The Importance of Logic and Critical Thinking

[Luther Blissett]

Luther, sheesh yourself.

That's now the second rigorous intuition quote I've put on Facebook. The other is my signature.

[ida pingala]

The cave is full, but the people are now staring at the wall instead of its shadows, still not realizing they are staring at themselves.

Better. Closer.

imo...

[tazmic]

Interestingly these videos fail to teach a crucial step in practical Logic which readers of this forum should be familiar with; asking Qui Bono or "Who benefits?"

These Logic videos above are propaganda with a specific purpose created by TechNyou.
http://technyou.edu.au/

About us

TechNyou was established to meet a growing community need for balanced and factual information on emerging technologies. We are funded by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). We operate in partnership with the University of Melbourne, where our office is based.
Services

TechNyou has a free information service and an outreach program to help raise awareness about and engage the public on emerging technologies and their associated issues, for example GM foods, stem cells, genetic testing, gene therapy, cloning and nanotechnologies. We conduct professional development workshops for teachers and students, presentations to community groups and set up interactive information booths at public events.

Our former life

TechNyou was formerly the Gene and Nanotechnology Information Service. We changed our name in February 2010 and broadened our agenda to include all emerging technologies – bio, nano, IT…and whatever the future holds.

They missed off 'cognitive sciences'.

The “new converging technologies” refers to the prospect of advancing the human condition by the integrated study and application of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences – or “NBIC”. In recent years, it has loomed large, albeit with somewhat different emphases, in national science policy agendas throughout the world. This article considers the political and intellectual sources – both historical and contemporary – of the converging technologies agenda. Underlying it is a fluid conception of humanity that is captured by the ethically challenging notion of “enhancing evolution”.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610902770552#tabModule

There is an ongoing struggle between the United States and the EU to define the direction given to the idea of “converging technologies (CT) for improving human performance”, to recall the title of the influential 2002 report co-authored by Mihail Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, both at the National Science Foundation, the former an engineer in charge of nanotechnology research initiatives, the latter a sociologist responsible for the NSF social informatics unit (Roco and Bainbridge 2002a, 2002b). All indications are that the United States is winning this struggle, at least on the level of ideology. In other words, the US spin on the meaning given to the CT agenda is influencing science and technology policy worldwide. However, it remains to be seen whether this palpable change in policy discourse will result in long-term substantive changes in science and technology itself.
The CT agenda may be new in its explicitness, but not in its inspiration. It is worth recalling part of the founding policy statement of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1934 that laid down the funding basis on both sides of the Atlantic for what by the 1950s had become the revolution in molecular biology:

Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect under rational control? Can we unravel the tangled problem of the endocrine glands … Can we solve the mysteries of various vitamins … Can we release psychology from its present confusion and ineffectiveness and shape it into a tool which every man can use every day? Can man acquire enough knowledge of his own vital processes so that we can hope to rationalize human behaviour? Can we, in short, create a new science of Man? (Weaver, quoted in Morange 1998, p. 81)

[JackRiddler]

From Yudkowsky paper on "Cognitive Biases":

by making you a
more sophisticated arguer—by teaching you another bias of which to accuse people—I
have actually harmed you; I have made you slower to react to evidence. I have given you
another opportunity to fail each time you face the challenge of changing your mind.
Heuristics and biases are widespread in human reasoning. Familiarity with heuristics
and biases can enable us to detect a wide variety of logical flaws that might otherwise
evade our inspection. But, as with any ability to detect flaws in reasoning, this inspection
must be applied evenhandedly: both to our own ideas and the ideas of others; to ideas
which discomfort us and to ideas which comfort us. Awareness of human fallibility is
dangerous knowledge if you only remind yourself of the fallibility of those who disagree
with you. If I am selective about which arguments I inspect for errors, or even how hard
I inspect for errors, then every new rule of rationality I learn, every new logical flaw I
know how to detect, makes me that much stupider. Intelligence, to be useful, must be
used for something other than defeating itself.
You cannot “rationalize” what is not rational to begin with—as if lying were called
“truthization”. There is no way to obtain more truth for a proposition by bribery, flattery,
or passionate argument—you can make more people believe the proposition, but you
cannot make it more true. To improve the truth of our beliefs we must change our
beliefs. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is necessarily a
change.

