The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

then why bring up poinare in the first place?



and i have addressed that if you could be bothered to look.



not automated resource management. Hense not up to date. Just like the people who try to debunk technological unemployment by quoting antiquated economists.



your frame of reference is firmly stuck in the monetary system. There is no competing systems in an RBE. Competition is non existant in an RBE. Its a COLLABERATIVE system. Please pay attention.



thats no excuse. Sorry. Tell you what, until you're actually willing to view anyting objectively, and pay attention and as a result bring anything of substance to the discussion and to stop this thread turning into the other ones i'm gonna stop responding.

HA HA HA HA HA HAA!! !

Orwell, please just recognize that your opponent isn't actually addressing your points, and failing to do so to such an extreme degree that continuing this debate will be harmful to your brain. I mean, either Anti-Adam-Um is screwing with you, or he simply isn't able to understand what you are clearly and unequivocally saying, and either way, it is a waste of time to try to argue with him.

Because Poincare did other stuff than just that topology conjecture. Poincare also worked in areas of mathematics that are relevant here.


The problems I cite are worse for an automated system, not better.


I don't think you understand what is meant by "competing demands" in that context. Here are the facts: resources are finite. Human desires can, and often do, exceed the ability of available resources to provide. Thus, somehow a decision has to be made that resources will be allocated to one purpose and not another. Finding the "best" way to do this is a massive optimization problem, and this does involve a lot of nonlinear interactions.


We both know you're bluffing when you threaten to stop responding. And it's not as though that's an effective threat anyways; I would not be at all upset if you stopped responding.

You are correct, this is an exercise in futility.

Wow, that was a very long podcast, interesting though, thank-you for responding and sharing it. I did not listen to it all but I did listen to enough to encounter what I would say are critical errors in the view being advocated.

1) The view is hostile to inductive reasoning. The show put forward a view that essentially holds that only beliefs that are capable of being proven wrong are warranted. Essentially, we are discussing something close to falsifiability (though not the same Karl Poper did not claim to deprive unfalsifiable beliefs of epistemic warrant) more akin to an inverse of verificationism. While I would agree that inductive reasoning has its issues, its total disregard seems unnecessarily restrictive; especially when one considered that many science disciplines rely on probabilistic induction.

2) Many highly important questions are totally off limits to this epistemology. This view pretty much rejects the concept of a 'properly basic' belief. Which is strange since this view entails a claim that this sort of falsification is properly basic... but this particular form of falsification cannot be falsified so it is self-refuting.

3) This view pretty much puts all mathematical and logical truths off of the table. This view still presupposes science and maths and to try and justify them through it would be to argue in a circle.

4) All of its ethical determinations would seem to be subjectable to the 'ought from is' problem.

I am interested to hear what you think.

And thankyou for taking the time to actually listen to it. I really appreciate that there are people here that are actually intellectual.

In retrospect, my podcasts are only an hour long each. and broken up into 15 minute chunks on youtube. Many of the V-Radio shows (like the "no opinions, arriving at decisions using the scientific method" show that I told you about) and such are sometimes 2 hours and over. I guess its a matter of how patient you are.



I would have to disagree. My latest podcast is not by itself representative of the movement's tenets as a whole. It is merely my take on questions that I have received over the last 2 years and I am giving my own answers. I can assure you that I address every single point that I am given and I answer every question that I receive. For one thing its a means of having more material, and second its the decent thing to address every point



Please don't waste your time trying to find a definition that doesn't apply. It is the scientific method used for social concern.



What I'm proposing is not inductive reasoning. As I have said, its called the scientific method used for social concern.



I don't understand the question, could you be more specific please?



I would disagree, coz it is a scientific mentality that is used as the method of analysis and decision arrival.



Again, can I ask for some specificity?

Also if you haven't listened to the V-Radio show I told you about, here is the link to it. I feel that this show will reassure a lot of your concerns.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio/20 ... g-mallette

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 19 May 2011, 6:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Then both of you stop posting merely to "argue". Simples.

