RE: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #15 on: 2003-07-29 12:38:56 »
<Joe> No, because, if the fields were rendered compensatorally impecunious, enough people would not be drawn to invest huge chunks of their lives studying to be doctors or dentists or engineers to meet the public's need for them.
<Kalkor> So your assertion here, as in the last few emails in this thread, is that people will not spend large amounts of time or energy to learn a skill they will not be paid for? Or is it that the primary motivation that drives people to get an education is public need?
This sits contrary to what I observe everyday. I know dozens of people who play musical instruments, and have been learning to play them for decades, without any hope of ever being compensated financially (since the discussion originated on music).
No one goes to medical school because they want to help people? They do it solely because they are getting paid? Have you ever heard a child say "I want to be a fireman" or "I want to be a marine biologist"? This happens long before they have an understanding of the social and financial construct they live in. What if they did? Would they still want to do these things later in life, knowing they will not be compensated financially? How many artists do you know that make a living pouring coffee and living just below the poverty level so they can practice their art?
And don't get me started on hobbyists. How much skill does it require to climb a mountain? Assemble a ship in a bottle? Hike 3000 miles in 6 months?
The observable data does not fit in with the framework you outline. Try again.
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #16 on: 2003-07-29 13:54:29 »
a simple illustration (revisited):
[joe dees] so ducks, you claim, would live in the sea,simply because they can float in different bodies of water? that is utterly perposterous! why would they ever live in the sea with such stormy and un-duck-friendly conditions? what you are proposing is that all ducks would move to the sea because you observe that they indeed can float in different bodies of water. well then, show me, for i do not accept this proposal.
[athenonrex] well, you don't quite understand, i said, firstly, that they could live in the sea, not that they would live in the sea. of course not all ducks would move there simply because i think they should, and i don't think that they should in the first place. what i am porposing is perposterous, simply because you have never seen a duck float in a pong or a lake, and also a duck float in a river? or other such different bodies of water? that's a fallacious refusal of evidence.
i am not talking about weather, once again, as i have stated before. rather i am talking about ducks' bouyancy. it makes little sense to argue about weather when i'm talking about ducks, wouldn't you agree? or is that perposterous too?
[joe dees] but the storms. tell me, if there were much storming somewhere, and you could move there simply because you could float in the water that was there, would you? highly unlikely...
[this post was a dramatization. no screen names were harmed in the making of this post, though some egos may have been. all things are true, especially those things that are false, as our actor 'joe dees' has just proved. thank you for your attention. we now return you to your regularly schedualed programming.]
> > a simple illustration (revisited): > > [joe dees] > so ducks, you claim, would live in the sea,simply because they can > float in different bodies of water? that is utterly perposterous! why > would they ever live in the sea with such stormy and un-duck-friendly > conditions? what you are proposing is that all ducks would move to the > sea because you observe that they indeed can float in different bodies > of water. well then, show me, for i do not accept this proposal. > > [athenonrex] > well, you don't quite understand, i said, firstly, that they could > live in the sea, not that they would live in the sea. of course not > all ducks would move there simply because i think they should, and i > don't think that they should in the first place. what i am porposing > is perposterous, simply because you have never seen a duck float in a > pong or a lake, and also a duck float in a river? or other such > different bodies of water? that's a fallacious refusal of evidence. > > i am not talking about weather, once again, as i have stated before. > rather i am talking about ducks' bouyancy. it makes little sense to > argue about weather when i'm talking about ducks, wouldn't you agree? > or is that perposterous too? > > [joe dees] > but the storms. tell me, if there were much storming somewhere, and > you could move there simply because you could float in the water that > was there, would you? highly unlikely... > > [this post was a dramatization. no screen names were harmed in the > making of this post, though some egos may have been. all things are > true, especially those things that are false, as our actor 'joe dees' > has just proved. thank you