0

I have been thinking about life in general and how it can be compared to programming.

In my view the point of programming is the ability to manipulate and/or control computer systems.

We as humans are 'programmed' in a way that the governments can control us into slavery i.e the New Word Order/Illumanati.

What are your perspectives of us as humans in comparison to programming? Take the move 'The Matrix' for an example

11
Contributors
30
Replies
219
Views
3 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Reverend Jim
Featured Replies
  • 2

    Sheep + People = Sheeple Sheeple, most of us, are easily programmed particularly by the news media. Read More

  • It's so simple. All the media has to do is use the "HOLY SHIT LOOK OVER THERE!!!" approach and people panic and do what they're told. Read More

  • 4

    The reason I get on with programming and mathematics is that they are predictable. People aren't... It's that unpredictability that scares me. Can people be programmed? To an extent, there's books on the subject, pick up tricks, social programming... NLP. Most are designed to work on the masses but individuals … Read More

  • That's why we have to rely on experts and consensus. The trouble is that the public does not consider 1. weight and vested interest 1. the difference between debate and informed debate 1. the difference between facts and opinions 1. the difference between probability and possibility 1. the difference between … Read More

  • >I mean seriously, what does the government get out of turning people into thoughtless lazy sheep? Any party that can do that can get the sheep to vote with their emothions rather than their reason. The party that can do that gets to grab the power. Let's have this discussion … Read More

2

Sheep + People = Sheeple
Sheeple, most of us, are easily programmed particularly by the news media.

1

It's so simple. All the media has to do is use the "HOLY SHIT LOOK OVER THERE!!!" approach and people panic and do what they're told.

0

There exists a group of people called skeptics that arn't so easily persuaded. Unfortunatly, it's the masses that are important here.

0

Manipulation of the masses has more to do with sociology, religion or psychology. I don't see where programming fits in.
Although a computer program is able to come up with the best chess moves and wins a chess game from a world champion, that does not make it an intelligent something. I also dislike the idea of lots of people who refer to a computer as "he".

4

The reason I get on with programming and mathematics is that they are predictable. People aren't... It's that unpredictability that scares me.

Can people be programmed? To an extent, there's books on the subject, pick up tricks, social programming... NLP.

Most are designed to work on the masses but individuals will always be tempered by their own desires. That makes them unpredictable. On the flip side that's what makes us all unique.

Votes + Comments
Hari Seldon might disagree :)
0

There are two senses in which people are programmed, first is the genetic sense by evolution. This is a bit like software development done by lazy-idiots, bits and peices are randomly cobbled together, and swapped around until something works then that code is passed on and re-jigged for each new application. The result is the hard-coding of human development (when & how a baby learns to talk, walk, sit up, see clearly etc...).

The other sociological sense is more like Wikipedia or forums -> different interests are contantly trying to fill us up with their messages and make us adopt their beliefs, while we are constantly trying to purify it down to something that seems rational and coherent (although almost never succeed).

Fundamentally the New-World Order/conspiracy theory types are no different than the ideological politicials they fight against. Both cherry pick facts, misrepresent information, take comments & images out of context, and use emotional & ad-hominem arguments to try and make you believe the same thing they believe. Neither can escape from human cognitive biases (the bugs in the mess that evolution has created) which is necessary in order to make progress toward finding out the truth.

0

am soo new in programming but so old in the world of IT. I don't think you have an idea about what you just ask. no one or Illuminaty force anyone to be a programmer or manipulate anyone, but you your self should be proud and feel good been a progarmmer because it's soo fun to input and get your out put printed or executed. You are talking about politic and knowlage.
Pls i think contributing to programming is what we are here for and not what you ask of.
I love knowloge and if is what Illumities are trying to implement in our minds then there are welcome. we need machines to talk and work for us. but we have to think on how to implement it on the machines.

0

There exists a group of people called skeptics that arn't so easily persuaded. Unfortunatly, it's the masses that are important here.

most so-called skeptics I've encountered are just as much sheeple as the masses.
They're blinded by their mistrust of specific things, to the point where they mindlessly ape the exact opposite, however ridiculous.

E.g. I've met a lot of self-proclaimed skeptics who're religious believers in AGW, without ever having read a single independent paper on the topic they scream the party mantra of the IPCC that "you have to believe, because we say so it is true".
Even if it's true, that's not the skeptic's way.
And yes, there's other skeptics who mindlessly denounce AGW without ever having read anything about the topic but just assuming that because "the government tells it it must be a lie".

And the same about just about anything.

0

It is impossible to be a complete skeptic nowadays because there is just too much evidence available and too much new evidence being generated, it is literally impossible to examine/read it all. Even just for one topic (like climate change) it would take more than a human lifespan to look at all the relevant evidence/data -> in fact general acceptance of theories without seeing the evidence first hand is crucial for scientific progress. We would never discover exoplanets if every astronomer had to study the raw data that proves general relativity. In order to make progress we have to trust accumulated knowledge built by scientific consensus is correct without reading the original papers or we would die before managing to make a single step forward.

Thus the beligerent frustration with people who deny knowledge which has passed into the accepted scientific consensus (eg. evolution) on the basis of a handful of papers by less than a dozen different authors, because they are holding back the tide of scientific progress.

IMO there is no truer statement than "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Edited by Agilemind

5

That's why we have to rely on experts and consensus. The trouble is that the public does not consider

  1. weight and vested interest
  2. the difference between debate and informed debate
  3. the difference between facts and opinions
  4. the difference between probability and possibility
  5. the difference between hypothesis and theory

Whenever we are presented with a debate between the "pro" side and "con" side of an issue we are mistakenly led into the conclusion that each side has equal weight. When 97% of scientists (who have the expertise to have an opinion) say that climate change is real and has a large human component, and 3% (who are typically funded by those industries who would financially benefit by that denial) say it is not, a proper debate (as pointed out by John Oliver) would have one denier faced by thirty-two non-deniers. The tobacco industry for decades denied any link between smoking and lung cancer and provided studies done by their own scientists to prove their claim.

How many times in recent memory have you heard a public official, when talking about climate change, start with "I'm not a scientist, but..." My response would be "This is a scientific debate so sit down and shut up.". A recent debate on a scientific topic (evolution) was held between Bill Nye (who knows a lot about science) and Ken Ham (who apparently knows nothing).

Any statement that is backed up by data is a fact. Anything else is an opinion. Saying "it is a fact because it is in a book" does not make it a fact. And it doesn't matter if the book is one year old, a hundred years old or two thousand years old. If it is a fact is can be directly observed or deduced from observed data.

Just because something is possible does not mean it should be given equal weight as other options. In a court case in Chicago years ago, a woman sued the transit system for causing her breast cancer because she injured herself falling off a bus. Her lawyer asked the doctor "can you tell me that it is impossible that the injury caused her breast cancer?" The doctor was forced to answer "no". The probability might be one in a billion but the jury hear "yes, it's possible" and found in her favour.

When a scientist has an idea about how something works, he/she makes a format statement of that idea. This is called an hypothesis. A more format definition is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.. Once the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and show to be reliable it is elevated to the status of theory. A formal definition is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Even though an hypothesis has been elevated to a theory is is still subject to revision or dismissal upon further evidence. The often repeated statement "it's still only a theory" shows how much this distinction is misunderstood.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

A skeptic wouldn't sway to any "opposing" side. That's not being skeptical.

If I read an artical for example I wouldn't beleive the exact opposite for no reason. However, I would question the content that the artical has, and I would look for validation from a "closer" source. That's not to say that I assume that an artical is wrong. If I read something about a breakthrough in science, I would try to find the abstract of the paper, and read through the results/conclusions/discussion. As soon as I heard that neutrino's supposedly traven faster then light, I read the paper, and they were much more reasonably worded then what the artical seemed to have implied. Moreover, the artical put words in the scientists mouthes, much like you would expect in politics. However, I do read some really insightfull articals that go ahead and advertise their source and are right on the mark, even if I question them at first.