A devotee can't be talked out of a particular devotion, that's true. But I've been thinking about this, in light of my own lengthy arguments (on a slightly different angle of TZM). I'm probably just trying to justify to myself the investment of typing and thinking time. But in the long run it isn't 100% futile. It was your arguments many months ago that convinced me irrevocably that this RBE idea is physically impossible.

My arguments in this thread revolve around what I think can happen when zealots try to implement a physically impossible plan. I think TZM has one potentially real danger, which is that somebody may think it's feasible and commit Ted Kazinsky-style violence to help push it forward. Ted Kazinsky really knew his way around math. If any lurker with his level of scientific intelligence is lurking and reading these TZM threads, your arguments (far more than mine) can show somebody that this isn't physically possible and it is a dead end and they need not become a convert.

Maybe you just saved 3 people from getting blown up. Yea! That's it.

(I'm getting a little carried away. But your very lucid arguments do the public service of swaying lurkers. So it wasn't all futile.)

And what exactly is your evidence that an RBE is impossible?



Again, I need your proof here. Otherwise you're making a blanket statement.



Obviously you are unaware that TZM is an advocate of the "non-aggression principle". I don't know how many times I have to tell you that TZM does not advocate, promote, condone, or suggest any form of violence to achieve ANY of our goals, before that gets through to you. Your projection someone would use violence is therefore only descriptive of someone who doesn't understand what TZM's goals actually are and hense utilises means that we don't advocate.



Ted Kazinsky is not a member of TZM.



Again, you are making blanket statements with no evidence.



Can you actually find me ANY advocations of violence in TZM's material?



They only wish to debate argue and ad hom., so it is futile for them.

I have a large workload at the moment. However, I always like to check out other points of view.



Since it is an epistemological point of view, I naturally attempt to contextualize it.



Traditionally that has been called Scientism and it was put forward by Karl Popper... However, the view being advocated here is quite a bit different. To be honest, it seems less sophisticated, since Popper took care to avoid dismissing, in total, epistemic warrant for unprovable beliefs.



A properly basic belief is a belief that relies on no external evidence in order to be justified.



Yes, the scientific method is used as a method of analysis but that method cannot be verified without engaging in circular reasoning. You may base your view on the scientific method, but then to require all beliefs to be verified through the method would be to make a self-refuting statement. You could not prove it without arguing in a circle (i.e. by using the scientific method to prove the scientific method).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy



I have listened to a good deal of it.

Once more into the breach (I know that none of this will convince you, but that is not my goal. My goal is to make lurkers think twice.)

It is actually Orwell's evidence and I think also Sand, if I remember correctly. Orwell has reiterated a little taste of that above so no need to re-re-iterate what he said. Also I can't remember the wording exactly and would rather people read his posts verbatim (such as above) rather than have me mangle the message.

edit- found a thread. Good counter arguments also from Skafather, Awesomelyglorious and DW A Mom.
For the lurkers:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt135150.html

I just lost it. I guess NobelCynic remebers that part.





The proof is history. When zealots have tried to create an economic system from scratch and impose it on people because they felt their way was best, violence was the outcome. Mao on a large scale (because China is so big). Pol Pot on a small scale (because Vietnam is so small). The number of deaths seems correlated to how large the surface area is that is having the system imposed. Attempts to impose it globally would therefore be disatrously even more violent.





It doesn't much matter what the website or any of its current devotees advocate. I do actually realize that on the website and in your posts it doesn't say "by any means necessary, including violence". I'm not worried about you or the people who made the website. I'm worried about converts who don't have the same stated conviction.



Ted Kazinsky is an example of a very smart and math savvy person who became frustrated that nobody would listen to his ideas about what is wrong with currrent economic systems. He actually had some valid points about the damage done by industrialisation. He crossed the line when he decided that his ideas were too important to go unnoticed. I'm not worried about him. I'm worried about others who have similar convictions and intelliegnce and may find TZM attractive...except for the non-violence part. But they would consider that part open to "tweaking".





I'm the evidence. It was Orwell's/AG's/Skafathers etc. arguments that showed to me that this is physically impossible. I suppose I may be the only person on the internet who can learn from somebody else's posts, but I doubt it.