for your attention. we now return you to > your regularly schedualed programming.] > I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame; athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent metaphorical attempts. > ---- > This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> <Joe> > No, because, if the fields were rendered compensatorally impecunious, > enough people would not be drawn to invest huge chunks of their lives > studying to be doctors or dentists or engineers to meet the public's > need for them. > > <Kalkor> > So your assertion here, as in the last few emails in this thread, is > that people will not spend large amounts of time or energy to learn a > skill they will not be paid for? Or is it that the primary motivation > that drives people to get an education is public need? > > This sits contrary to what I observe everyday. I know dozens of people > who play musical instruments, and have been learning to play them for > decades, without any hope of ever being compensated financially (since > the discussion originated on music). > > No one goes to medical school because they want to help people? They > do it solely because they are getting paid? Have you ever heard a > child say "I want to be a fireman" or "I want to be a marine > biologist"? This happens long before they have an understanding of the > social and financial construct they live in. What if they did? Would > they still want to do these things later in life, knowing they will > not be compensated financially? How many artists do you know that make > a living pouring coffee and living just below the poverty level so > they can practice their art? > > And don't get me started on hobbyists. How much skill does it require > to climb a mountain? Assemble a ship in a bottle? Hike 3000 miles in 6 > months? > > The observable data does not fit in with the framework you outline. > Try again. > Exceptions do not PROVE the rule (this is a misquoting of Aristotle); they PROBE the rule, that is, they delineate the rule's scope and parameters by their status as exceptions. Sure there are some exceptional people who would (and do) do as you suggest, but not enough would bankrupt themselves in nonlucrative but time-and-effort- intensive (to train for and to do) medical and engineering fields to capably service a global community. > > Kalkor > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #19 on: 2003-07-30 15:26:26 »
[joe dees] I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame; athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent metaphorical attempts.
[athenonrex] you missed the point, yet again. it was an INTENTIONALLY BAD ANALOGY. i find it very hard to think that someone would actually be arguing (seriously arguing, not comedically arguing) the aspects of geographical weather when the subject of ducks' bouyancy was the topic of debate.
similarly, because you reject the simple difference of definition between "job" and "work" (would the terms "employee" and "volunteer" illustrate it better for you?), we are somehow debating the "type" of economy, as opposed to the lack of economy that is possible, given certain trends.
please note i am not predicting the future. nor do i intend to ever, nor do i hope i ever can. rather, i am looking at certain data, interesting trends in technological development, human evolution (social as well as genetic), and a few other factors. however, you failed to note this and have only succeded to "shoot down" a straw man by hyping my argument up to something relatively simplistically explained and overexaggerated to the point of absurdity (hey, nothing wrong with the absurd, though...), but my original argument has remained intact.
it has remained intact because you refuse to argue to discredit it (or at least a practical aspect of it) within the alloted and (taken as) granted premises.
you don't prove that water is wet by lighting a piece of paper on fire, do you? you don't prove that a light bulb works by shutting the power for the entire house off (slightly weaker anology, but i'm working myself up to the stronger ones).you don't prove that WWII happened by starting a WWIII. and lastly, you don't prove that gravity works by floating off into space.
why? (to any of the above.) because the attempts at a counter argument do not operate within the context of the premises of the original arguement.
and who the fuck knows. you may be able to discredit my arguement whist working within the premises. though i typically have decent "vision" and can shift my perspective rather well, it's not something that can be perfected. i know that somewhere in my arguement (within the premises, i mean) there may be flaws. the reason i post it here is for people (not to collaborate and tell me "good job" ... but thanks anyway hermit...) to pick at my arguement and find stuff wrong with it so i can refine it and make it stronger.
but before that happens, if you wish to discredit my arguement, to any degree, you have to attempt a counter arguement within the scope of my premises.
[one again, holding my breathe in hopes i don't pass out waiting...] -athenonrex
> > [joe dees] > I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame; > athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue > straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent > metaphorical attempts. > > > [athenonrex] > you missed the point, yet again. it was an INTENTIONALLY BAD ANALOGY. > i find it very hard to think that someone would actually be arguing > (seriously arguing, not comedically arguing) the aspects of > geographical weather when the subject of ducks' bouyancy was the topic > of debate. > Hokay; can you try an intentionally good one, for a change? > > similarly, because you reject the simple difference of definition > between "job" and "work" (would the terms "employee" and "volunteer" > illustrate it better for you?), we are somehow debating the "type" of > economy, as opposed to the lack of economy that is possible, given > certain trends. > People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc.) from other sources, such as a real paying job or inherited money. > > please note i am not predicting the future. nor do i intend to ever, > nor do i hope i ever can. rather, i am looking at certain data, > interesting trends in technological development, human evolution > (social as well as genetic), and a few other factors. however, you > failed to note this and have only succeeded to "shoot down" a straw man > by hyping my argument up to something relatively simplistically > explained and overexaggerated to the point of absurdity (hey, nothing > wrong with the absurd, though...), but my original argument has > remained intact. > > it has remained intact because you refuse to argue to discredit it (or > at least a practical aspect of it) within the alloted and (taken as) > granted premises. > > you don't prove that water is wet by lighting a piece of paper on > fire, do you? you don't prove that a light bulb works by shutting the > power for the entire house off (slightly weaker anology, but i'm > working myself up to the stronger ones).you don't prove that WWII > happened by starting a WWIII. and lastly, you don't prove that gravity > works by floating off into space. > > why? (to any of the above.) because the attempts at a counter argument > do not operate within the context of the premises of the original > arguement. > > and who the fuck knows. you may be able to discredit my arguement > whist working within the premises. though i typically have decent > "vision" and can shift my perspective rather well, it's not something > that can be perfected. i know that somewhere in my arguement (within > the premises, i mean) there may be flaws. the reason i post it here is > for people (not to collaborate and tell me "good job" ... but thanks > anyway hermit...) to pick at my arguement and find stuff wrong with it > so i can refine it and make it stronger. > > but before that happens, if you wish to discredit my arguement, to any > degree, you have to attempt a counter arguement within the scope of my > premises. > > [one again, holding my breathe in hopes i don't pass out waiting...] > -athenonrex > You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely conclusion that a nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron for you!) could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and I am demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion is unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only must logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, and that is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing the possible the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just a 'what if' fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an exercise can qualify as an investigation of a feasible future. > ---- > This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Athenorex argument seems to be drawn from the premise that men would not be selfish anymore, if he just had some "conditioning". (This is what I perceive from volunteering economy). That's obviously a false premise(Dawkins, The Selfish Gene) and any argument from here would therefore be false. Unfortunately.
[]'s
Rafael
> Date sent: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:26:26 -0600 > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History > From: "athenonrex" <athenonrex@godisdead.com> > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com > > > > > [joe dees] > > I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame; > > athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue > > straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent > > metaphorical attempts. > > > > > > [athenonrex] > > you missed the point, yet again. it was an INTENTIONALLY BAD ANALOGY. > > i find it very hard to think that someone would actually be arguing > > (seriously arguing, not comedically arguing) the aspects of > > geographical weather when the subject of ducks' bouyancy was the topic > > of debate. > > > Hokay; can you try an intentionally good one, for a change? > > > > similarly, because you reject the simple difference of definition > > between "job" and "work" (would the terms "employee" and "volunteer" > > illustrate it better for you?), we are somehow debating the "type" of > > economy, as opposed to the lack of economy that is possible, given > > certain trends. > > > People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw > survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc.) > from other sources, such as a real paying job or inherited money. > > > > please note i am not predicting the future. nor do i intend to ever, > > nor do i hope i ever can. rather, i am looking at certain data, > > interesting trends in technological development, human evolution > > (social as well as genetic), and a few other factors. however, you > > failed to note this and have only succeeded to "shoot down" a straw man > > by hyping my argument up to something relatively simplistically > > explained and overexaggerated to the point of absurdity (hey, nothing > > wrong with the absurd, though...), but my original argument has > > remained intact. > > > > it has remained intact because you refuse to argue to discredit it (or > > at least a practical aspect of it) within the alloted and (taken as) > > granted premises. > > > > you don't prove that water is wet by lighting a piece of paper on > > fire, do you? you don't prove that a light bulb works by shutting the > > power for the entire house off (slightly weaker anology, but i'm > > working myself up to the stronger ones).you don't prove that WWII > > happened by starting a WWIII. and lastly, you don't prove that gravity > > works by floating off into space. > > > > why? (to any of the above.) because the attempts at a counter argument > > do not operate within the context of the premises of the original > > arguement. > > > > and who the fuck knows. you may be able to discredit my arguement > > whist working within the premises. though i typically have decent > > "vision" and can shift my perspective rather well, it's not something > > that can be perfected. i know that somewhere in my arguement (within > > the premises, i mean) there may be flaws. the reason i post it here is > > for people (not to collaborate and tell me "good job" ... but thanks > > anyway hermit...) to pick at my arguement and find stuff wrong with it > > so i can refine it and make it stronger. > > > > but before that happens, if you wish to discredit my arguement, to any > > degree, you have to attempt a counter arguement within the scope of my > > premises. > > > > [one again, holding my breathe in hopes i don't pass out waiting...] > > -athenonrex > > > You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely conclusion that a > nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron for you!) > could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and I am > demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion is > unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only must > logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, and that > is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing the possible > the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just a 'what if' > fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an exercise can > qualify as an investigation of a feasible future. > > ---- > > This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > > Church of Virus BBS. > > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc.) from other sources, such as a real paying job or inherited money. [...] You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely conclusion that a nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron for you!) could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and I am demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion is unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only must logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, and that is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing the possible the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just a 'what if' fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an exercise can qualify as an investigation of a feasible future.
no, you are still doing it wrong. i want criticism. this is true, and i have said it multiple times. you, however, are not providing any "criticism", and in fact are using information outside of my prmises, and are going so far as to tell me what my premises are in the first place.
volunteerism was not a literal label. it was merely another attempt to get you into a state of vision so that you could argue contrary to my ideas while viewing it from my vantage point so you could see where i was, perspective wise.
the thing is that there would not be a "nonmonetary global economy" as you put it, because there would be no notion of economy, as economy deals with the value of goods and monies. as there would be no monies, and the value of goods would "tend towards zero" [hermit], there would be no economy.
you're trying to force the notion of an economy into this arguement, because you can't work it either way. of course, i indeed could have been more specific in my initial post in saying that this is theoretical, but alas, i did not. i did however make that point later, when i said that we were not speaking literally, but that we're constructing a composit projection of a potential and probable future IF certain trends were to continue. now, no one has made the affirmative assertion that these trends WILL continue...so i fail to see the exaserbation of this unnecessary conflict.
and how could my "unlikely conclusion...possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise?" conclusions are not premises, i'm sure you know. [reiteration] we are not, nor were we ever, debating the "truth" of an arguement. we were debating whether the premises "forced" the conclusion to be true, provided the premises are taken as true.
i'm sure you may have had to deal with several such arguements* when you had formal training in logic (as say college or poerhaps in an Advance Placement highschool class)...so why is it hard to deal with such an arguement now? [note that i also never included people's reaction, including resistance to this idea, as a premise for it's deveopment. there were two posts involving me and hermit about that, but it was never elaborated.]
*by such arguements i mean where the premises are not evaluated for "truth value", but are taken as true to see if the conclusion coinsides with the premises, such as:
1. the Moon is made of green cheese. 2. Rats live where there is cheese. ========================== 3. therefore, rats live on the moon.
now the two premises are not true (in the sense that the moon is not made of cheese, and that rats do not exclusively live near cheese), but if you provide them provisionary value of "true" then the conclusion does work. we have made, here, in the arguement, no attempt to assertain whether the premises are true, but the arguement is what is called "valid" but not necessarily "sound" ...
for futher examples and "rules" of what a valid arguement is i refer you to this link: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/tru-val.htm
-bestill the beating of my heart, and i shall still love thee, ~athenonrex~
RE: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #25 on: 2003-08-03 18:26:53 »
<Blunderov chips in tangentially> It is possible to imagine a future that doesn't have money - what if that big rock comes hammering in from the asteroid belt and wipes out most of what we know? Probably back to barter for those that remain.
My brother once tried to set up a network with the object of avoiding taxes - a dentist would do some work for a plunber (eg) and the plumber would fix his faucets in return and so forth. Don't the Quakers and other similar groups do this?
