Enter "Godbot", stage left. FWP (St. Automatos)
<http://www.geocities.com/machine_psychology/The_Ghost_In_The_Machine> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ray Evans Harrell wrote: > Yes it is theology and thank you for saying it. > > REH > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > > > Thomas, > > > > So take the lost labour component and assign it a value. Add that value > > into the cost of machine produced bread. Distribute that value through a > > basic income scheme on a Universal basis. We will then strive for total > > machine productivity because it will eventually mean total leisure > activity. > > Something we humans have been trying to achieve since our first slave. > > > > arthur > > > > I agree with you. But this is where things get sticky in our society. > The > > pro-marketeers will say adding the value into the cost of machine produced > > bread is anti-competitive and distorts the market. They will say this > again > > and again even as the labour force goes to zero and effective demand for > > products dries up. > > > > Your logical suggestion flies in the face of market theology. > > > > arthur > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Lunde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:18 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > > > > > Thomas: > > > > I have thought on this. I just don't know if I have the time to flesh out > > my conclusions. > > > > If we take a loaf of bread at a time of balance, when machines such as > > mixers and large ovens where combined with an adequate source of labour, > ie > > a trained baker and call that a benchmark. Then as time goes on and > labour > > decreases while machines and intelligence increase to the point no labour > is > > required, we still have a loaf of bread as an end result. Machines don't > > need money! Machines don't eat bread! Humans need money to buy bread! > > Humans eat bread! > > > > Without changing our whole capitalistic system which is based on labour > > producing value, then we have to admit that the value is still there and > > money is the preferred means of accessing that value. Therefore we need > > money. > > > > So take the lost labour component and assign it a value. Add that value > > into the cost of machine produced bread. Distribute that value through a > > basic income scheme on a Universal basis. We will then strive for total > > machine productivity because it will eventually mean total leisure > activity. > > Something we humans have been trying to achieve since our first slave. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Thomas Lunde > > > > PS: This satisfies on of Harry's assumption - we all want more and we > want > > it with the least effort. > > > > ---------- > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > >Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 2:31 PM > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > When we disconnect work from income, as you suggest, then how do people > > > receive income? > > > > > > arthur > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 1:36 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> There will always be a need for human intelligence. As human > > intelligence > > >> gets encoded into routine functions, productivity rises while fewer > and > > >> fewer people are needed in the labour force. Good or bad? Depends on > > how > > >> we distribute "the new wealth of nations" > > > > > > The educational wealth of nations could be mass distributed NOW by > > > teaching machines so that the poorest eligible student on the planet > > > would receive quality higher education at little more than the cost of > pc > > > use. The question about MIT's $100,000,000 OCW venture is how much is > > > "boon" and how much is "doggle". That works out to $50,000/course. If > they > > > give me a budget like that I will ensure that not only are the course > > > materials presented, but also the ENTIRE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT. And it > > > will be taught by teaching machine and the human professors will have > > > to redefine their roles in society. > > > > > > The financial contributions of Microsoft to MIT for purportedly > > > innovative education make me very suspicious. Microsoft's big programs > > > like Windows and VS .NET are accompanied by such pathetic pedagogy in > the > > > books and manuals which purport to explain them that I have to think > that > > > the "doggle" part of this is deliberate. In other words they are > > > protecting intellectual property by using deliberate methods of > confusion > > > so it is really counter-education disguised as education, misanthropy > > > disguised as philanthropy. I guess some people learned their Cold War > > > lessons well. Now there is a new kind of social class war: technolords > > > against technopeasants. I would be happy to show Microsoft how to put > out > > > a first rate manual to accompany Windows or .NET but that does not > appear > > > to be what they want. So much for that quaint old slogan, "The customer > is > > > always right". > > > > > > By keeping the technopeasant masses in the dark, the technolords > > > have also raised up a new social class beholden to them, the > > > technopriests. Technopriests disguised as technicians practice > > > hermeneutics by teaching the ignorant peasants (alias customers) how to > > > interpret the 'icons' (defined as religious symbols) for program use > when > > > any good manual would make this new priesthood unnecessary. > > > > > > That is what I would like to see Charlie Rose discuss the next time he > has > > > President Vest on as guest. > > > > > > FWP > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 4:09 AM > > >> To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > >> > > >> > > >> Arthur, who establishes the codes? > > >> > > >> Harry > > >> > > >> > > >> ******************************************** > > >> Henry George School of Social Science > > >> of Los Angeles > > >> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > >> Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 > > >> http://haledward.home.comcast.net > > >> ******************************************** > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:10 PM > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > >> > > >> As the saying goes, the smarter the machine the dumber need be > > >> the operator. > > >> > > >> With machine intelligence there will be little need for operators > > >> to know anything but punching in the codes--this goes for > > >> computerized machine tools or smart microwaves or smart cars. > > >> > > >> Arthur > > >> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > >> Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Futurework mailing list > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