No. But that doesn't matter. TZM has no control over who thinks some of its' ideas are worthwhile. I think there is a possibility that somebody not currently affiliated with TZM will think that all its ideas are good ones except the non-violence part. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet and all that. There's no guarentee, but it is a historical risk, based on previous movements that started with non-violence on paper but later converts decided to scrap that part.





It would be futile if their goal were to change your mind, which is impossible. My argument to them is that you are not the only reader of this thread and who knows what lurkers are reading it so value can be found in making good arguments that convince lurkers.

Fair dos. The links are always there for you to look at. I thank you once again for being open minded. If only more aspies were so inclined.



It's not really a case of epistemology coz the knowledge is already there. This is the next step after that. This is a case of how we analyse that knowledge and how we make it work for the productive survival of the entire human family.



I agree, it is far different and far beyond the scope of what Popper had in mind. This isn't about beliefs.



Beliefs are irrelevant to natural law. It doesn't matter what you believe about gravity, it's gonna do what it wants with you. And that's the point. Aligning with natural law. Not a case of beliefs at all.



When it comes to peoples beliefs, whether religious or not, they can hold them if they wish. People are allowed to be christian if they want to in an RBE, what won't be tolerated however is those christians feeling they have the right to impede upon the freedom of a homosexual man by telling him that he is an abomination. Religions will not have those freedoms since it encroaches upon the freedoms of other people. Like what George Carlin said:

"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!"

People's beliefs, regardless of what they may be don't trump natural law.



There is no equivocation when you think about what actions and behaviours work towards either the benefit, or the detriment of others. As such by empirical natural law, they can be determined as god, and bad, respectively.

We all know what hurts others, and what helps others. As prot from the book "K-PAX" said:

"Every creature in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong".

The matter is only an issue of subjectivity when natural law is discounted and it is supposed from a subjective human standpoint.



Cool.

Unibombastic falsifutility topic

Is the Zeitgeist Movement a sound theory? AAU states that it is, and is the only answer. Scientific Method for social concerns.

Simple solutions for complex, global problems. As soon as there is a solution, the ZM vanishes, in a puff of smoke, going lightly up, like in dy-no-mite, COZ it can, and must. Whatever turns your crank.

This RBE, an outgrowth of the ZM, is a one-size-all-fits theory. If it is based on science, it must be right. {I can hear Bill COZ-by saying "Riiiiiiiiiight". (In joke, so ask LeeJosepho. )}

As 91 pointed out in a previous post, the reasoning used to justify this theory is circular, going round and round the mulberrry bush, chasing its tail.

All theories have holes, or rips in them, being made/developed by fallible humans. I would certainly be suspicious of any theory that purported to NOT have any rents in the rant. This RBE statement, theory, idea, or whatever you call it, is falsifiable, by your own admission, based on the Scientific Method, and, of course, perfection writ large, but I am critical oft any one idea that will answer all of society's ills, a magic bullet, a suppository, to tweak social/economic constipation and make everything better. In the marketplace of ideas, it is one idea, best exemplified in the Kibbutz Movement, still active in Eretz Israel, and it works on this scale. Globally, not the best option, or bandaid cure for large, festering wounds.

Scientific theories are often tested out in the field. Try your theory in a scaled down version that might work in the EU, as a test case. Then we will see how it functions, for starters.

If that is your desired audience then I feel for your lack of feedback.



I think its time you started doing some of your own thinking instead of letting others do the thinking for you. By hiding behind someone else's words you are proving NOTHING.



Then don't. Show me what evidence YOU have.



Then don't try. Instead try something new, its this weird thing called USING YOUR OWN BRAIN.



Do you have ANY statements of your own? Or do you prefer to hide behind the words of others?



Can you prove that this was because they were posing the EXACT same economic model as proposed by TZM? This should be worth a giggle.



Again, you're throwing appeal-to-fear fallacies, coz Mao and Pol Pot DID NOT propose an RBE as TZM proposes. Back to the drawing board for you. Come back when you have something concrete.

I think I need to state this yet again:

An RBE as proposed by TZM has NEVER been proposed or tried for before in the history of humanity. If you STILL think that it has, then you need to do some more research on exactly what an RBE is.