The moral may be that once you can guess what your answer will be—once you can
assign a greater probability to your answering one way than another—you have, in all
probability, already decided. And if you were honest with yourself, you would often be
able to guess your final answer within seconds of hearing the question. We change our
minds less often than we think. How fleeting is that brief unnoticed moment when we
can’t yet guess what our answer will be, the tiny fragile instant when there’s a chance for
intelligence to act. In questions of choice, as in questions of fact.
Thor Shenkel said: “It ain’t a true crisis of faith unless things could just as easily go
either way.”
Norman R. F. Maier said: “Do not propose solutions until the problem has been
discussed as thoroughly as possible without suggesting any.”

[Joe Hillshoist]

I rang my old girl, she wasn't involved with TechNyou.

I think it needs some context tho. In Australia at the moment over half the population thinks global Warming is a scientific conspiracy designed to well... I think its bring back Communism at the moment.

Our PM promised never to implement a "Carbon Tax" instead saying she'd legislate for an Emission Trading Scheme in this current govt. Thats what happened and the ETS starts next week actually. So as a result we have "the world's biggest carbon tax" that will destroy our economy and wipe some physical locations off the map by obliterating them.

Australia is a post RBC place these days. That quote (Rove's I think) about reality and empire:

guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

There is no thinking, critical or otherwise happening here at the moment and I think TechNyou is an attempt to change that. naturally biotech bastards and other corporate scum are involved cos they own our tertiatry instituations these days, not necessarily by holding the titles to the places, but they may as well.

Anyway back to the cave...

This thread has confirmed something I first heard in the 80s.

Reality is an illusion caused by lack of drugs.

[JackRiddler]

Yudkowsky on contamination by irrelevant data, even when it is known to be irrelevant - and the specific case of fiction.

6. Anchoring, Adjustment, and Contamination
An experimenter spins a “Wheel of Fortune” device as you watch, and the Wheel happens
to come up pointing to (version one) the number 65 or (version two) the number
15. The experimenter then asks you whether the percentage of African countries in the
United Nations is above or below this number. After you answer, the experimenter asks
you your estimate of the percentage of African countries in the UN.
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) demonstrated that subjects who were first asked if the
number was above or below 15, later generated substantially lower percentage estimates
than subjects first asked if the percentage was above or below 65. The groups’ median
estimates of the percentage of African countries in the UN were 25 and 45 respectively.
This, even though the subjects had watched the number being generated by an apparently
random device, the Wheel of Fortune, and hence believed that the number bore no
relation to the actual percentage of African countries in the UN. Payoffs for accuracy
did not change the magnitude of the effect. Tversky and Kahneman hypothesized that
this effect was due to anchoring and adjustment; subjects took the initial uninformative
number as their starting point, or anchor, and then adjusted the number up or down until
they reached an answer that sounded plausible to them; then they stopped adjusting. The
result was under-adjustment from the anchor.

[snip]

Such generalized phenomena became known as contamination effects, since it turned
out that almost any information could work its way into a cognitive judgment (Chapman
and Johnson 2002). Attempted manipulations to eliminate contamination include
paying subjects for correct answers (Tversky and Kahneman 1974), instructing subjects
to avoid anchoring on the initial quantity (Quattrone et al. 1981), and facing real-world
problems (Wansink, Kent, and Hoch 1998). These manipulations did not decrease, or
only slightly decreased, the magnitude of anchoring and contamination effects. Furthermore,
subjects asked whether they had been influenced by the contaminating factor
typically did not believe they had been influenced, when experiment showed they had
been (Wilson, Houston, and Brekke 1996).

A manipulation which consistently increases contamination effects is placing the subjects
in cognitively “busy” conditions such as rehearsing a word-string while working
(Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull 1988) or asking the subjects for quick answers (Gilbert and
Osborne 1989). Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull (1988) attribute this effect to the extra task
interfering with the ability to adjust away from the anchor; that is, less adjustment was
performed in the cognitively busy condition. This decreases adjustment, hence increases
the under-adjustment effect known as anchoring.
To sum up: Information that is visibly irrelevant still anchors judgments and contaminates
guesses. When people start from information known to be irrelevant and
adjust until they reach a plausible-sounding answer, they under-adjust. People underadjust
more severely in cognitively busy situations and other manipulations that make the
problem harder. People deny they are anchored or contaminated, even when experiment
shows they are. These effects are not diminished or only slightly diminished by financial
incentives, explicit instruction to avoid contamination, and real-world situations.

