read.

So you create a unit and attack me that way? How mature you two. Not content or successful with imposing your economic biases upon me, let alone make me ashamed of my direction, you aim to alienate me.

Well I'll say one thing. I have spoken to you for a while now and I sense a HUGE ego and a dangerous amount of arrogance in you. That is the basis for my unwillingness to take you seriously, and by the way, the "awesomeness", in case you hadn't noticed, was put in inverted commas for a reason. I was quoting Orwell's usage. I personally would have phrased it "twat". But of course, you can't be blamed for that. It's your conditioning, not your fault. And hense not something that I can do but point it out. I have taken a massive quantity of s**t from you two. But I persevere out of the further articulation of my ideas. People like you are perfect practise.

We agree with each other on this issue and with each other's reasonings, and we both know each other.


Ok?

I sense a HUGE disconnect from reality in you. Orwell's criticisms are pretty solid, but you haven't even really dealt with any criticism in an intelligent manner, only tried to push it away as "irrelevant".

Yes, the quote-fail comment was directed at you. I'll see if I can fix the parsing when I reply to it.

Sounds fair, but the FAQ section on the venus project site (first place I visited) does not appear to be functional without javascript. I don't enable javascript on strange websites.


That's a major point of frustration for programmers, actually. The computer does exactly what you tell it to do, not what you mean for it to do.


Are you saying some sort of self-programming AI has to be constructed before the Venus Project can begin to direct the economy? If so, you might be waiting a while. AI is perpetually 20 years away.


OK, evidently you are not familiar with the several example problems I gave. Those were intended as demonstrations that some things are actually impossible. We have in many cases proven that several of these things are physically or logically impossible. No matter what advances come in science or technology, no matter what new heights of human knowledge we reach, there really are some things we can't do.


No, I have a bleak view of trying to just redesign society. It's not simple enough that you can expect to succeed in a radical alteration of how society functions. You can work for improvements within the current system, but fundamental alterations tend to end in a terrible mess.


No, I was describing problems which simply can not be solved, independent of the current economic system. If you ever find a method to square the circle, be sure and let me know.


Holy s**t, are there no limits to your idiocy? I mean, this is a stunningly moronic claim, even for you.

Let me try one last time.

My claims here hold true under capitalism, under communism, under anarchism, and yes, under whatever the Venus project advocates. It is not a matter of limited capitalist computers or whatever other garbage you're spouting here. Some things literally are not computable. Ask any computer scientist or mathematician. It is partially a consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, there are some things which a computer can not calculate, no matter how powerful that computer is. Even if we had a quantum computer, a lot of interesting problems would still be beyond it's capabilities. This has absolutely nothing to do with any given economic system. It has to do with certain mathematical facts, and a mathematical proof that is valid now will still be valid in a hundred years, and you still will not be able to compute the economy.



*bangs head against brick wall*

OK. The things I listed as impossible are just impossible. That is not debatable. It is not my opinion. It is absolute, objective fact. They have absolutely nothing to do with the monetary system and any limitations (real or imagined) that it has. Traveling faster than c is impossible because you would need infinite energy, which does not exist. Reversing entropy is impossible; we can not turn a physical law on its head at will. It is impossible to find an explicit solution to the three-body problem (we can only have numerical approximations). We cannot find the quadrature of a circle because π is transcendental. I mean, when it is mathematically proven that something is impossible, you have to be misinformed or delusional to disagree. Mathematics is not going to change if we reject the monetary system. It will still be impossible to travel faster than light while reducing entropy and squaring the circle. And it will still be impossible to compute the economy.


What, that I quoted Gödel's incompleteness theorem? You're probably not familiar with the result, but it was very important in establishing that there are in fact limits to human knowledge.


If I was out of a job, I would be worried. But people lose jobs all the time, for various reasons. Typically they go get new jobs.


Of course it doesn't, the economy exists to allocate resources to their highest-valued use. If you had ever read the first chapter of any introductory economics book you'd probably know that. Anyways, advancing technology is almost always a more efficient use of resources, meaning our current system will favor doing that. Or have you not noticed the technological advances that have been made in the last couple centuries?


Tyranny, unity, they're just buzzwords. War is less common now than at any point in human history, and I doubt corruption is significantly worse now than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago. If you look at actual facts, it is really very hard to claim that things are getting worse; rather, it seems that most things are improving quite steadily.


Because you proposed to solve the problem with a computer, which requires that you have an algorithmic answer. How can you not understand that? I am not suggesting that we put a computer in charge, which means I don't need to have a algorithm.

I dare say you do. And thank god I don't.



I'm certainly disconnected from what YOU perceive is reality, and trust me, thats FINE by me.

"I regard your ideas as BS" were words NOT posted by me. I think you need to think about what you're saying and realise that you are perceiving me incorrectly. Oh but wait, you can't be bothered, can you?

Oh yes, the big bad AG and Orwell are teaming up on you. Frankly, the fact that we agree is actually a bit of an indicator that your ideas are really far out there, as AG and I tend to disagree on a lot of things. I'm a Christian, he's an atheist; he's an anarchist, I am not, etc. When we agree, it is usually because something is beyond any seriously defensible dispute.


You are disconnected from what actually is reality. You cannot disagree with mathematics. I really don't know how else to put it, but you just can't disagree with a mathematical result. It's beyond insanity.


I'm blunt. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Get over it. I say I regard your ideas as BS because I actually do regard them as BS, and I regard them as BS largely because they really are BS.

We agree more substantially than that, Orwell. You know that, especially on the matter of economics. However, I will admit that our mutual agreement is something that has to be taken somewhat seriously. Neither of us are just agreers for it's own sake.

