Jump to content

Typist

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Typist

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. Thanks for replies. Yes, I realize it's Ckeditor, so I meant to suggest an upgrade to newer version, or perhaps a different implementation. Ckeditor is flexible and can be installed in a variety of ways. I have my browser set to 22 point font. I can read posts fine. Text in editor appears to be 12. Just so you know, I don't have these problems on any other forum. Not trying to declare a crisis, as clearly many others are managing. But, you might be losing folks who don't bother to complain. Sorry, not trying to start an endless rant thread, just attempting to clarfiy. Hope it's helpful!
  2. Hi guys, Sorry to complain, but this section requests comments, so here they are. I can't figure out how to use the quote function in the post editor panel, which converts participation from something fun in to something just not worth it. To put this in some context, I've been working online as a tech for almost 20 years, and have coded my own forum software from scratch. Point being, if I can't figure it out, others probably can't either. Also, the default font size of editor is set very low for we of older eyes, and thus I have to manually boost the fonts in editor (often more than once) just to see what I'm typing. This too should be considered broken. You might try the latest version of this free software: http://ckeditor.com/ I have no relationship of any kind with that company other than as a happy user. Other than that, you have a nice forum with some interesting content. I may keep reading, but posting, especially replying, just too much work. Hope this is helpful, and not too much of a whine. Good luck!
  3. Cool thread, thanks. Still working my way through the posts, but this seemed the place to start. Apologies, but I'm finding the quote function here almost impossible to use, the post editor quite trying, so for now this won't be ideal. Phil For All said, "Believing so strongly in things that have the least amount of evidence to support them seems ludicrous to me." I would suggest starting with this question. What is your goal in considering this question? Are you attempting to understand faith, or express your feelings about it?
  4. Hello again, First, thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread, appreciated. Second, I hope it's ok to re-energize this thread, as I seem to suffer from an incurable addiction to this particular topic. Third, please understand I'm arguing one side of the case not because it's the only valid point of view, or even that I totally agree with every detail of it, but because it seems some counter point to a cultural group consensus might be useful, or at least somewhat interesting. To recap, we have been examining the relationship between knowledge (and the power that flows from it) and wisdom, the ability to use knowledge/power in a constructive manner. We can likely agree that human being make their livings on this Earth primarily by knowing things about our environment. We can likely agree that we've had to struggle mightly for new information for a very long time. Thus, it seems entirely reasonable that we should today have inherited a "more is better" relationship with knowledge. What I'm attempting to do here, with your help, is explore the limits of this "more is better" relationship with knowledge. Here's an example that may help us continue the exploration. For the majority of human history, the majority of humans have lived close to the edge of starvation. A great many do to this day. Thus, it seems entirely understandable if humans developed a "more is better" relationship with food, as that was a very practical relationship to have for a very long time. But we live in revolutionary times. At least in the developed world, obesity appears to now be as much or more of a challenge than hunger. Our longstanding "more is better" relationship with food is becoming rather more complicated. This is of course not to argue that we should go back to a pattern of near starvation. But it does point to the suggestion that our relationship with food now must be more sophisticated and nuanced than a simplistic "more is better" assumption that worked fine for a very long time. This is what I see happening with our relationship with knowledge. For a very long time "more is better" was a perfectly appropriate way for us to relate to knowledge. But now we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge, and further knowledge development is continuing, probably accelerating, perhaps at an exponetial rate. Surely there must be some rate of knowledge development which would be more than human society can manage, given that new knowledge tends to disrupt economies and cultures etc. If it is true that some rate of knowledge development would cause more problems than it solves, then we are faced with the challenge of giving careful thought to where we are going. Ok, that's enough for now. If you're still interested, will welcome further comments from other members.
  5. Ok guys, no problem. I'll retire and leave the floor to you. Have fun.
  6. Please don't take offense, but while you sincerely believe you are arguing for progress, you are actually arguing for continuing to do the same thing over and over again without change. The status quo. The same philosophy of knowledge we've always used, since the beginning of time. You are arguing for the past. I'm the one arguing for learning something truly new, how to be sane. Insanity of various flavors and levels thoroughly infects every human life, and every human situation. We see it on forums on a daily basis, and everywhere else too. Why shouldn't we grow some balls, and take on that challenge? It's a worthy challenge! Why settle for the same old crap over and over again?
