Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: How do we create new knowledge?

  1. #41
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    900
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EAT DA POOPOO
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  2. #42
    The Ubiquitous Mr Lovegrove Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    15,445
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well not quite, because we will need knowledge in how to become more democratic and how to become more prosperous and how to become less dogmatic.
    There's supposed to be a certain threshold of prosperity (as determined by GDP per capita) whereby democracy in a country is far more likely to succeed. Carrying out measures that improve health and the ability to live above a subsistence level of living while seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts will move countries in the right direction. Generally, when people have an adequate standard of living and the ability to resolve problems democratically, they are more likely to value their time on Earth as well as the lives of others.

  3. #43
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes Se hinges heavily on "having less to lose" than the other guy and using that as capital

  4. #44
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    There's supposed to be a certain threshold of prosperity (as determined by GDP per capita) whereby democracy in a country is far more likely to succeed. Carrying out measures that improve health and the ability to live above a subsistence level of living while seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts will move countries in the right direction. Generally, when people have an adequate standard of living and the ability to resolve problems democratically, they are more likely to value their time on Earth as well as the lives of others.
    Agreed and no problem there, but how did they become democratic in the first place? They required the knowledge that were created during the period of Enlightenment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yes Se hinges heavily on "having less to lose" than the other guy and using that as capital
    Your dogma of Socionics is not considered to be legitimate knowledge, as Socionics is based off on nothing but a few set of axioms (that are likely false or can even easily shown to be false). It is not, so to speak, "falsifiable".

  5. #45
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    democracy existed prior to the enlightenment... what you really seem to be saying is technology that improves standard of life to the point where people aren't killing eachother over resources requires rationality as espoused in the enlightenment.. which ignores that people treat eachother inhumanely in the name of rational models in places where there exist already an abundance of natural resources, not to mention on this side of the enlightenment (i.e.: the soviets in their heydey). the foundation for an economy is actually trust not resources or technology, your argument is a kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc based on the history of the west extending into the future, which is to say imperialism and rationality worked so well in the past we simply need more of it not less. on the exact same facts delta argues its time to end that not reignite it

  6. #46
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    democracy existed prior to the enlightenment... what you really seem to be saying is technology that improves standard of life to the point where people aren't killing eachother over resources requires rationality as espoused in the enlightenment..
    Modern democracy as we have right now didn't exist before. There were some semblance of it in Classical Greece, but all the philosophers at that time got things wrong and were in fact quite authoritarian, especially Plato.

    That's why the Classical Greeks couldn't have ever come up with something like the Scientific Revolution, which ultimately lead to modern democracy.

  7. #47
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    technically nothing existed as we have it right now, before. it depends on where you draw the line as to when identity stops. in point of fact the democracy we have tomorrow is not the democracy we have today, thus it is meaningless without proper qualification. you must define whatever it is about democracy today that separates it from the democracy of yore that makes your initial argument work. in essence to say "its different this time" is trivial

  8. #48
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    technically nothing existed as we have it right now, before. it depends on where you draw the line as to when identity stops. in point of fact the democracy we have tomorrow is not the democracy we have today, thus it is meaningless without proper qualification. you must define whatever it is about democracy today that separates it from the democracy of yore that makes your initial argument work. in essence to say "its different this time" is trivial
    Yes, and you're just an idiot. I'd suggest actually researching these topics and know what you're talking about, before shooting your mouth off with more bullshit and sophistry. You are seriously an intellectual lightweight, and I'm not sure what you were doing in your philosophy class, probably sleeping.

  9. #49
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol and so the lessons of the past are dismissed with a puff of hot air purporting itself to know all there is to know about such things and therefore above being called to account

  10. #50
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    lol and so the lessons of the past are dismissed with a puff of hot air purporting itself to know all there is to know about such things and therefore above being called to account
    You just don't know enough about the topic that I'm discussing, so it is quite pointless talking with you. Come back to me when you have, which is probably never, because you don't learn.

  11. #51
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    900
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EAT DA POOPOO
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  12. #52
    The Ubiquitous Mr Lovegrove Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    15,445
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Agreed and no problem there, but how did they become democratic in the first place? They required the knowledge that were created during the period of Enlightenment.
    According to ourworldindata.org, there was only one democracy in 1816: the United States.

    It depends how you qualify knowledge. Having sufficient knowledge to be prosperous, I suppose. Being prosperous and having democratic tendencies probably reinforce each other. It might be difficult to engineer modern democracy without any concept of it, but in 2018, it is not an alien concept and the ways in which to make populations have a standard of living above the level of subsistence are not unfathomable or unobtainable.

    The relelevant ourworldindata page has a lot to say on the topic of democracy and education:
    https://ourworldindata.org/democracy
    Last edited by Subteigh; 05-12-2018 at 08:40 AM.

  13. #53
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Virtually all of philosophies up until the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution have been authoritarian, and none were democratic. Not just being authoritarian to religion or kings, but also to authority of the senses (Bacon) and authority of the intellect (Descartes). We have only managed ourselves to become free of our own authoritarianism, when we started to doubt our own correctness, and recognized the fallibility of our human mind. And that was only possible when we started to rely on methods that were objective and had universal reach, such as using reason, laws and constitutions that are greater than any individual human opinions. And even things like reason are suspect to error, there is no guarantee that anything is ultimately correct, so they need to be under constant watch and criticisms. Nothing is certain.

    Claims to know the "ultimate truth" is the source of all authoritarianism. Democracy is spurred by constant criticisms, including its government. Of course criticism for criticism's sake isn't very useful, so you'll need an alternative, and that's why there are multiple parties competing.

  14. #54
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,603
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    The real question is: What is knowledge? How do we get to know what is knowledge. It seems quite random observation of thinking that you know something. Can we know that there is knowledge? Or is it just sightly altering states of seemingly crystallized states of information that gets ultimately destroyed over time?

    Is there knowledge in the first place? Is it just instruction set that unfolds?

    I think knowledge is just a snapshot that we can store but something that is also subjected on the mercy of unfolding which might corrupt it even when we do not realize it.
    "Knowledge":

    Quote Originally Posted by Knowledge
    A replicator that tends to remain instantiated in physical systems, and can cause transformations to occur, retaining the property of causing them again and again.
    So knowledge can be retained in something like the DNA, or the human brain, or on the computer, as an information that can cause things to happen in a physical system. And this gets replicated for whatever the reason, whether it be as a DNA, or as a memetic idea in a human society. And they're "useful" or "real" in that it can cause changes to happen in a physical system, if they're instantiated in some ways.

    Whatever that is possible or not possible, according to this "knowledge", is what gives rise to laws of nature, such as laws of physics. On the other hand, whatever that is not forbidden by laws of physics is possible, given enough knowledge.

    And this "knowledge" can change bit by bit when they're replicated, whether it be by random errors, or through purposeful error-correction, such as criticisms. This is analogous to DNA's random mutations, and trial-and-error through arguments, thought experiments and experimentations.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •