Re: Apple II: Second Best Tech Product of All Time!

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Apr 17, 4:29 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>But it is a *fact* that we are now responsible for our evolution,
> >>and choosing to ignore it is no defense, its just choosing not to
> >>choose.  This abdication will not last a decade.
>
> > But the responsibility exists only in the choice, and the choice only
> > in the awareness. Indeed, choosing to ignore it is not the only case;
> > a sizeable proportion of the human population posesses neither the
> > education, nor (potentially) the intellect required to process it. So,
> > is it an intellectual prejudice to assume that those in denial
> > constitute the largest part of the 'problem' ?
>
> Yes, if they persist in ignorance and active obstruction.

But ignorance and active obstruction aren't the same thing. There are
strategies to relieve most causes of ignorance. Active obstruction on
the other hand is difficult since those that do this have a (usually
very obvious) agenda which is generally social or economic power. They
don't obstruct because they are ignorant, they exploit the ignorant to
maintain their status quo.

My point is that while we often get frustrated by the ignorant, we
should not, since they're essentially innocents. Frequently, we end up
in pointless and baseless 'debates' which are essentially "The
enlightened vs. powerful". The ignorant then form opinions based on
the comparative merits of the debate itself rather than the rational
truth.

> > Since the human populace does not holistically demonstrate such
> > awareness, I don't feel it can be labelled "in charge". And further,
> > while I agree that such an abstraction yields a conclusion that is
> > obstensibly correct, it also serves to block the visibility of a
> > profound truth: that it is the *responsibility* of the enlightened, to
> > enlighten.
>
> But we are capable of whatever the most capable individual is
> capable of.  Thus we say that humans have harnessed nuclear energy.

That's right, but all I was arguing to begin with was that "capable
of" was more appropriate than "in charge of". This reminds me of the
remark I made recently about the difference between theory and
practice being greater in practice than in theory. Humans have the
capability to travel into space, but they're hardly in charge of it.

> > Indeed, by posessing the enlightenment and not acting upon it we
> > impose upon ourselves our own form of denial, the net effect of which,
> > pragmatically speaking, is the same or *worse* than those that "don't
> > act" out of ignorance, which makes job number one ridding ourselves of
> > our own apathy.
>
> Exactly--and those who realize this should awake to their
> responsibility.
>
> We need to apply some real creativity and innovation to spreading
> the word about what we now understand and what can be done.  It is
> non-trivial to overcome denial, regardless of its source.

I wholeheartedly agree, but we disempower ourselves when we aggregate
all the causes into their effect.

> > I'm unsure why you feel this abdication will not last a decade, but
> > can only assume you're predicting the onset of a large enough scale
> > "consequence" that will "knock some sense" into us. This may of course
> > happen, but my own optimism leads me to favour proactive change over
> > reactive change, and the fact that history is littered with great
> > civilisations that inexplicably vanished leads me to trepidation when
> > I invisage such an event.
>
> My notion was that, at least in the US, the pendulum has swung so
> far in the direction of ignorance that it is now destined to swing
> back at least as far.  (I worry a bit about "backlash".)

I see. The same thing can be observed here. I suspect however it's the
pendulum of conservativism that is swinging, at least that's the case
here in Australia, IMHO.

> The hoped-for benefits of genetic research are sufficiently
> compelling for most people, that I expect it to get a big push
> within the next few years.

There's a really big opportunity here, since one big factor in
preventing people from taking a long term view is their own relatively
short lifespan. There's certainly the school of thought that suggests
that altruism may be one behavioral trait that has high amounts
genetic rather than social influence. Which gives us two
opportunities. The one I feel is most likely to have a net positive
effect is that it seems obvious to me that a person who has an
expected lifespan of 200 years will take a longer term view than those
with an expected lifespan of 80 years. There may however be a
crossover point beyond which people start caring less about everything
since they have 'all the time in the world' ;-)

But it is of course all speculation and statistitition.

