East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(continued for Steve...)

We need a freedom to construct alternatives and a freedom of people to demonstrate the value (or lack of - though once again it's subjective - one result to someone might be considered good whereas to someone else that resulting condition is not desirable) of alternatives.

And again, no it's not subjective, if only the objective facts and numbers are used, to decide all numbers and decisions. That's just a factual numbers' objectivity. Let the numbers decide the fairness, just as insurance companies have let the pure probability numbers decide their profits, over the last 300 years__copy the greed factor talents, but use those talents to eliminate it, by applying the maths to real human values' increases...

This is rather much guaranteed to allow progress and flexibility and encourage such tools for people to use to address wider ranges of subjects (it could be a virtual wikipedia of interests).

Of course if this is implemented in a top-down manner then this evolution doesn't necessarily occur except to whatever extent the whim(s) of whoever runs it decides to update it and then there is still no manner to determine what influences these have without alternatives to compare and compete with (in a healthy voluntary/"free market" sense).

Steve, I'm talking only about mathematical implementations of real values of true fairness__not the very well-known and fallible human implementations. The comparisons already exist in the economics literature and the world's many data-bases, going all the way back to the first population, death and insurance industry facts and figures. The modern world has so many of these facts and figures, it'd make you dizzy to look at them all. We are not short on facts and figures__We are short on dedicated, interested and honest mathematicians, to set the world right...

It takes people themselves putting "the numbers" in. The optimization engine can then just generate possible solutions (and even allow for an equivalent of interactive negotiations to refine things etc.) for groups of people and help coordinate their efforts, but even then the value of those computations is still subjective and is yet another decision someone would need to make as to whether or not the recommendations are potentially valuable.

Aren't you aware of the fact math can be applied to values, as habits, which has been known for some 100 years, from the work of C.S.Peirce, America's greatest mathematician, logician and philosopher extroadinaire. I don't know how many times I have to write it__Let the math engine decide the math inputs__Not the fallible humans. Computers already exist to accomplish this__one only needs write a software program to cover the entire values and economic systems of the entire world__and that's not that difficult. A simple processing engine is all that's required. You just gotta have the truthful geometry of the entire system, and I've got that, or build your own, but please have it respect the natural symmetries of all human values of just fairness with incentives, and not a special interest group...

There's no way to coordinate all this in top down manner and get decent results - you instead simply allow people to have a better view of the larger picture and then they can coordinate better between themselves in finding those places they fit in best (and that could even be something dynamic as well - i.e. if I'm working at a company and there are no new projects to work on, there's little need for me to show up daily and it might be better to time multiplex between two different employers - it costs each of them less and hence my efforts are utilized better and we all benefit, but if people are stuck in a rut and can't see the opportunities well or coordinate arrangements like these better then you get the cubicle view of life which I don't think will be an ideal - hey, yes, someone can love cubicles and such a system could even help them find a great cubicle! LOL).

There you go again, conflating the personal sentiments with a pure mathematical improvement of just, sincere, honest, fair and real values' systems. Let me see if I can get you to see this more clearly as to the problems of interpretations involved. The age old problem is between this: All debates and arguments of sentiments end up at the age old concept of 'personal rights' and/vs. 'market rights', and the Rich got all the power, law and money. It comes down to 'points of law'; and 'points at law'. The founding fathers made sure the Rich were protected by the contract clause; article #1, section #10, #1 of the US Constitution, in which States are forbidden to impair the obligation of contracts. The only recourse the citizens have to change real effective US Laws is through article #1, section #8, #5, which is the currency clause, thus forcing citizen action to be nothing other than changing the over-all financial architecture__thus my bent toward international financial architecture changes__as the only real course of action, for true and possible change. There exists no other possible political will and/or action, to bring about real change, as most everyone realizes the impossibility of changing the corporate contract clause. These facts of law, must be faced...rrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZyNKrYo9I4&feature=fvw

[SteveA]

A Possible Mathematics of Real Human Values...

Steve, the numbers are not individual values, per-say. We have real factual objective numbers about human values already existing__Economists have been recording them for over 100 years.