It's true! Work and media make you stupid. Or rather, radically decrease the already small chances that you will see and process evidence contrary to what you already know.

Now consider how many media stories on Artificial Intelligence cite the Terminator
movies as if they were documentaries, and how many media stories on brain-computer
interfaces mention Star Trek’s Borg.

Hmm, more generally, consider that this is the weekend of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, a film project I was happy to judge as an abomination against the possibility of understanding history just on the basis of the title, for basically the same reasons as Yukowsksy's follow-up suggests.

If briefly presenting an anchor has a substantial effect on subjects’ judgments, how
much greater an effect should we expect from reading an entire book, or watching a
live-action television show? In the ancestral environment, there were no moving pictures;
whatever you saw with your own eyes was true. People do seem to realize, so far
as conscious thoughts are concerned, that fiction is fiction. Media reports that mention
Terminator do not usually treat Cameron’s screenplay as a prophecy or a fixed truth. Instead
the reporter seems to regard Cameron’s vision as something that, having happened
before, might well happen again—the movie is recalled (is available) as if it were an illustrative
historical case. I call this mix of anchoring and availability the logical fallacy of
generalization from fictional evidence.
A related concept is the good-story bias hypothesized in (Bostrom 2002). Fictional
evidence usually consists of “good stories” in Bostrom’s sense. Note that not all good
stories are presented as fiction.
Storytellers obey strict rules of narrative unrelated to reality. Dramatic logic is not
logic. Aspiring writers are warned that truth is no excuse: you may not justify an implausible
event in your fiction by citing an event from real life. A good story is painted
with bright details, illuminated by glowing metaphors; a storyteller must be concrete,
as hard and precise as stone. But in forecasting, every added detail is an extra burden!
Truth is hard work, and not the kind of hard work done by storytellers. We should
avoid, not only being duped by fiction—failing to expend the mental effort necessary to
“unbelieve” it—but also being contaminated by fiction, letting it anchor our judgments.
And we should be aware that we are not always aware of this contamination. Not uncommonly
in a discussion of existential risk, the categories, choices, consequences, and
strategies derive from movies, books and television shows. There are subtler defeats, but
this is outright surrender.

I like this article a lot. He cautions that he scratches only the surface, that there many kinds of biases beyond those he discusses, and specifically that those who read his article will be more likely to see and emphasize the ones he mentions than ones he doesn't.

Recommended reading, I should stop quoting over-much from it with this final passage, in which we may all see a piece of others, as well ourselves:

A Final Caution

Every true idea which discomforts you will seem to match the pattern of at least one
psychological error.

Robert Pirsig said: “The world’s biggest fool can say the sun is shining, but that
doesn’t make it dark out.” If you believe someone is guilty of a psychological error, then
demonstrate your competence by first demolishing their consequential factual errors.
If there are no factual errors, then what matters the psychology? The temptation of
psychology is that, knowing a little psychology, we can meddle in arguments where we
have no technical expertise—instead sagely analyzing the psychology of the disputants.

If someone wrote a novel about an asteroid strike destroying modern civilization, then
someone might criticize that novel as extreme, dystopian, apocalyptic; symptomatic of
the author’s naive inability to deal with a complex technological society. We should
recognize this as a literary criticism, not a scientific one; it is about good or bad novels,
not good or bad hypotheses. To quantify the annual probability of an asteroid strike
in real life, one must study astronomy and the historical record: no amount of literary
criticism can put a number on it. Garreau (2005) seems to hold that a scenario of a
mind slowly increasing in capability, is more mature and sophisticated than a scenario of
extremely rapid intelligence increase. But that’s a technical question, not a matter of
taste; no amount of psychologizing can tell you the exact slope of that curve.

It’s harder to abuse heuristics and biases than psychoanalysis. Accusing someone
of conjunction fallacy leads naturally into listing the specific details that you think are
burdensome and drive down the joint probability. Even so, do not lose track of the
real-world facts of primary interest; do not let the argument become about psychology.
Despite all dangers and temptations, it is better to know about psychological biases
than to not know. Otherwise we will walk directly into the whirling helicopter blades
of life. But be very careful not to have too much fun accusing others of biases. That is
the road that leads to becoming a sophisticated arguer—someone who, faced with any
discomforting argument, finds at once a bias in it.* The one whom you must watch above
all is yourself.

