CCCP

part 2:

now on the artificial intelligence part:
The Infrastructure of an A.i:
Basicly ,a A.i is just a software program that has as ultimate command "to think" ,and has functions that simulate the human thinking proces.To achieve that ,The A.i need a database with knowledge ,and within that database references for a particly part of knowledge to other part's of knowledge with the relation for that particular part of knowledge to tyhe other part of knowledge.for exampel:

cell a (knowledge cel) contains the number 1
cell b contains the number 2
cel c conatins the number 3
reference (a1b1) says the relationship between a and b is (+1,-1)
reference(b1c1) says the relationdhip between b and c is (+1,-1)

thus the A.i can conclude that the relation between a and c as (+2,-2) ,because the computer has knowledge from previous references to form this conclusion.In a way ,that is how we humans think to.if we conclude something we investigate the relationship of the thing we wan't to conclude with other knowledge we already have and that has references to the conclusioin we want to make.for humans it is like that: The more knowledge we have ,the better conclusions we can take.If we program thart much knowledge in a computer ,it can take conclusions on the knowledge it already has.Than we can give him the command "think".that is a command to search for relationships between the knowledge it already has relations to.

that is just the basics of A.I. .the core of the software.The more knowledge you give the computer ,the more it can conclude.The more speed you give it ,the faster it will conclude.you can program it to make actions on certain conclusions.

The fact with computers is that it can be improved the much you wan't.A computer that maybe once in time could hold thousands of terrabytes in knowledge ,will then be "smarter" than us.we humans cant grow that much ,nor that fast in potential as a computer.

Man my finger are realy starting to hurt.;)

BNut i hope to prove this way that Commuinism isn't impossible.Technological advancement can change the face of it realy fast.
if this come's once to life ,this robotics thingy (and i'm certain of it it will) we all will never have to work again.And note tht this is good.
I will go further on this in one of my following posts.About the social and political changes in such a system.
 
Get it out of your ass
Click to expand...

Well thank you for youre constructive criticism.
Guess you call yourself grown up too.
I do not ask to believe what i say.nore do i force you.
And i have respect to another person's oppinion.Where i don't agree ,i'll reply to debate.
i'll respect anothers oppinion on the statements in my post ,as long as they are presented in a faschinable way.

Now i'll stop replying on youre reply ,i'm lowering my own selfesteem with it.
 
.....from which you have plucked you fantasy economic theories. :crazyeyes
 
Respect is not given, either to persons or theories, but awarded as they are judged meritorious.
 
I apologize to Cornmaster for taking so long to respond on this thread. the usual recent issues ("the Server is busy" & "You are not currently logged in") conspired against me being able to post anything over the past couple days. here's my original response:

Cornmaster wrote:Did I say I like Soviet Communism??? No...it wasn't Communism. And your right...killing the country men is a BAD idea...anyone can see that. That's another reason why it failed. Once all the above conditions are met (In my post) Then Communism will work and EVERYONE will want to be a part.
Click to expand...

The problem is then which one to pick? The Maoist example? Mao is probably the dictator who has killed the most human beings ever in history - and almost all of his victims were his own countrymen. Pol Pot? Castro? Kim il Sung? The Shining Path? Gus Hall? Tagliatti?

Communism started as a reaction against the industrial revolution, but it was too intertwined with the utopian ideals of the Romanticist movement. Red flags, simple slogans, underground conspiracies, regimentated society - all the attractive aspects of the 19th century's romanticism. Romanticists took the ideals of the Enlightenment - that the universe was a machine with simple moving and understandable parts that only needed to be manipulated for humanity's welfare. Marx's concept of history is exactly that - the belief that history is one big engine, a machine that plods along on pre-laid tracks towards an inevitable destination. He described the tenets of his theories as "Laws of Nature", a common belief in science in the 19th century - again, going back to the belief that nature was a machine with distinguishable parts. Modern scientists don't talk about laws of nature.