If it doesn't matter, then why are you here? You really are making a lame case here. If you were bothered to research this you will find that we don't sdvocate violence, but since you desperately wish to cling onto this strawman that we DO advocate violenbce, you claim that the content of the websitre doesn't matter.



If by "converts" you mean people who consider themselves advocates of TZM, then those are people who have DISREGARDED the opinion that violence solves anything. TZM does not associate anyone who advocates violence as a member. So your entire supposition has fallen on it's face here. In essence there ARE NO violent converts in TZM.

Besides, if your gripe is with the violent ones, then maybe you should be taking that up with them. Some people will become violent. What does that have to do with TZM? Since when should TZM take the flack for some nut-job who is not part of TZM and incurs an act of violence? That's like implying that Martin Luther King should be held accountable for the actions of the KKK.



And like I have already said, he is not in TZM. Ergo, IRRELEVANT.



Such people WILL NOT find TZM attractive coz unlike them, we don't advocate violence. How many times do I have to state this?



TZM is not a wikipedia article. It can't be "tweaked". Since when can an organisation with the global scope that TZM has be open to be "tweaked" by violent nut-jobs?



Again hiding behind other people's words coz you have none of your own.



Considering how much I have to repeat things to you I seriously doubt it as well.



To accuse TZM of advocating violence would require you to provide proof of your accusationb which you have failed to do. The fact that you have tried to justify this failure is quite telling.



Like I said earlier, what does that have to do with TZM?



Wow, here come the cliches.



The day TZM converts to violence is the day I will be shoulder-to-shoulder with you against it. Until then you have no evidence. You have CAUSE due to your bias, but you have no evidence.



With their current methods of insults and logical fallacies, yes it is impossible for them to change my mind. If they start making sense, then they will be able to change my mind.



Since when have I even implied that I am the only reader of this thread? If a lurker is convinced by someone arguing instead of discussing then that is their persuasion. I don't see what that has to do with me.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 24 May 2011, 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well it still is really, its still an assumption here that the outside world is real, that your not a brain in a vat or that solipsism is not true. The problem with these things is that they cannot really be proven. If someone is a solipsist you really do not have any way of proving their view wrong, or more importantly, proving your view right.



Yes but this movement has not yet provided me with an grounding for thinking that natural laws exist to me. These are common questions in epistemic philosophy and any movement that simply proclaims an evidence based approach finds itself stranded when making the case that these things are still objective. One can call the belief in the reality of the outside world objective, however this entails validating something without evidence... something logical positivists could not do. Hence, there are few logical positivists these days.



Where exactly does it say, within natural law, that persecution of a homosexual man is wrong? I do not mean to provoke you, but you are validating objective moral ontology (which is commendable) but have not given me any ground for determining meta-ethics.



Interesting position... but what makes my giving benefit to others a moral duty? Also, we can all imagine scenarios where the benefit of others runs directly counter to what we consider moral. For example, imagine a society that must eat advanced sentinent life in order to survive. Our death would assist in their flourishing and their wellbeing... do you get what I am driving at?



Fantastic to hear you say that... I agree with it in total. Many people on this forum are very guarded about saying that around a theist like myself.

I don't have time for all the points. Some of them are reiterations anyway. But I will say I have no shame in learning from the arguments of others. I have chosen who to trust. So have you. Based on post history, I trust the logical reasoning abilities of Orwell, Awsomeglorious,Skafather etc. You have chosen to trust whoever came up with the RBE and TZM concepts. If I am hiding behind Orwell et. al., you are hiding behind whoever put together that website, since you didn't create the RBE/TZM concepts. However, the potential-for-violence tangent is all my own, if you are looking for original ideas. That one I didn't adopt from any other posters. So I get full credit or- more likely- blame.

But it is a little ironic that you are criticising me for adopting the stances of other posters while the entire RBE/TZM concept is not your own.



Actually it's like implying that Martin Luther King should be held responsible for the actions of the Black Panthers. (I don't think he was, but some at the time did.) But TZM is no MLK; what he advocated was possible.





Since right this second, if they feel like doing it. Everything is tweakable. There is no such thing as a plan that undergoes no revision. If you think violent nut jobs never get to tweak plans, read more history.