Jerry Cleaver said: “What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate,
complicated technique. It’s overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the
ball.”

Analyses should finally center on testable real-world assertions. Do not take your eye
off the ball.

* Can't help but think of the "skeptics" in the JREF style, and all others who have volunteered themselves, or been hired as professional modern-day Sophists, to argue for the ideas that serve the powerful (Might Makes Right, Wealth Is Virtue, We Are the Greatest, Our Brand Or Side Is Best). But attend to the sentence that follows.

.

[Allegro]

.
Okay, I’m about to return to the cave! As you know, I’m not a philosopher, although I like to think I am, hence a quick stop at Wiki to chance a comprehensive read on Plato’s cave .

It dawned on me that there was light (and heat radiating) from the fire; that light was reflected on the cave wall, thus shadows were seen; and sunlight was shining through the cave’s opening. So?

So, light (illumination?) was in the cave all along. (Yet, was that mentioned in Plato’s Republic? Was it necessary to have been mentioned?)

My only two pennies, really. And thanks to Jack, the only other one who’s mentioned the word light in this thread, up to this point if I’m not mistaken.

…How fleeting is that brief unnoticed moment when we can’t yet guess what our answer will be, the tiny fragile instant when there’s a chance for intelligence to act.…

I want to think in that “fragile instant” is light or illumination, and there can be lots of instants when, for example, one is alone composing music or an art work or an essay. Those illuminating instants may be expected, but those instants— moments in which elements seem to have put themselves into just the perfect order —are not to be taken for granted, as I remember them.

[Allegro]

.
While we’re discussing reasoning, what better for readers than to reason within the theory of music. As I see it now, performances of music are not the most powerful influences upon a human’s sensibilities, it’s the (unseen but heard) construction of the music performed, but I may change my mind, again. For composing, or rather, for forming the construction of a piece of music, composers must reasonably juggle several elements within what is called music theory.

_________________
Music in Plato’s Republic
August 4, 2008

This extract is from The Republic by Plato, Book III (398-403).

Then now, my friend, I said, that part of music or literary education which relates to the story or myth may be considered to be finished; for the matter and manner have both been discussed.

I think so too, he said.

Next in order will follow melody and song.

That is obvious.

Everyone now would be able to discover what we ought to say about them, if we are to be consistent with ourselves.

I fear, said Glaucon, laughing, that the word “everyone” hardly includes me, for I cannot at the moment say what they should be, though I have a suspicion.

At any rate you are aware that a song or ode has three parts – the words, the melody and the rhythm.

Yes, he said; so as that I know.

And as for the words, there will surely be no difference between words which are and which are not set to music; both will conform to the same laws, and these have already been determined by us?

Yes.

And the melody and rhythm will be in conformity with the words?

Certainly.

We were saying, when we spoke of the subject-matter, that we had no need of lamentations and strains of sorrow?

True.

And which are the harmonies expressive of sorrow? You are musical and can tell me.

The harmonies which you mean are the mixed or tenor Lydian, and the full-toned or bass Lydian, and such-like.

These then, I said, must be banished; even to women who have a character to maintain they are of no use, and much less to men.

Certainly.

In the next place, drunkenness and softness and indolence are utterly unbecoming the character of our guardians.

Utterly unbecoming?

And which are the soft and convivial harmonies?

The Ionian, he replied, and some of the Lydian which are termed “relaxed”.

Well, and are these of any use for warlike men?

Quite the reverse, he replied; and if so the Dorian and the Phrygian are the only ones which you have left.

I answered: Of the harmonies I know nothing, but would have you leave me one which can render the note or accent which a brave man utters in warlike action and in stern resolve; and when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by disaster in some other form, at every such crisis he meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure; and an opposite kind for times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or when on the other hand he is expressing his willingness to yield to the persuasion or entreaty or admonition of others. And when in this manner he has attained his end, I would have the music show him not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely in all circumstances, and acquiescing in the event. These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave.

And these, he replied, are the Dorian and the Phrygian harmonies of which I was just now speaking.

Then, I said, if these and these only are to be used in our songs and melodies, we shall not want multiplicity of strings or a panharmonic scale?