  7. I don't disagree. So what? One bad day is all that's needed. So far... We can proceed forward with knowledge when we are mature enough to handle it responsibly. The more knowledge you want to have, the more mature we need to be.
  8. Very good question! I'd say the only we can be sure of is that staying on the present course will eventually lead to the end of all such good questions.
  9. Have you heard of religious fundamentalists? Have you heard that the government and armed forces of Pakistan and Iran have a number of them? There you go, now you're catching on. Osama bin Laden punched the U.S. in the nose, knowing it would bring the largest military force in history right down on his head. You're of course entirely 100% right that it didn't happen. You have to continually be right in every such circumstance from now on. No room for error, if you're wrong just once, game over. Teach the next generation of brain scientists. Very sensible indeed. Really, it is. For the early 20th century. We no longer have time for slow and sure. Knowledge isn't just developing, it's accelerating.
  10. You have 10 seconds to withdraw that comment or I will launch a full scale nuclear strike upon your home base. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6.... See guys, it's happening already, right here on this little forum. Soon we'll be calling each other names, and then the mod will nuke us all. What's the logic of making characterizations of each other's remarks? There is none. But we, including me, are human. Yep, me too, I've been banned a number of times. Given that evidence, do you want me to have a nuke? Imagine that all of us had a digital nuke that could blow up this entire forum. Very few of us would consider using it. But sooner or later, somebody would. Some poster, maybe even a quite intelligent one, would lose their cool, and push the button. I wouldn't, and didn't propose that. I would take their funding and give it to the brain guys. A number of people in the Kennedy cabinet argued for an attack on the Cuban missile silos. Change a few chairs in that meeting, and you would not be here.
  11. This is an important subject, and you guys are making good points. Let's not let the thread dissolve in to personal stuff, ok? We attempt to change the nature of human beings all the time via law, drugs, religion, public dialogue etc. Legal drugs are a massive technical attempt to alter psychology. Billions have been spent developing these drugs. All with the support of the public and scientific community. Please research how many nukes Pakistan and India have, and what the result of their use would be. That's a very realistic possibility, as Pakistan is usually careening along on the edge of chaos. This is an entirely reasonable and understandable thing to feel, but it depends on people using reason. If people always use reason, why did we have the Cuban Missile Crisis?
  12. I agree. Scientists thrive on big ambitious challenges, and I've offered them one, changing the nature of human beings. The first problem we face is that instead of welcoming the challenge, every available argument will be offered as to why we shouldn't welcome the challenge. The heart of the problem is philosophical and political, not scientific. My thesis requires only one bad day. Just one. I agree we are making progress of a sort. Progress isn't enough. In order to prevent that one bad day we need a permanent and perfect record of avoiding the one bad day. Or, we need to be in a position where the one bad day can't bring down everything, as has been the case for a very long time..... Up until the 1950s.
  13. Redirect all research that isn't immediately pressing in to research of the human mind. Some current research is pressing, global warming comes to mind. Discovering the Higgs and going to Mars etc can wait. They'll both still be there when we're ready. My thesis is that if we don't do first things first, we'll never be ready, as we'll be dead or scrounging for bugs in the forest.
  14. I'm not proposing that we not move forward. I'm proposing we move forward in a particular direction, identify the source of the problem and address it. If we insist that we must remain unchanged, the source of the problem is our "more is better" philosophy of knowledge. If we insist that our philosophy of knowledge must remain unchanged, then we are the source of the problem. We could approach it from either direction. My proposal is that we could have either, but not both. If we remain the same, and receive ever more power, sooner or later we'll make a fatal mistake with that power. Remember, it only takes one bad day. Thousands and thousands of days to come, and just one bad one will do the job. It's surely possible the cure would be worse than the disease. A serious concern for sure. On the other hand, I would ask us to observe that we are full of confidence when it comes to exploring the very fundamental qualities of nature, or migrating our entire civilization off the planet etc. Why do we usually assume changing ourselves for the better is impossible? I apologize for harping on this, but this is not the past. It's 2012, not 1912. Even in 1912 we demonstrated we were capable of erasing an entire generation of European young men. The times they are a-changing.... [insert harmonica solo here]
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.