Trying to use historical records of averages is inefficient and slow. It provides a lag that doesn't consider technological changes. It also doesn't look at present and future directions nor does it reflect differences or preferences in individuals, who ultimately determine the value.

Don't misunderstand me, these tools are useful but they're already built into most free market systems except that yes, a database could be useful but similarly manufacturers can already access this information just by looking at existing supply costs and estimating product value.

-------------------------------

What I'm suggesting is completely different and your ideas can actually fit within or be built upon it.

The actual value of some exchange between people is determined by those involved and not historical averages.

For example, how much time does it take to build a car and how many toothbrushes is a car worth? It depends upon a wide variety of factors including capital investments into an infrastructure, the abilities of the people building it as well as the efficiency in which the product can be matched to a consumer and then similarly compared as ratios of such resources for toothbrushes.

The value of these are also determined by the specific people that utilize them. For example, to someone who can't drive the car has no immediate value.

What we really want to do is simply improve the quality of life for people and allow them to interact more efficiently and intelligently.

Historical costs are generally already considered by manufacturers in a free market as it is and again, it takes free markets to determine these values anyway.

I'm referring to the actual values, desires and rewards etc. that individuals receive in life from products, services, interactions etc. or the current expectations of these.

We need predictive and forward looking tools that are dynamic and can track new technologies and stimulate growth and creativity - a 100 year old database doesn't do that and trying to force an economy to match it is just a bad idea. We already have these considerations in place for most stable manufacturers.

As an example, how much value is it to the various individuals of a group in desiring to build and sell a new electronic moped with regenerative braking that recycles energy back into batteries?

None of those records will give much of any information regarding these nor will they be able to help match up the figurative producers and consumers of information, skills, interests and labor etc. regarding such an endeavor.

What I'm suggesting need not be at conflict with your ideas and in many ways your ideas are already included in my suggestion.

Basically I'm saying we construct an optimization that takes a list of various abilities, skills, desires, interests and even geographical considerations when applicable and tries to construct possible networks of these abstract resources in manners that improve the efficiency of the organization in supplying those.

With that you effectively have instantaneous information regarding supply and demand and where resources are moving as well as information regarding the channels through which these may flow best.

And all of this is updated very dynamically as it's simply people interacting between themselves but using a tool that allows them to coordinate on larger scales and because the control is highly decentralized you don't have focal points of power for corruption nor does the system determine that people must abide by such and such a result.

Such a tool simply allows people to "see further" within areas of interest of relative to their desires, abilities etc. as well as being able to utilize some intelligent optimization or planning in such arrangements.

I admit that I couldn't list every possible trait that people might want to include in this, but I can think of ways to allow it to be a rather dynamically defineable system so that people can add greater detail if desired (and it could even be useful to have something like a reliability rating so people could get a better confidence of how well someone follows through on commitments).

The problem has always been one of the arguments between the controlling professions of academics, social scientists, political scientists, economists and politicians inter-disciplinary collisions of__where we end up with very bad decisions__This must change.

Yes, we need to free people up and reduce that number of slave drivers.

The more top down planning that goes on, the less responsive the system is and the more susceptible to corruption it is as well. (It's obvious we have government policies that create a vicious cycle of growth of special interests).

What I'm stating is that the pure numbers, without any disciplines involved, is possible now, but no-one is doing that objective math, for the proper purpose

Well hopefully my suggestions help give you some ideas.

I could give details for such an optimization engine as well if you'd like or if enough people were interested I could even write up some code.

If it was open-source then basically anyone could use it and people could adapt it over time.

__It's all done to support the greed-machine.

One thing nice about this as well is that people could be as greedy as they want . In fact it ends up helping other people if they're willing to work more.

With people relatively free and able to have individually control over how they fit into the big picture there are no controlling strings to be abused.

In fact I think you can even replace things with private police as well paid for via. voluntary donations - if people want more police, they can cough up some bucks for that and if the police aren't doing a decent job, cut off some of the pay. You don't even need voting and you could practically replace the remainder of government with just a jury system, but I admit that all those ideas are more of my personal political views.

It's only subjective when these inter-disciplinary collisions exist. All it takes is a dedicated small group to demand the real numbers be adhered to, for the first time in history.