I suppose not.

Then we shall not maintain the artificers of lyres with three corners and complex scales, or the makers of any other many-stringed, curiously harmonized instruments?

Certainly not.

But what do you say to flute-makers and flute-players? Would you admit them into our State when you reflect that in this composite use of harmony the flute is worse than any stringed instrument; even the panharmonic music is only imitation of the flute?

Clearly not.

There remain then only the lyre and the harp for use in the city, and the shepherds in the country may have some kind of pipe.

That is surely the conclusion to be drawn from the argument.

The preferring of Apollo and his instruments to Marsyas and his instruments is not at all strange, I said.

Not at all, he replied.

Then let us now finish the purgation, I said. Next in order to harmonies, rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of metre, and a variety of feet, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be your duty – you must teach me them, as you have already taught me the harmonies.

But, indeed, he replied, I cannot tell you. I know from observation that there are some three principles of rhythm out of which metrical systems are framed, just as in sounds there are four notes out of which all the harmonies are composed. But of what sort of lives they are severally the imitations I am unable to say.

Then, I said, we must take Damon into our counsels; and he will tell us what rhythms are expressive of meanness, or insolence, or fury, or other unworthiness, and are to be reserved for the expression of opposite feelings. And I think that I have an indistinct recollection of his mentioning a complex Cretic rhythm; also a dactylic or heroic, and he arranged them in some manner which I do not quite understand, making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long and short alternating; and unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambic as well as a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and long quantities. Also in some cases he appeared to praise or censure the movement of the foot quite as much as the rhythm; or perhaps a combination of the two; for I am not certain what he meant. These matters, however, as I was saying, had better be referred to Damon himself, for the analysis of the subject would be difficult, you know?

Rather so, I should say.

But it does not require much analysis to see that grace or the absence of grace accompanies good or bad rhythm.

None at all.

And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good and bad style; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style; for our principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by the words, and not the words by them.

Just so, he said, they should follow the words.

And will not the words and the character of the style depend on the temper of the soul?

Yes.

And everything else on the style?

Yes.

Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity, – I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only a euphemism for folly?

Very true, he replied.

[Socrates expands on the role of the artist in the ideal State and argues that unsuitable artists should be prevented from practising their art.]

And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful: and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justify blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he will recognize and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.

Yes, he said, I quite agree with you in thinking that it is for such reasons that they should be trained in music……….

Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor the guardians, whom we say that we have to educate, can ever become musical until we and they know the essential forms of temperance, courage, liberality, magnanimity, and their kindred, as well as the contrary forms, in all their combinations, and can recognise then and their images wherever they are found, not slighting them either in small things or great, but believing them all to be within the sphere of one art and study.

Most assuredly.

And then nobility of soul is observed in harmonious union with beauty of form, and both are cast from the same mould, that will be the fairest of sights to him who has an eye to see it?

The fairest indeed.

And the fairest is also the loveliest?

That may be assumed.

And it is with human beings who most display such harmony that a musical man will be most in love; but he will not love any who do not possess it.

That is true, he replied, if the deficiency be in the soul; but if there be any bodily defect he will be patient of it, and may even approve it.

[A short discussion of the nature of pleasure.]

Thus much of music, and the ending is appropriate; for what should be the end of music if not the love of beauty?

The Dialogues of Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett, Volume Four, The Republic, edited by M Hare & DA Russell, Sphere Books Ltd., 1970, Book III (398-403), pp.165-171.

[tazmic]

There is no thinking, critical or otherwise happening here at the moment and I think TechNyou is an attempt to change that.

An attempt by whom, and for what purpose?

From this thread

A draft government report says we will alter human evolution within 20 years by combining what we know of nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and cognitive sciences. The 405-page report sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and Commerce Department, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, calls for a broad-based research program to improve human performance leading to telepathy, machine-to-human communication, amplified personal sensory devices and enhanced intellectual capacity.

People may download their consciousnesses into computers or other bodies even on the other side of the solar system, or participate in a giant "hive mind", a network of intelligences connected through ultra-fast communications networks. "With knowledge no longer encapsulated in individuals, the distinction between individuals and the entirety of humanity would blur," the report says. "Think Vulcan mind-meld. We would perhaps become more of a hive mind - an enormous, single, intelligent entity."