Quite an excuse, but fair enough, shall I send you the FAQ section in text form?



How ridiculous is it to have what you MEAN a computer to do, as SEPERATE from what you MEAN it to do? Those should be synomonous. You'll have to do better than that.




Well AI will in part pave the way for potential efficiency, however it isn't essential, because as I have said numerous times, the systems approach is already utilised today only on a smaller scale. You may be told that AI is not developable for another 20 years, but take these factorsd into conbsideration before you believe this statistic.

1. AI can metamorphosise our economy by it's mere application
2. AI has the potential to speed up technological unemployment. Due to the construction of the monetary based economy, that has to be held back so as to ease people more gently into the idea of a machine being able to do their job better, so people don't picket or riot.
3. AI I dare say has the potential for highly eficient military applications. So if anyone is gonna have their hands on it first to test it and get what they can out of it before deciding it's commercial viability, then it will be the military having first dibbs.
4. Who came up with the figure 20 years? Why not 23? Why not 22? 20 is a nice round number don't you think? Like the 10 commandments. No-one would take 11 commandments as seriously, coz 10 sounds like an important round metric number. Just like 20. Why not today? Who knows? How can we be certain if AI will EVER be acheivable at all? We need to start making our own minds up before we take stock of statistics.




Still being vague. Can you give me names and results of the studies please?



Improvements are just mere patchwork, surely you must know this. Poverty, war, crime, these things will not improve within the monetary system, no matter how much reform takes place. You will always have poverty stricken pockets of society, you will always have countries covetting the resources of others and sending men and women to die for that hedgemony, and you will always have crime of all levels, as long as you have money, and the neuroses it creates and upholds.

Peter Joseph said:

"We can spend the rest of our lives stomping on the ants that are coming out from under the refridgerator, setting traps, or laws, but until you remove the spoiled food behind it which is causing the infestation in the first place, they will always keep coming."



"squaring the circle" as you put it, which i will take in this instance as a metaphor, cannot be done with our current value system. What The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project is about is not just bringing about economic transition, but spreading awareness of the current economies fraudulent and systemic flaws while breeding a new value system to honour your fellow man just as you should honour yopurself. It is what all the great religions really talk about but never implement coz of the self-perpetuating clauses of "sin" have to be incorporated to keep the institution together. If the church did not perpetuate the idea that we live in sin, then no-one will turn up to church to be saved.

When asked for his opinion about christianity, Jacque Fresco said to Larry King:

"Christianity is a wonderful religion. When are they gonna put it into practise?"

That is what I mean when I say this has never been tried before. We are talking about something that the communists never had the balls to tackle, coz not even Marx himself wanted to leave the monetary system behind where it belongs. It's sad really, coz he was a brilliant man in his time. He just didn't go the full nine yards and say, "you know what, I know what the love of money and material possessions does to people, how about we just surpass that s**t. Start over. Clean slate." But he didn't he did not go about his ideas in the right way, and that right way is to takje care of EVERYBODY on the planet. Human beings are one and the same.

As Jimi Hendrix said "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” And that is what the movement and the project are about.



What have I said about insulting me? Do I have to point you towards the forum rules? Or should you know better?



Let me stop you there, capitalist computers? So they have low intelligence and tyranical value systems now? What world are YOU envisioning?



Since you bring it up, I'm asking you.



And taking into consideration that it was universally held as truth, that the earth was flat, and that it was the centre of the universe. And those who disagreed were thrown in jail or worse. Science is always changing. As is technology, computing, engineering, and people's opinions, understandings, and beliefs.

It is what we at The Zeitgeist Movement call "Emergent".




Funny, that's how I feel talking to you. Frustrating, isn't it?

OK. The things I listed as impossible are just impossible. That is not debatable. It is not my opinion. It is absolute, objective fact. [/quote]

Being vague again, Studies? Sources?



The Venus Project does not claim to have the potential for travelling faster than the speed of light, if that is what you are implying, however this does prompt me to encourage you to research Mag-Lev technology. Easily implementable EVEN TODAY.

Reversing entropy is impossible; we can not turn a physical law on its head at will. [/quote]

Again, The Venus Project, or myself, have never claimed we can.



You seem to have got it in your head that The Venius Project has a range of wacky and impossibly ambitious claims. I assure you, that you have assumed, just because we can make society better, we claim we can create warp drive. *falls on the floor laughing*



And who is this Godel? Enlighten me. I'm practising your apathy of another person's understandings and lack of effort to do my own research on this one and I must say I can see why you like doing it.
.


Ahhh, you say it must have an algorithm, then you say it can't, now you're saying it won't. I think when you read more you will understand more.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 20 Feb 2010, 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm flattered.



Since you don't even know me, who are you to say that my reality is something that should be demeaned? Who's to say that I perceive things just as well as anyone else does? Oh, my posts? You need to think harder, coz since I never implied a disagreement with the idea of mathmatics, you seem to have me alllll wrong. And frankly I'm glad for. I wouldn't want someone like you knowing how I tick.



That isn't a sufficient excuse. How about you get over the fact that you cannot see past your biases and see the reasoning of my proposals? How about you get over that? Your ways are tired. You call me all these things, then you ask for respect, understanding and consideration. Well how about you take your own advice? You may be blunt, but you are also a hypocrite.

It is not being blunt it is attacking someone personally, which as you should know by now is against the forum rules.

If you ran this site, and were an elitist then you could say "get over it" whenb someone ask you to stop insulting them. But you are not. You think you can talk to me how you like because you have this "ststus" because you have been here longer and your defense is "im blunt". That's no excuse. No-one no matter how long they are on a forum earns the right to insult others and pass it off as being "blunt".