These numbers are presently publicly available to all comers__It's just they've only been thus far accessed by special interests, instead of a special group of geeks/quants dedicated to the numbers truths__That will solve the world's problems__Divide and conquer math. Don't you think the world has enough dedicated math-geeks to accomplish this simple task?

It's really more of a matter of people having been sold an idea that doesn't actually work well. It's been tried before but it doesn't perform as well as free markets.

__Then if enough people were to support such work, they'd be a real force for political change. I'm simply talking about heart-feeling, soulful math-geeks crunching the numbers needed to instill real values back into the greed-systems.

I still don't see how enforcing 100 year old databases on an economy would do anything other than impede things.

It could be that your ideas are unrealistic. I'm rather certain much of these ideas have already been tried.

If I can see this possibility, I think anyone can. It would only take maybe a thousand dedicated world-wide, to make a large political statement__but these must be truly dedicated and honest math-geeks(and geeks is applied here as an endearing term)...

And I strongly dis-agree with you about society being fundamentally built from the bottom up. The Rich have always been on top, as the fundamental employer of all classes, as a top down architecture__This is obvious__They the only ones dun' gut da' money, especially when America was poor.

Well how did they acquire these resources though? It takes a lot of people working to do this and things grow from the bottom up.

It truly doesn't even matter if someone gets rich, we'd ideally like everyone to be rich. The only problem is over how the wealth was acquired - did they acquire that value from other people in voluntary exchanges or did they acquire it via. force or fraud or other coercive or subversive means, but then again the same is true if a poor individual stole something.

Yes it's true the citizens contributed a great deal of sweat also, but real societies are only built from the top-down. And when one separates our personal sentiments from a-ethical organizations and systems, one is able to see the facts of the international financial architecture's absolute necessity to trade and local finance. You'd have nothing but absolute poverty without these massive over-arching banking, market and trade systems__whether you like it or not. Give credit where credit is due. Even though they've stolen the system blind, we can't survive without them__So they must be included in any real system's numbers__Always...

Yes, I don't think wealth disparity is in itself a problem. I don't personally happen to rich by any means, but it would be nice to work toward that ... the way things are now though everyone wants to be "equal" which generally is just a code word for theft (equality was suppose to be over an equal respect or protection of rights and freedom and not equal in physical terms - people are not equal, nor does it serve us well to try to make people equal. Let people do what they do best and desire to do. If we have a good society this raises the quality of life for everyone over time).

I'll leave it at that for now and see if we may have a clearer understanding.

[labelwench]

Unless you've seen the movie Monsters Inc., this frame of reference won't work for you, but the music is still nice, lol....

The most beautiful portuguese lullaby in a tribute to all the children.
Video editing by Vitor Pardal Simões:

And children have always been the hope for a better future...LW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0c...eature=related

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well it's that time of year again. Over the next four or five days, I'll be traveling to Florida, to soak up some sunshine for the winter. Catch you'all later, after I get settled in...rrr

Have a good one,
Lloyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Quarks have feelings too. And their YinYang



bad picture, one is not down with two up ... ...g oh oh ... nice art though .. by G_burnett...

Three quarks faced with a difficult problem ... oopps ... difficult proton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeZftK2kO6U

[SteveA]

Ok, enjoy your vacation.

I think the #1 thing is simply for people to stop allowing fear to rule their actions and the sheeple/slaves should simply work to be freer. Things work fine from there.

We have a system that maintains the current inequalities via. fear but it's actually rather unenforceable - you can't imprison or kill everyone without destroying the system itself (and I think people would not sit idly by if that happened).

So ultimately people are really only dominated by their own fear and people have also been taught to be dependent and individual successes are often treated as if they were crimes. This only discourages growth as a whole and the system continually sinks further down.

As I've said before, I don't think a large collapse is avoidable. There are too many self reinforcing corrupt structures to stop the collapse, but I at least hope that some people will avoid trying to recreate the current "monster".

All it takes is a bit of courage to turn on the lights and recognize that that there's a world of possibilities waiting for people to accept some challenges and be willing to move ahead instead of enviously clinging to the Jones.

I work only half the time because taxes and various penalties go up for people who try to do better. I've spend quite a bit of the rest of my time trying to figure out the details that got things to the point that they are.

You wanted to know what a math geek would suggest and I offered one the best possible solutions. I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with preconceptions, but that's largely because the 100+ years of economic brainwashing people have been through has taken quite a toll and yes, I find it extremely frustrating at how few people see the problems - they fall for ideas like you have suggested that 'people are evil and need to be controlled' or 'being rich is a sin' etc. Despite the fact that most of what they want is to be successful and free, yet their beliefs deny this - much like the idea of original sin.

Yes, I overreact some but it's because politics is an exhaustive subject for me. On one hand I care and have tried, but on the other hand I have no idea how to help if someone isn't at least willing to look at the problem, even if it goes against the grain of much of what they've been taught.

Pay the price. Don't remain with beliefs that are conflicting if you seriously want to see a better path to the future, dig down and really look at what you want and how things should be - do you truly want a world where people are believed to be evil and are suppose to be subjugated to rulers ... who I could only assume would be of the same "crop", so where do the "good guys" come from? How can historical economic records determine the value of something for an individual? Yes, we can apply mathematics to help people but simply as a tool, not as a system that's imposed upon people, which obviously would require laws, or they'd flee from it. The universe is going to be around for a while, it would be nice to have a better picture for the future

[labelwench]

Hello Lloyd,

Found an interesting (to me, at least) map of the world drawn in 1507, with an associated article, and could think of no more appropriate place to share it, than here, on your thread, which I find unites diverse aspects of history, with an eye toward the future.

Hoping that the journey went well for your wife and yourself, and that you are soon settled in and with insights to share.

Regards,

Lorrina

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8328878.stm

There's more. The name America, for example, very probably represents not just a tip of the hat to Amerigo Vespucci but also a multilingual pun that can mean both "born new" and "no-place-land" - a playful coinage that seems to have inspired Sir Thomas More to invent his new world across the ocean, one meaning of which was also "no-place": Utopia.

The map itself seems also to have made a powerful impression on none other than Nicholas Copernicus, who began his landmark On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by describing America as he saw it depicted on the map, and who then went on to argue that the existence of a fourth part of the world meant that the traditional model not only of the earth but also the cosmos would have to be rethought.

[MJA]

Ok Honey,

You can read the map and I'll drive.

=
MJA

[SB_UK]

We have a system that maintains the current inequalities via. fear ... ...

Apologies for fading in and fading out; it's entirely nothing to do with me and everything to do with the basis to the mechanism by which human attention turns.

Society will change whether we like it or not.
There'll be nothing left to take and soon enough.

My thoughts as of recently concentrate on the question of whether there's something lying in wait in our future which we're either not capable of seeing or not capable of imagining.

Why?
Because the mind was unimaginable pre-mind.

But - Why bother thinking about an idea which we cannot see or imagine?
Yes - it'd seem to be rather pointless (at first notion)
- wouldn't it?

The basic problem which I'm having is that ToE confers a frame of mind which makes one feel as though all recorded observations made by man are a very close variation on the same basic theme.

The same simple idea expressed using different words.

More simply - that no matter who wrote what and in whichever language wherever -
- that it has all been simply data which we have needed to accrue to build a model
- that human observational data is generalized and can thereafter be discarded following ToE.

The last 30,000 years have been about finding a few jigsaw pieces -
- a jigsaw which completes immediately after last piece located.

No matter how many pieces we attribute to this jigsaw
- the image which is formed when pieces pushed together -
as
unimaginably
intuitively
and glaringly so
~simple~.

~*~

Human recorded history and all of our efforts to understand our context appear to lead us to a simple repeating pattern which
scales.

A simple repeating pattern (ToE) which gives us everything from gravity to the collective conscious.

OK - but why are you going on about an unforseeable, unimaginable event?

I think that it's because when an unforseeable, unimaginable event becomes our last opportunity for continuation -
- that it'll come to pass.

Sounds a lot like you're turning to God in desperation?

I know
--- however ---
if the idea can be interpreted slightly differently.

How so?

That one finds one's way through a maze after having exhausted all of the other (shorter,FAILED) routes from 'START'.