This extends to any information that a skeptic might hear. For example, I've heard that staring at a computer screen is bad for your eyes. So I would look around for peer reviewed papers, or trusted sources of information. The answer to that questions seems to be pretty consistant.

Another example would be weather or not it's worth putting capitals in your password (the idea is that two lowercase letters provide more entropy for the same number of keystrokes). I wasn't able to find a reliable source for that, but I timed myself, and I rekon that it's dependant on the position of my fingers and wether or not that shift key can be "optimized" out by using another finger. I also rekon it depends on the typing style on the individual typing it, but it's not worth my time to verify it, so it's sorted into the "unsure" pile in my head.

If no reliable source is findable, well then I probably wouldn't make decisions based on the information itself (within reason of course. if someone says don't go over there the ground is unstable at a construction site, obviously I don't have a reason to not beleive it, and a reason not to go over there). If a good paper is found, then it still doesn't mean that the hypothesys is nessacarily correct. If a good paper is found, and it has been peer reviewed, and it is fairly well recieved, then I'll probably put my money on it being right (though I admit it still may not be).

The only thing that I know is correct is Mathematics and logic. That isn't to say that I'm unreasonable though. If there is reasonable evidence to beleive something, then why not make decisions based on it if it means "probable progress"? Being a sceptic really means to be reasonable with what you filter into your head as "facts".

If a leader tells me a so called fact, I would question it to the same extent as I would a paper. In particular, I would look to see the opinion of experts in the field, and I would look to see if it can be verified. Unless it's a fact that doesn't really need to be questioned like if a leader claims to have eaten roast beef the night before, since it would obviously be silly to question something so negligable, and I can just assume it's true with little consiquennce (unless it's relavent to something else).

Votes + Comments
Bayesian inference FTW!
1

As soon as I heard that neutrino's supposedly traven faster then light, I read the paper, and they were much more reasonably worded then what the artical seemed to have implied.

As the skeptical scientists I am, I didn't bother reading the neutrino paper I gave it very little credibility and was convinced it was likely to be an equipment/experimental error (which I wouldn't be able to find out from their paper since I don't know how quantum physics equipment works). Relativity and the speed of light speed limit is very well established scientific theory so it would require extraordinary evidence to overturn it, it is far more likely that there is some source of experimental error. But I followed the story waiting to see if an independent lab managed to replicate it (only then would I consider it possibly correct).

0

I don't see programming as a way of manipulating computer system in order to gain controll over it. I think programming is our ability to create complex instructions to test computer's maximum potential.

Only fools believe everything they hear.

0

I absolutelly agree with Veedeoo. that programming is a man ability to create complex instructions. and i think also for us to make use of machines in teams of productivity and growth in our social environment

0

Programming with humans though sounds illogical is true these days. Proably that can be said as influential when you mean the government!!

0

when you mean the government!!

I really don't get this "government programming" thing. Kids spend on average 20 hours per week in school (across the whole year) but 30 hours per week watching TV, if you include the internet & mobile phones it jumps to roughly 50 hours per week.

So even if public schools were trying to program kids they have much less opportunity than media companies and advertisers (who clearly are trying to program your kid to watch their shows & buy their crap).

Even 'news' channels generally have more contributors trying to sell their new book/show/website/foundation or who are paid by one industry or another to lobby on their behalf than government employees/spokesmen. So if the gov't is trying to program its people they are doing a really shit job at it.

Finally, hypothetically if the government was able to program the populace what exactly who they want to program them to do? IMO the biggest thing most citizens do to benefit their government is pay their taxes so the #1 priority for gov't programming should be to convince everyone that they really want to pay taxes. Which evidently isn't the case so again either they aren't trying to program people or they are completely ineffectual at it.

I mean seriously, what does the government get out of turning people into thoughtless lazy sheep? Companies get a large consumer base eager to buy whatever new shiny thing they present to them; but the government, why should they care?

Edited by Agilemind

1

I mean seriously, what does the government get out of turning people into thoughtless lazy sheep?

Any party that can do that can get the sheep to vote with their emothions rather than their reason. The party that can do that gets to grab the power. Let's have this discussion again after the midterm elections.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

Any party that can do that can get the sheep to vote with their emothions rather than their reason.

