9th August 2016, 6:05 AM
I honestly can't understand Trump supporters. I'm not proud of this at all. I usually am able to understand the "other side" of things. I may not agree with them, may see their ideas as harmful, but I can at least see why they believe what they believe and why they support who they support. I can get into the head space of people who support their own oppressive dictatorship, but I can't get into the head of a Trump supporter. I totally understand the mind of a Bush supporter, or supporters of the other popular republican candidates this time around, but Trump supporters escape me.
This is likely a result of limited world experience. I know Bush supporters and have lived with Bush supporters. They're like me, middle class Americans with middle class American concerns. Trump supporters though, they tend to come from harsher backgrounds and most notably from a background that completely lacks any political knowledge. Trump speaks "like they do", apparently.
Here's the thing that confuses me the most. How can anyone look at Trump on stage, claiming that he's "the best" at everything from the military to "knowing the system", and not immediately see it as empty boasting? He sounds like a Saturday Night Live character from the 80's. Specifically this one: , only if the character honestly believed everything they said while they were making it up. I mean, everything Trump says is instantly unbelievable the moment he says it as a clear product of a narcissistic mind. HOW does anyone believe otherwise?
Then I remember one thing. E-mail scams still find marks every day. Those little ads at the bottom of web pages advertising "one weird trick" with a picture of someone lifting up a single letter key off a keyboard get people to click on them and presumably buy something. Credit scamming phone calls get people to fall for them every day. There's a sizable group of people out there who, for whatever reason, never learned the signs that something was too good to be true. Yes, if you or me had someone come up to our door giving us a huge story about how they lost their parents to sharks and just need to sell a few flower pots to get through mime college, we'd know exactly what situation we're in, but these poor unfortunate souls never got the education to see through a scam when they saw it. I personally don't see how that could be, until I realize that the poorer someone is, the more likely it is that they probably never even had a working television growing up, much less internet access outside the occasional trip to the library. I'm living a sheltered life, because my day to day experience doesn't put me in contact with people that disadvantaged, but they've been there all along, and their ignorance is exactly what lets Trump get away with such outrageous claims. Of course, even saying this comes off as a blatant insult, like I'm better than they are, but I know for a fact that with a few minor changes in my history, I'd have grown up the same way. I still can't really get into their head space, but I can at least start to understand why someone might not have the mental tools needed to see through it.
The key to democracy is a well educated public. Trump's popularity is the ultimate proof we've failed. Many people have suggested a "common sense" class in school, and while that exact phrasing leaves a lot to be desired, I'm starting to think something like that with a bit more specific a definition on what common sense is wouldn't be a bad idea. Namely, a class on how to spot frauds and hucksters, how to weed out spam e-mails, and how to think critically about claims one sees or hears. I mean, there are "logic classes", but they're focused on general fallacies and critical thinking methods that are completely divorced from real world example. Tying it into the real world with actual situations the kids might run into would cement that knowledge and make it "real" for the kids. Also, those logic classes aren't required learning in school.
On the topic of GMOs, I'm certainly in favor of making DNA nonpatentable. That creates massive ethical issues the moment someone is born with a patented gene, and even more when that person decides to have a kid. Frankly, I don't believe genes will be patentable for long though. Also, it removes the pressure to make something unique just for the sake of having it in a patent folder. Genetic engineering needs a lot of pressure to make sure it's getting done for only the best intentions. Greed can't be a controlling factor.
Monsanto is a rather unscrupulous organization ABF, and certainly it's worthwhile to fear them being in control. However, genetically modifying things isn't owned by Monsanto. Lots of companies and organizations are doing it.
Weltall, I am not nearly as confident as you are that cancer will be eliminated in 20 years. For one thing, "cancer" isn't one disease but a vast family of diseases. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the human body (and other animal bodies) are ridiculously complicated. The sheer scope of the interdependence of the billions and billions of chain reactions all occurring simultaneously is so high that it is no wonder those world health reports can say, at best "this thing seems to show corrolation with this". There's not even an attempt at establishing a mechanism in that report, because mechaninisms when it comes to cellular activity are just THAT complicated. I've said it before, but while someone can describe a STAR with incredible precision using just some math, cellular chemical reactions are too complicated to be broken down into a few lines of math (the act of breaking the math down instantly makes it inaccurate due to how much depends on even the smallest bit). It's the same with weather, in fact. This quality is what chaos theory is all about. Our bodies, and our brains, are fundamentally "chaotic", not in the sense that it's completely disorganized and disordered, but in the mathematical sense of being totally indescribable without knowing the exact positions of every last bit of the system. Cancer operates on THAT level of the body. In practical terms, just about every cancer is a unique and special cancer, deserving a participation ribbon. While science has made great strides in treatments that can't be ignored, essentially, the only cure for all cancer is getting rid of the thing responsible, biology. Most of our bodies could probably be replaced with far simpler technology, but our brains, the only part that really matters, would be the single sticking point. I can see us as a species going the route of brains in robot bodies, but that last step of "digitizing" a mind is just as hard as the incredible challenge of cancer. Our brains, being chaotic systems, can't be reduced to a simple mathematical model either. That's not to say that a simulation couldn't do it. It's me saying the actual digitization itself would need to be able to figure out what information it needed to copy and what could be safely ignored. There is, as of now, no way to actually figure that out. Near as can be told, every last bit of chemical interaction is just as fundamentally important as the next, so "all of it" would need to be copied and simulated, and the simulation would need to be fine grained enough to simulate brain interaction at the level of individual molecules, rather than just the neural pathways, since again we don't know what we can leave out of the simulation. This is potentially doable, but how do you "copy" a brain state to that degree, exactly? Every last method we can conceive of would destroy the brain in the process, and further would destroy the brain before the data could actually be copied. Further, once you get down to the level of individual molecules, quantum mechanics start to kick in, and mere Brownian motion becomes a challenge. We don't have the technology to copy a brain, and probably never WILL have a way to do so non-destructively. Quantum effects at the level of precision we'd need even prevent a full description of the brain as a matter of physical law. (THANKS uncertainly principle! You've ruined it for the rest of us!) The "hard problem" of philosophy has become the "hard problem" of neuroscience. We're shackled to these blasted meat bags until the day we die, and even with a robot body replacing most of it, that sack of protein in our robo-head still has a finite lifespan.
Now, I'm a bit more hopeful than the biology professors who've painstakingly explained these difficulties to me, in that I do believe there MAY yet be a way to overcome these limitations, but based on what I've been taught, I don't believe that's 20 years away, but more like 200. I've come to terms with the dawning realization that the BEST I can hope for is life lengthening treatments that MIGHT let me live to see 200, and much more likely, that yes, I'm going to suffer the same doom as everyone that came before me. I can't be too angry. If we're lucky, our generation might be the last to die, but die we almost certainly will.
ABF, I want to add one more thing. That "might" is not worth worrying about. If it was, scientists would say as much. Fearing that all the telecos are funding the reports and controlling them is nothing but paranoia of the same kind that brings us doubt about vaccines and global warming (think of all those "follow the money" people). It's not the funding you should look at, but the methodology. Yes, it IS okay to trust science funded by a major company. Funding itself doesn't corrupt science, so long as everything's fully published and peer reviewed. Further, there's reproducibility. There really doesn't appear to be anything to worry about when it comes to cell phones, and you can go on living your life under that expectation.
This is likely a result of limited world experience. I know Bush supporters and have lived with Bush supporters. They're like me, middle class Americans with middle class American concerns. Trump supporters though, they tend to come from harsher backgrounds and most notably from a background that completely lacks any political knowledge. Trump speaks "like they do", apparently.
Here's the thing that confuses me the most. How can anyone look at Trump on stage, claiming that he's "the best" at everything from the military to "knowing the system", and not immediately see it as empty boasting? He sounds like a Saturday Night Live character from the 80's. Specifically this one: , only if the character honestly believed everything they said while they were making it up. I mean, everything Trump says is instantly unbelievable the moment he says it as a clear product of a narcissistic mind. HOW does anyone believe otherwise?
Then I remember one thing. E-mail scams still find marks every day. Those little ads at the bottom of web pages advertising "one weird trick" with a picture of someone lifting up a single letter key off a keyboard get people to click on them and presumably buy something. Credit scamming phone calls get people to fall for them every day. There's a sizable group of people out there who, for whatever reason, never learned the signs that something was too good to be true. Yes, if you or me had someone come up to our door giving us a huge story about how they lost their parents to sharks and just need to sell a few flower pots to get through mime college, we'd know exactly what situation we're in, but these poor unfortunate souls never got the education to see through a scam when they saw it. I personally don't see how that could be, until I realize that the poorer someone is, the more likely it is that they probably never even had a working television growing up, much less internet access outside the occasional trip to the library. I'm living a sheltered life, because my day to day experience doesn't put me in contact with people that disadvantaged, but they've been there all along, and their ignorance is exactly what lets Trump get away with such outrageous claims. Of course, even saying this comes off as a blatant insult, like I'm better than they are, but I know for a fact that with a few minor changes in my history, I'd have grown up the same way. I still can't really get into their head space, but I can at least start to understand why someone might not have the mental tools needed to see through it.
The key to democracy is a well educated public. Trump's popularity is the ultimate proof we've failed. Many people have suggested a "common sense" class in school, and while that exact phrasing leaves a lot to be desired, I'm starting to think something like that with a bit more specific a definition on what common sense is wouldn't be a bad idea. Namely, a class on how to spot frauds and hucksters, how to weed out spam e-mails, and how to think critically about claims one sees or hears. I mean, there are "logic classes", but they're focused on general fallacies and critical thinking methods that are completely divorced from real world example. Tying it into the real world with actual situations the kids might run into would cement that knowledge and make it "real" for the kids. Also, those logic classes aren't required learning in school.
On the topic of GMOs, I'm certainly in favor of making DNA nonpatentable. That creates massive ethical issues the moment someone is born with a patented gene, and even more when that person decides to have a kid. Frankly, I don't believe genes will be patentable for long though. Also, it removes the pressure to make something unique just for the sake of having it in a patent folder. Genetic engineering needs a lot of pressure to make sure it's getting done for only the best intentions. Greed can't be a controlling factor.
Monsanto is a rather unscrupulous organization ABF, and certainly it's worthwhile to fear them being in control. However, genetically modifying things isn't owned by Monsanto. Lots of companies and organizations are doing it.
Weltall, I am not nearly as confident as you are that cancer will be eliminated in 20 years. For one thing, "cancer" isn't one disease but a vast family of diseases. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the human body (and other animal bodies) are ridiculously complicated. The sheer scope of the interdependence of the billions and billions of chain reactions all occurring simultaneously is so high that it is no wonder those world health reports can say, at best "this thing seems to show corrolation with this". There's not even an attempt at establishing a mechanism in that report, because mechaninisms when it comes to cellular activity are just THAT complicated. I've said it before, but while someone can describe a STAR with incredible precision using just some math, cellular chemical reactions are too complicated to be broken down into a few lines of math (the act of breaking the math down instantly makes it inaccurate due to how much depends on even the smallest bit). It's the same with weather, in fact. This quality is what chaos theory is all about. Our bodies, and our brains, are fundamentally "chaotic", not in the sense that it's completely disorganized and disordered, but in the mathematical sense of being totally indescribable without knowing the exact positions of every last bit of the system. Cancer operates on THAT level of the body. In practical terms, just about every cancer is a unique and special cancer, deserving a participation ribbon. While science has made great strides in treatments that can't be ignored, essentially, the only cure for all cancer is getting rid of the thing responsible, biology. Most of our bodies could probably be replaced with far simpler technology, but our brains, the only part that really matters, would be the single sticking point. I can see us as a species going the route of brains in robot bodies, but that last step of "digitizing" a mind is just as hard as the incredible challenge of cancer. Our brains, being chaotic systems, can't be reduced to a simple mathematical model either. That's not to say that a simulation couldn't do it. It's me saying the actual digitization itself would need to be able to figure out what information it needed to copy and what could be safely ignored. There is, as of now, no way to actually figure that out. Near as can be told, every last bit of chemical interaction is just as fundamentally important as the next, so "all of it" would need to be copied and simulated, and the simulation would need to be fine grained enough to simulate brain interaction at the level of individual molecules, rather than just the neural pathways, since again we don't know what we can leave out of the simulation. This is potentially doable, but how do you "copy" a brain state to that degree, exactly? Every last method we can conceive of would destroy the brain in the process, and further would destroy the brain before the data could actually be copied. Further, once you get down to the level of individual molecules, quantum mechanics start to kick in, and mere Brownian motion becomes a challenge. We don't have the technology to copy a brain, and probably never WILL have a way to do so non-destructively. Quantum effects at the level of precision we'd need even prevent a full description of the brain as a matter of physical law. (THANKS uncertainly principle! You've ruined it for the rest of us!) The "hard problem" of philosophy has become the "hard problem" of neuroscience. We're shackled to these blasted meat bags until the day we die, and even with a robot body replacing most of it, that sack of protein in our robo-head still has a finite lifespan.
Now, I'm a bit more hopeful than the biology professors who've painstakingly explained these difficulties to me, in that I do believe there MAY yet be a way to overcome these limitations, but based on what I've been taught, I don't believe that's 20 years away, but more like 200. I've come to terms with the dawning realization that the BEST I can hope for is life lengthening treatments that MIGHT let me live to see 200, and much more likely, that yes, I'm going to suffer the same doom as everyone that came before me. I can't be too angry. If we're lucky, our generation might be the last to die, but die we almost certainly will.
ABF, I want to add one more thing. That "might" is not worth worrying about. If it was, scientists would say as much. Fearing that all the telecos are funding the reports and controlling them is nothing but paranoia of the same kind that brings us doubt about vaccines and global warming (think of all those "follow the money" people). It's not the funding you should look at, but the methodology. Yes, it IS okay to trust science funded by a major company. Funding itself doesn't corrupt science, so long as everything's fully published and peer reviewed. Further, there's reproducibility. There really doesn't appear to be anything to worry about when it comes to cell phones, and you can go on living your life under that expectation.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)