So - give me a slightly more detailed explanation of why you feel that we've exhausted all other routes?

We haven't managed to generate a decent society up until now - the reason being that global community has required and reinforced rather than overcome division.

There's no mechanism of generating a functional system if we insist on exclusion clauses within intercommunicating parts of a single machine.

If the filling dispenser works faster than the pastry manufacturing module -
- then it's only a matter of time before the whole pie making manufacturing process flops to a halt.

What are you trying to say?
I still don't understand why you're concentrating on an unforseeable, unimaginable event?

I can't imagine any solution to the current problems we face of over-consumerism, selfish greed, ignorance, inequality
- I think that we need to arrive at an understanding that there's absolutely no mechanism for society continuing on in the manner that we've experienced post-WWII
and
that that realization 'll be enough to result in an unimaginable (from this vantage point) event occurring.

We have a system that maintains the current inequalities via. fear ... ...

That there can be no 'business as normal'.
That people lose their fear of change.
Loss of the fear of change is an absolute requirement in acceptance that there can be no return to the 20th century way -
of
(as we shall come to know it)
- of
eating ourselves to death.

But, but, but you're just talking about boring old globalism ?

Maybe
- not sure.
But if I am - I'm trying to suggest that we aren't capable of imagining how it would be (from this - our current vantage point) *there*.
Sure
- we can theorize -
- however I'm trying (and probably failing) to explain that there'll be a fundamental change in the human mind
- that a fundamental structural re-arrangement in the human mind will occur
- will occur upon people sinking into global community.

And that that fundamental structural re-arrangement in the structure of the shared human mind will confer
(when it occurs)
- the capacity for a (hitherto unrealizable) local (through the eyes of the individual) perspective.

Explain that idea more simply ?

The monkey was incapable of imagining life with a mind.
I don't think that we have the capacity to imagine life post-globalisation.

When our species chooses (voluntarily) this course of action
- there'll be a change which'll impact our daily lives
- a change which'll make us feel happier -
happiness accompanied by an enforced moral consistency under which we will not feel constrained
- will accept -
much as we accept that we're not imprisoned by our need to breathe oxygen.

[SB_UK]

references

ADDF::Stabile
'enforced moral consistency'
'globalism cf. Marshall McLuhan'

Bible
'Apocalypse' (change - evolution to mathematical complexity)
'love' (gravity evolved - structure formation)

~*~

When we all arrive harmoniously and voluntarily at Mcluhan's 'Global village' - we'll have (all) needed to have settled into a frame of mind which'll (by virtue of its new structural form) -
- solve the problems (all of the problems) which we currently face.

Our problems arise from our minds being ruled by uncontrollable selfish greed
- globalization can only occur when the mind permits it -
- won't accept such a change
until
- it's
our (the selfish creature's) last hope for continuance.

~*~

I'm trying to suggest that the task which we have been attempting to accomplish has been to 'corner' an aspect of our psychology (an evolutionary legacy)
- to corner
- to vanquish -
an element of consciousness -
an evolutionary legacy motivation
- the savage within

the savage within
- which has up until now sheltered out of reach of human intervention
- of excision by conscious intervention.

[SB_UK]

How so?

That one finds one's way through a maze after having exhausted all of the other (shorter,FAILED) routes from 'START'.

So - give me a slightly more detailed explanation of why you feel that we've exhausted all other routes?

I can't find anything of any worth - worth doing and since we (our species) are not currently in a happy place
- the only solution is for us to welcome change for the unimaginable.

There's absolutely no point in evolution generating a species which is paralysed into inactivity by the overwhelming pointlessness of it all.
- every point *though* in evolution generating some mechanism to destabilize a species immediately prior to its own change.

The social impulse (ADDF::Stabile) is an intercommunicating attachment which holds a species together -
which must dissolve (and then re-form) at speciation.

Re-form only better (stronger); a stronger {force, energetic content} required to hold together a structure formed from {stronger, more energetically laden} component parts -
- individuals.

~*~

Yes pla$tic non$en$e toy companie$, lawyer$ and politician$ are all set to fall -
- and in their place -

something better

(guaranteed).