Why does a political party want that? Do you think political parties knowingly support irrational, factually incorrect positions/policies? I would tend to believe that political parties do actually believe their position is rational and correct -> the differences are due to differences in values and assumptions about the world which both sides earnestly believe. Thus if it came down to a rational debate their side would win, and that they appeal to emotion because they have learned that that is what works from professional ad-men.

In addition, a huge number of politicians trained a lawyers, that training is all about arguing using reason and thinking through legal implications using logic. Many were part of debating team or debating societies which again argue mainly using logic and reason. Having read several autobiographies of prominent Canadian politicians they often complain about having to use emotive rhetoric rather than rational debate to sway the voters. Few politicians are really so callous as to privately support a position they believe is factually wrong or irrational, and I refuse to believe politician enjoy or desire having to lie about what their personal position is on a subject or pretending to be someone they are not just to appeal to voters' emotions.

Admittedly, American politics might be so far gone that people who like debating using reason & facts stay out of the political arena but in most countries that is not yet the case. Obama at least seems to really believe most of his policies are rational. I think John McCain does to (excluding his Presidential run). I'm not so sure about Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman (much of the Tea Party really); I'm not sure they even know what 'rational' means...

Edited by Agilemind

1

Why does a political party want that?

The primary goal of a party, once it acquires power, it to retain power.

do you think political parties knowingly support irrational, factually incorrect positions/policies?

Yes, I do. Republicans believe (or claim to believe) that

  1. more guns = safer
  2. pay-or-die medical care is better for all
  3. climate change is not real
  4. tax cuts for the rich = prosperity for all
  5. rape doesn't result result in pregnancy because the female body can "shut that down".

Marco Rubio says there are no poor people, just people who are not yet rich. Republicans have made an art of convincing people to vote against their best interests (just look at the mess they have made of Kansas). People who do not have a pot to piss in are voting for the party that will, as their first order of business, cut the benefits that these people rely on to survive. They've already cut billions from SNAP while increasing subsidies to agri-business. Mitt Romney in his famous comment referred to these people as takers.

In addition, a huge number of politicians trained a lawyers, that training is all about arguing using reason and thinking through legal implications using logic.

The law isn't about truth or justice. The law is about winning.

I refuse to believe politician enjoy or desire having to lie about what their personal position is on a subject or pretending to be someone they are not just to appeal to voters' emotions.

You mean like George Bush saying at a press conference that he reads the bible every day but couldn't recall what he had read that morning? You mean like when he said Iraq had WMDs? You mean like Brian Mulroney saying (before power) that Free Trade would be the death of Canada and he would have none of it? You mean like Peter McKay promising not to merge the Conservative and Reform parties, then moving to do just that as soon as he won the leadership? You mean like when Obama promises to close Guantanamo or stop spying on Americans? Grow up. Politicians lie when it suits their purposes.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Let's say a party in power wanted to get X done. In an idial world, X would only get done if their is a benifit for the country. The idea behind being democratic is that we let the people stay in power of the government. So if the government chooses a bad X's, he looses control and a new party is elected.

The issue is deciding which X's actually benifit the country. The second issue is which X's do people think help the country. The issue is that once people start listening to the news ignorantly (instead of experts on the chosen feild of X), they agree to put effort into something that they think will help. Mix a little greed into the chain somewhere, and you have a problem.

One example that comes to mind is the "Stranger Danger" episode of "Penn & Teller: Bullshit".

0

do you think political parties knowingly support irrational, factually incorrect positions/policies?

Key word here is knowlingly. I'm perfectly happy to believe that Republicans earnestly believe their horse-shit policies will do what they say they will do. Being a politician doesn't make you a genius immune to self-delusion, quite the opposite being able to delude yourself into believing you or your party actually knows how to fix things as complicated as violent crime, inequality, tax-evasion, etc... is mandatory to be a successful politician. But that doesn't mean most Republican politicians would happily watch kids be gunned down just so they can win their seat.

Republicans have made an art of convincing people to vote against their best interests

And those people do that because they honestly believe the Republican policies would benefit them, I'm saying I think many Republican politicians honestly believe it as well.