Still, I confess, money is not likely to disappear anytime soon - it's just too convenient.
Odd ball factoid: Zimbabwe is in the awkward position of not having enough foreign reserves to be able to afford to import the paper that they need to print their own currency.
Athenorex argument seems to be drawn from the premise that men would not be selfish anymore, if he just had some "conditioning". (This is what I perceive from volunteering economy). That's obviously a false premise(Dawkins, The Selfish Gene) and any argument from here would therefore be false. Unfortunately.
> > [quote from: Joe on 2003-07-30 at 14:07:27] > > People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw > survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, > utilities, etc.) from other sources, such as a real paying job or > inherited money. [...] You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely > conclusion that a nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron > for you!) could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and > I am demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion > is unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only > must logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, > and that is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing > the possible the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just > a 'what if' fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an > exercise can qualify as an investigation of a feasible future. > > No, you are still doing it wrong. i want criticism. this is true, and > I have said it multiple times. You, however, are not providing any > "criticism", and in fact are using information outside of my premises, > and are going so far as to tell me what my premises are in the first > place. > > Volunteerism was not a literal label. It was merely another attempt to > get you into a state of vision so that you could argue contrary to my > ideas while viewing it from my vantage point so you could see where I > was, perspective wise. > > The thing is that there would not be a "nonmonetary global economy" as > you put it, because there would be no notion of economy, as economy > deals with the value of goods and monies. as there would be no monies, > and the value of goods would "tend towards zero" [hermit], there would > be no economy. > Global actions, such as the growth and distribution of foodstuffs and clothing, the construction of shelters, and the shipment of the materials with which to construct these shelters, would still have to occur. You might argue that all this could be automated, but still the automated systems would have to be maintained. There would also necessarily have to be some way of keeping records of these actions, to prevent surpluses and scarcities. All of this constitutes an economy. And the values of such goods and services could never reach zero while there would still be enough people willing to provide them to ensure that there were enough of them to go around. > > you're trying to force the notion of an economy into this argument, > because you can't work it either way. Of course, I indeed could have > been more specific in my initial post in saying that this is > theoretical, but alas, I did not. I did however make that point later, > when I said that we were not speaking literally, but that we're > constructing a composite projection of a potential and probable future > IF certain trends were to continue. Now, no one has made the > affirmative assertion that these trends WILL continue...so I fail to > see the exacerbation of this unnecessary conflict. > I do not see the existence of such trends, much less the idea that they would continue. Prices continue to rise, as does the aggregate value of the global economy. > > And how could my "unlikely conclusion...possibly practicably exist as > an accepted premise?" Conclusions are not premises, I'm sure you > know. [reiteration] We are not, nor were we ever, debating the "truth" > of an argument. we were debating whether the premises "forced" the > conclusion to be true, provided the premises are taken as true. > > i'm sure you may have had to deal with several such arguments* when > you had formal training in logic (as say college or perhaps in an > Advanced Placement high school class)...so why is it hard to deal with > such an argument now? [note that I also never included people's > reaction, including resistance to this idea, as a premise for it's > deveopment. there were two posts involving me and hermit about that, > but it was never elaborated.] > Actually, I have taught both introduction to philosophy (including a section on logic) and comparative religion for Troy State University. > > *by such arguments i mean where the premises are not evaluated for > "truth value", but are taken as true to see if the conclusion > coinsides with the premises, such as: > > 1. the Moon is made of green cheese. > 2. Rats live where there is cheese. > ========================== > 3. therefore, rats live on the moon. > > now the two premises are not true (in the sense that the moon is not > made of cheese, and that rats do not exclusively live near cheese), > but if you provide them provisionary value of "true" then the > conclusion does work. we have made, here, in the argument, no attempt > to ascertain whether the premises are true, but the argument is what > is called "valid" but not necessarily "sound" ... > It is precisely the soundness of the argument, that is, the truth-value of the premises, which I am disputing. > > for futher examples and "rules" of what a valid argument is > i refer you to this link: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/tru-val.htm > I am well aware of both logical forms and logical fallacies. > > -bestill the beating of my heart, > and i shall still love thee, > ~athenonrex~ > > ---- > This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
