Skeptic Project

>> "Never" is a strong word. The initial stage of the movement's is actionless.

This is something I've brought up a lot though. You have to sell the idea to men and women on the street. Why should a single mother who has to worry about her minimum wage job and child care give a damn about TZM or TVP? Why should a homeless man going hungry tonight care? They can't live their lives by the idea that one day some vague promise of what can change will happen, especially when there's absolutely no plan other than spreading videos on how to make it happen.

No community organizing, no trade union organizing, no setting up free breakfast before school program (Black Panthers did this and it made them gain a lot of support). Showing you give a rats ass by going out there and getting involved is the best way to show normies (normal people) that you're serious, otherwise they won't care, ever.

One of the first questions you'll get (and already have gotten from what I've seen) from people joining is "what's next?" People won't be satisfied with spreading the word, it's already disenchanted a lot of people from TZM at this point, which is why activity has been steadily declining all year long. Yeah, you guys get new and enthusiastic people all the time, but what's the turn over until they never come back or start complaining? I bet it's pretty high.

As noted on the Addendum article here, I've been a supporter of TVP for many years, but I'm not convinced at all that you guys have the slightest clue what you're doing. I personally have a lot of experience from the 1980s until now on what makes revolutionary groups successful, and TZM has done a great job at doing exactly the opposite. I laid this out in the parent article:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/the-zeitgeist-movement/</p>

I grew up in an Anarchist house-hold (Anarcho-syndicalist, specifically), and in fact my parents are still Anarchists. I've seen many movements, Anarchist and not, come and go, and many of the problems rest on the fact they're completely useless.

Check out this article [Your politics are boring as fuck]:

http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php</p>

I know TZM isn't a political party, but the same ideas apply, you should read and consider the points made in that article.

The 1970s called, they want their blank slate pseudo-science back. Abundant resources are not a panacea for something as complex as human behavior.

Your ideas are not new. That's why people aren't interested.

You don't produce scientific results by ignoring science. This is not a serious movement. Come back when Fresco can design buildings with toilets and doors.

Also, cocks.

"A is true, but B is not necessarily true. Nothing that hasn't been tested before HAS even been applied globally. To say it won't EVER is pure speculation, and certainly not a true. The logic of the above argument is flawed."

My argument is empirical, that doesn't make it flawed. Try to see the logic behind it - why should some political leader, or group of politically interested citizens, believe in a RBE when it has never been tested?

Everything I have ever pitched to somebody in a position of power was either tested or included risk reversal, i.e., if it didn't work, we could quickly and with no cost get back to the old system.

TVP has none of both. They can't prove that a society w/o any value exchange is possible with the technology and the people we have, and if the transition fails, we might end up in a dictatorship like communism.
Lenin also wanted to have a society without money and nations and ended up with a never-ending "transition" and mass murder.

"My argument is empirical, that doesn't make it flawed." -CyborgJesus.

Yes it does. You have an argument. You proposed a logical proof of its logic. If the logic isn't absolutely true, then the proof is flawed. It means your argument is just your opinion, which is fine. It also means your argument is not logically true.

"Lenin also wanted to have a society without money and nations and ended up with a never-ending "transition" and mass murder." -CyborgJesus.

Comparing Lenin with TVP is not logical. It was a different time, when humanity had different notions about right-and-wrong, and we didn't have the capability of mass communication on a global system like we have today. We didn't have the technology we have today or the capability of mass production. More importantly, humanity didn't understand the effects that mass production would have on our environment. Finally, people in power, like Lenin, were making the decisions. In the world of TVP, decisions are only made logically based on the scientific method. Bringing up Lenin is a red herring distraction.

"RBE doesn't even that the credibility that being an untested theory might bring.
1) It isn't a theory. Its an ideology.
2) It relies on tabula rasa, which is crap." -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

Don't theories have to start from ideologies? First we need ideas, then we form theories, then we test the theories, then we learn from the results to make future decisions. It's the scientific method and it's used every day around the world.

Aren't there some believers in tabula rasa, or people who at least aren't absolutely convinced the idea of "nature over nurture" might have some credibility? I don't think everyone believes its crap. It only takes one sane person that doesn't believe it's crap. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

"Don't theories have to start from ideologies?" -bkyle.

"Lol, no?" -Sil.

I don't understand. Why? How? Can you give some examples?

"Don't theories have to start from ideologies?"

FAIL

"My argument is empirical, that doesn't make it flawed." -CyborgJesus.

Yes it does. You have an argument. You proposed a logical proof of its logic. If the logic isn't absolutely true, then the proof is flawed. It means your argument is just your opinion, which is fine. It also means your argument is not logically true.

Actually his argument is valid but you disagree with a premise, meaning you think its unsound. He defended his premise, so now you have to accept or reject his defense, otherwise his entire argument holds.

No, theories don't start from ideologies. In fact, an ideology is the worst place to begin if you're trying to formulate and test a theory, because ideologies constrain what you can do and often what you're willing to see (or unwilling to see).

Regarding the VP vs. Bolshevism idea:

It was a different time, when humanity had different notions about right-and-wrong, and we didn't have the capability of mass communication on a global system like we have today.

This is a flawed argument. Technology and communication is a relative thing. It's not, "did society have the same technology in 1917 as it does today," which is a ridiculous question because technological development is never static. The question is, was technology's role in society comparable to the way it is today? You can argue yes--especially in 1917, where telephones, wireless radio, weapons of mass destruction etc. were deeply affecting the world of that time, arguably more so than technology is affecting us now.

We didn't have the technology we have today or the capability of mass production.

What, there were no factories in 1917? No mass production? I suppose the words "Model T Ford" mean nothing to you. This is a silly argument, as well as factually incorrect.

More importantly, humanity didn't understand the effects that mass production would have on our environment.

Again, unsupportable. What effect does mass production have on the environment? If you mean, what effect does industrialization in general have on the environment, you should read some diaries of soldiers in World War I and you will see how keenly they did understand what mechanized warfare can do to the environment--as well as to the human psyche. Again a lesson that you can argue was better understood in 1917 than it is today.

Finally, people in power, like Lenin, were making the decisions. In the world of TVP, decisions are only made logically based on the scientific method.

Why do you trust a computer to make logical decisions based on the scientific method? Scientific method is a function of higher reasoning, of which computers are absolutely incapable. A computer can't think, it can only mimic.

This is what I never understood about the Venus Project people--they imbue machines with some sort of magical consciousness that is totally different than the way computers really operate. Where do these magical machines come from? They just drop out of the sky and solve all our problems, yes? That seems to be what the Venusians (meaning VP adherents) believe, but it's a fantasy.

See my various (MODERN) sources regarding tabula rasa:

The Moral Life of Babies - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?scp=1&sq=moral%20life%20of%20babies&st=cse

The 50-0-50 rule: Why parenting has virtually no effect on children - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200809/the-50-0-50-rule-why-parenting-has-virtually-no-effect-chi</p>

In Studies of Virtual Twins, Nature Wins Again - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/garden/04twins.html?_r=3&oref=slogin

Jacque got his blank slate theory from Technocracy in the 30s, when the theory was new and untested (that's EIGHTY years ago). Since then, the field of psychology has moved on from it. The current consensus is about a 50-50 split between nature and nurture.

"Yes it does. You have an argument. You proposed a logical proof of its logic. If the logic isn't absolutely true, then the proof is flawed. It means your argument is just your opinion, which is fine. It also means your argument is not logically true."

Nope, I proposed empirical proof of my argument.

That doesn't mean that my argument is true, but it might mean that the probability of me being right is >0.5.

Try this:

I went out on a date without pants about 100 times. They didn't go that well.

An empirical statement to suggest that it might be sensible to put on pants when meeting girls.

If you manage to be successful w/o wearing pants, that still doesn't invalidate my argument.

Why do you trust a computer to make logical decisions based on the scientific method? Scientific method is a function of higher reasoning, of which computers are absolutely incapable. A computer can't think, it can only mimic.

Not to muddy the waters, but being an artificial intelligence engineer I couldn't resist pointing out that scientific inquiry is actually starting to be automated: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/robotscientist/

"bkyle, did you have any responses to my post above? Will you read the article "Your politics are boring as fuck"?" -Captain Ferseus.

I did read it. It did provoke some thoughts. I haven't read the article, but I promise I will. I'll respond later. I've got to get back to work. Cheers.

"I haven't read the article, but I promise I will."

Suuuuuure ya will.

> Stop listening to a guy who can't even operate a personal computer.

Whilst I'm somewhat a fan of Fresco, this did amuse me.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine whose quite brilliant, and been online for just years, and yet says to me that he has no clue how to use a forum..

I really do think Fresco could benefit from getting more up and personal himself using a computer, especially chatting to the rest of us!

> A computer can't think, it can only mimic

That used to be the case many decades ago, but we have had AI around for a while that can think, not that I'm saying its going to be able to run the planet any time soon..

FX [ wonders where all the java AI examples of learning to walk have vanished to.. ]

"Suuuuuure ya will." -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

What are you implying? Say what you're trying to say. Don't dance around with innuendos.

"bkyle, did you have any responses to my post above? Will you read the article "Your politics are boring as fuck"?" -Captain Ferseus.

Very nice article, Captain Ferseus. I personally wouldn't use such obscenities in such a paper, but each to their own. Aside from that, the point is made very clear. Issues (political or otherwise) need to be relevant to people's every day life and problems that affect them personally. I get that, and it is a very important point. Pitches (whether they are about products or ideas) are just distractions if people don't relate to it. Further, trying to get people to care about issues that seem depressing just put more weight on their already heavy shoulders. That extra weight is bound to slide off and be forgotten because people have more pressing issues to deal with.

However, some of us have to do something. I feel that I can't let myself become apathetic to the problems of the world. I cannot let myself feel powerless. I refuse to stand aside and watch the world proceed down a path that I believe will only get worse.

I can't expect everyone to be like me, but luckily, not everyone has to. Only a relatively small group of people need to be active in spreading the idea of change. I thick of it as planting seeds. Most people are not going to immediately do anything different, but after being exposed to new ideas, they will remember when enough people (critical mass) start talking about it.

This article makes it seem like its not worth trying to suggest such idea. If I was a business owner or a shareholder of a product that people would have trouble relating to and would not make their lives easier today, then I wouldn't invest in it. Luckily, ideas like this don't cost money for us to discuss and explore through debate. Ideas about how to improve the world are so large in scope, I don't think they can ever be an "easy sell". Simple ideas of relatively small changes are most likely just patches to a broken system that will stay broken. We've been trying to patch the system for generations and things are not much better.

We need major change. Once in awhile, one needs to step back and re-examine systems to make sure they're still working effectively as originally planned, for today and for the future. If they're not, then things need to change.

Real change is not easy. The scope for TVP is immense. A project of such scale has never been tried before. Does that mean we shouldn't try because it's too large of a challenge? Something needs to change. Because we are one planet and share the world's problems, whatever the change will be, it will likely have to be large-scale change.

This article has very strong points for what is effective for today, but it is implying that such large changes are not worth the time. I must disagree.