The law isn't about truth or justice. The law is about winning.

Law is about interpretting rules, and convincing other people your interpretting them correctly, that requires those interprettations to be logically coherent. Much of it involves then using those interpretations to create situations where you win (eg. finding and exploiting loopholes, using patents & copyrights to prevent competition etc..).

I refuse to believe politician enjoy or desire having to lie about what their personal position is on a subject or pretending to be someone they are not just to appeal to voters' emotions.

Again you missed the point. I didn't say politicians don't lie, of course they do. I said they don't enjoy lying, such that if they could get what they want without lying then they would, aka they only lie because it works better than telling the truth.

For example, a Republican might believe the lowest estimates for the damage/risk of climate change and thus conclude that the economic costs of rapidly changing to a carbon-free economy will be greater than the economic costs of adapting to climate change. I think we can agree that is a pretty reasonable belief since estimates of both options are very variable, it is at least plausible that that statement might be true.

But the media and the general public doesn't really care about that argument. It is complicated and requires thinking about different estimate of the cost of climate change and different costs of switching to a carbon-free economy and where those estimates come from etc. etc. etc. It also doesn't appeal to people's emotions so they are just going to tune it out.

If instead the Republican lies and says we shouldn't move to a zero carbon economy because climate change is a conspiracy made up by scientists who are lying, greedy, weirdos. It is much simpler for people to grasp: scientists = untrustworthy therefore don't do anything about climate change. It also appeals to their emotions. So they latch onto it.

In the end the politician gets people to support the same policy: not changing to 0-carbon economy. But lying about it works a lot better than being truthful about the rational reasons they support the policy.

I'm simply arguing that in a hypothetical world where both kinds of argument were equally effective, most politicians would prefer the honest rational approach. Or to put it another way, politicians lie out of convienence and necessity rather than maliciously.

0

Since this hypothetical word doesn't exist, and likely never will then I suppose we'll never know. Watch the lie machine that is Fox News and tell me that these people are not lying maliciously.

0

I am still amazed how easy it was to get this country into war with Iraq.
Just some clever missinformation using the lockstep media and twisted CIA details fed to Congress. Missinformation and lies seem to do the trick every time.

In most of the cases people hear what they want to hear.

0

It's not difficult to understand. Fear sells, and the government depends on that fear to motivate people to accept just about anything. We take off our shoes at the airport because of one failed shoe-bomb incident (but accept inaction in the face of 30,000 gun deaths per year). We get subjected to invasive body scans and pat-downs. We accept the loss of freedoms from the PATRIOT act and NSA privacy violations all because the government says "HOLY CRAP! LOOK OVER THERE!". ISIS and ebola are not a threat to anyone in North America but you'd think, if you listen to the news, that we are all at grave peril.

1

I am still amazed how easy it was to get this country into war with Iraq.

And yet I'm now more confused about why anyone went. Initially I thought it was all about getting the oil but then it turned out that it was China got most of the oil resources. So what was the purpose of anyone in the USA gov't (CIA or Congress) lying about the WMDs to start the war?

If it was just a few people over-interpretting weak intelligence, why was it only the Little Guy from Shawinagan to call them on it?

In most of the cases people hear what they want to hear.

They also see what they want to see or what they are primed to see or what they think they should see, it is a demonstrable scientific fact.

0

In the movie, Reds, Jack Reid was asked to speak on the reason the US got involved in World War 1. He stood up, said, "Profits", then sat again.

Haliburton made billions on the Iraq war and is still raking it in. Arms manufacturers make billions more. it's not just about the oil.

0

I keep reading that the Europeans will drastically increase their purchases of US coal for power generation, to replace Russian natural gas.

I guess nobody worries about increasing the carbon dioxide content of the air that we all share. Have we all been brainwashed now to think that burning coal is wonderful? Maybe the financial folks don't worry about that, as long as the stock prices of the big coal companies go up again.

I do remember all those fancy clean coal ads on TV a few years ago. As idiotic as they were, they must have worked!

Edited by vegaseat

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.