Armies may one day be fielded by machines that think for themselves while devices will respond to soldiers' commands before their thoughts are fully formed, it says. The report says the abilities are within our grasp but will require an intense public-relations effort to "prepare key organisations and societal activities for the changes made possible by converging technologies", and to counter concern over "ethical, legal and moral" issues. Education should be overhauled down to the primary-school level to bridge curriculum gaps between disparate subject areas.

Professional societies should be open to practitioners from other fields, it says. "The success of this convergent-technologies priority area is crucial to the future of humanity," the report says.

Fuller's account of the history of the converging tech agenda is comprehensive, and concludes, in part, with:

A realistic starting point for policy is not a generalized scepticism towards the promised enhancement technologies associated with CT, but the expectation that many will come to pass, albeit perhaps in diminished form. In any case, a minimal state or inter-state response would be to ensure that current socio-economic inequalities are not exacerbated by the introduction of enhancement technologies in a market environment. Of course, a more proactive policy would be preferred, especially one prepared quickly to incorporate enhancement technologies into established social welfare systems, while monitoring the consequences of mass adoption and restricting access outside those recognized systems. However, here two obstacles need to be overcome.
The first obstacle is the principle objection from a broadly natural law standpoint about the violation of the human being. Rather than giving the religious origins of this concern a free pass, as a gesture to political tolerance it will become increasingly important to contest the empirical basis for its concerns...

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610902770552#tabModule

Nothing like a bit of critical thinking to contest the empirical basis of these target values. I'm sure Wired magazine would approve.

[ida pingala]

It dawned on me that there was light (and heat radiating) from the fire; that light was reflected on the cave wall, thus shadows were seen; and sunlight was shining through the cave’s opening. So?

So, light (illumination?) was in the cave all along. (Yet, was that mentioned in Plato’s Republic? Was it necessary to have been mentioned?)

My only two pennies, really. And thanks to Jack, the only other one who’s mentioned the word light in this thread, up to this point if I’m not mistaken.

There is light, and then there is light.

[JackRiddler]

It dawned on me that there was light (and heat radiating) from the fire; that light was reflected on the cave wall, thus shadows were seen; and sunlight was shining through the cave’s opening. So?

So, light (illumination?) was in the cave all along. (Yet, was that mentioned in Plato’s Republic? Was it necessary to have been mentioned?)

My only two pennies, really. And thanks to Jack, the only other one who’s mentioned the word light in this thread, up to this point if I’m not mistaken.

There is light, and then there is light.

There are shadows, and then there are shadows. I seem to have one of the latter now.

[ida pingala]

It dawned on me that there was light (and heat radiating) from the fire; that light was reflected on the cave wall, thus shadows were seen; and sunlight was shining through the cave’s opening. So?

So, light (illumination?) was in the cave all along. (Yet, was that mentioned in Plato’s Republic? Was it necessary to have been mentioned?)

My only two pennies, really. And thanks to Jack, the only other one who’s mentioned the word light in this thread, up to this point if I’m not mistaken.

There is light, and then there is light.

There are shadows, and then there are shadows. I seem to have one of the latter now.

Jack,

Not at all. I was directing my post to Tazmic.

"Aziz! Light!"

[JackRiddler]

ida, okay. Let's avoid a wrong-foot start. You seem knowledgeable, I for one would like to see you introduce yourself (here or maybe better on an own thread).

[tazmic]

I was directing my post to Tazmic.

"Aziz! Light!"

[Canadian_watcher]

A realistic starting point for policy is not a generalized scepticism towards the promised enhancement technologies associated with CT, but the expectation that many will come to pass, albeit perhaps in diminished form. In any case, a minimal state or inter-state response would be to ensure that current socio-economic inequalities are not exacerbated by the introduction of enhancement technologies in a market environment.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610902770552#tabModule

Nothing like a bit of critical thinking to contest the empirical basis of these target values. I'm sure Wired magazine would approve.

I read Jeremy Rifkin's The End of Work and I started off hoping that it'd be a utopian ideal of robots replacing men in the factories or maybe even a world in which we all did things we loved and had a stake in.. it wasn't so much. It was pretty bleak, and I think we're seeing a pretty clear crystalization of what he thought might befall the developed world right now: layoffs, offshoring, IT replacing real I and real T.

BTW I am so this thread.