> >>>So the implication that it's "speeding up" seems to me to be false.
>
> >>OK, I see your concern.
>
> >>Part of the problem is the ambiguous use of "evolution", when "change"
> >>is, perhaps, the more precise term.
>
> > I really do feel it's a particularly insidious isomorphism, since it
> > potentially prevents the application of a more appropriate isomorphism
> > for holistic human behavior, like for example, Maslow's hierarchy of
> > human needs. It seems to me that since evolutionary force is
> > diminished, and human behavioral force increased, that this is far
> > more appropriate meta-model, and one that contains insights into both
> > the "problem" and "getting there" that are not present in more
> > popularist views.
>
> I also agree.  But getting "self-fulfilled" without reference to
> objective accomplishment is also a trap.  As we now know, there are
> drugs that will make you transcendently happy but unable to repair
> an engine.

What wonderous substance is this? There's certainly a lot of
recreational drugs around that will induce various kinds of short-term
euphoria, but they all have very serious side effects. If there was
indeed a substance that made you happy all the time and still able to
function we really would have a "Brave New World"

> I think we all know that Maslow didn't have that kind of empty
> "fulfillment" in mind, but who knows what our history has predisposed
> us to seek?

Well, self-actualisation was what he had in mind, with the view that
various needs must be met in order to attain it. Just being happy is a
pretty shallow definition of fulfilment if you ask me.

The great thing about Maslow's work is that it's so hard to fault it,
at least from a Humanist perspective. And while I acknowledge there
are other perspectives, it is advancement we're talking about,
right? ,,, (*winks*)

> Isn't it time to take charge of our minds, and make them, and their
> emotions, want what we judge to be objectivly desireable?
>
> Self-discipline has been universally praised as a great virtue,
> but isn't it time to tame our undisciplined nature to make it
> so that it doesn't take a 5-sigma individual to achieve high
> levels of self-discipline?

Well the key to this would seem to be to tame our undisciplined
society :-)

I vote for putting Minsky on the senior school required reading list.

> >>Humans are now changing humans more rapidly than they changed in
> >>the past.  Some of this change is genetic, and in the next few
> >>decades, much more will be genetic.
>
> >>Even in the area of "natural" genetics, the vastly increased
> >>communication between the disparate families of humanity in the
> >>modern world is causing an unprecedented stirring of the genetic pool.
>
> > Of course, pre-utero and in-utero eugenics *could* play a significant
> > role in noticably altering the human genome, but for the moment it's a
> > statistically insignificant activity.
>
> Most of the alterations in the last century have been unprecedented
> hybridizations across disparate geographies.  This is actually a huge
> change whose effects will become manifest in the next century.

I agree it's a huge change, but surely the sociological effects dwarf
the biological?

> But the "artifical" changes to come will be largely produced by
> recombinant DNA carried by viruses into humans.  At first it will
> be directed at correcting errors, like color blindness and hemophilia,
> but "enhancements" are also inevitable.

All true enough. I'm betting cybernetics will yield the largest
changes, as it seems to me the only way to make major modifications to
the human capability matrix.

> Meanwhile, brain science will continue to advance, having finally
> found its molecular basis.
>
> And silicon technology will also continue to advance, fueled by an
> insatiable desire for entertainment.  ;-)

Indeed. It remains a mystery whether we must first realise Humanism,
or whether the advent of Transhumans will drive this desire. I think a
good way to ensure friendlier electronic lifeforms is to transfer the
human mind, but I imagine we'll have a variety of types.

> >>As an eternally optimistic pragmatist, I see signs that we are beginning
> >>to open our eyes...  Somewhere along the line we will have to deal with
> >>the problem that so many are trying to close them.
>
> > Don't you feel that excessive application of pragmatism leads to a
> > pessimistic view?
>
> Doing anything excessively leads to warped perceptions.  An optimist
> hopes for a useful warping.  ;-)

LOL! Optimists should hope for an optimal warping.

> Most great doctors, scientists, educators, etc., are obsessive-
> compulsive.  We now know that engineers are relatively high on the
> autism spectrum--they're hyper-systematizers.

That's true...

> Everything is good for something!

*sigh* I suppose so, but many things only seem to be useful for
demonstrating just how far we have to go, and beyond that are just
dangerous baggage. Though I guess the value of perspective cannot be
underestimated.

Matt