Some popular Polish writers in the 1950s and 60s (Adam Michnik, Czeslaw Milosz, Leszek Kolakowski) described the attraction of totalitarian societies for youth, how all the marching, the orderliness, the flags, banners and slogans make youth feel secure, important and connected. The end result of course is extremely dangerous. Every time communist regimes have been attempted anywhere in the world, the end result has been lots of blood and suffering.

Perhaps you are right that the problem is just that humans haven't evolved enough. Maybe the day will come when we really could make communism work. But when that day comes, why would we chose communism? If we're so evolved by then, why not choose an improved version of Democracy, which has done better than any other form of government to spread wealth, equality and basic human rights. Is it perfect? No, but its results far outstrip the competitions'. I know Democracy can be boring, messy, annoying, and it can fumble sometimes, but the reality is that we live in the real world where there are no simple answers supplied by magical, mystical political theories that solve all or most of the world's problems. When any political theory promises you that, then a little warning light should go on in your head. Simply said, in the real world we just have to think. There are few automatic answers to the big problems of society, much as the great 19th century thinkers tried to invent some.

Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.
 
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.
Click to expand...

This isn't Communism vs Democracy. It's Communism vs Capitalism.

Like I said....the only way Communism will work well is under a fully functional Democracy. Dictatorships just don't cut it now-a-days.
 
And so i continue my postings ,which by now arn't probaly ready anymore. (silent cry)
anyway ,i gonna post a following concept that i call a theoretical future possebilety.

Internet Democracy

Basicly ,internet democracy is where all people vote on-line over ever issue posibly presented.For example the common people vote on new laws on-line.Administative personel are appointed by the people on-line.
this is just theory ,but technicly the internet makes it possible to construct a total democracy around it.though it's not easely constructed ,and it involves a lot of more issue's than here presented.Let's go out from the fact that a on-line voting system theoreticly can make a more total democracy.

One of the issue's involved here is if we can give the people that sort of power.The comman mass isn't necesarely the best leader.
I think if it's well constructed it's possible to gett the best out of such a situation,although i don't have directly a system in mind.Though i think there are enough smart minds in our world that can construct ia system for it to work.

This is also givving resposibilety to the comman mass.Voting over every issue would be a every day task.What if the voter doesnt vote? This could be constructed on a different way.Maybe people could ,if they wanted ,give their vote to othe people to vote. (politicians could gather vote's) ,maybe even you could give the youre vote only if it would involve certain issue's.

before i write more on this ,i gona look if i get reply's on this.
i hope it ,i don't wan't to pass my idea's unnoticed.Unlessas it is posted by somebody that just wants to break it of ,lauch with it.you can make jokes on it ,but make they are good ,and not utterly ********.
 
I think that's an excellent idea. A true democracy has the people voting ON EVERY ISSUE. This isn't possible now...but with technological advances and computers with internet in every household...it could be possible. Of course....we need to get the bums and hobos into houses and jobs. Which will never happen in a Capitalist socity. But in a Communist one...it would work very well!!

But this just ties into some of my points above..and it would diffently be a leap into the right direction!!! :goodjob:
 
Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.
Click to expand...

Except the Vietnamese (need I explain that democracy didn't "work" there?), Chinese, Russians and other Slavic Countires (where it has created rampant corruption), and some other nations around the world where democracy is just logistically not a good way out.

Every country needs its own special type of government to maximize that country's potential and bring its society to the highest level. Not everyone should try to be like the USA. USA systems of government only work for the USA situation, all the other nations need to find their own unique way of getting things done.
 
Robespierre wrote: Except the Vietnamese (need I explain that democracy didn't "work" there?), Chinese, Russians and other Slavic Countires (where it has created rampant corruption), and some other nations around the world where democracy is just logistically not a good way out.
Click to expand...

I hope you appreciate the great restraint I am showing in my answer. The "Slavic Countries" aren't Democratic? I strongly beg to differ. Poland, from which I've just returned a few weeks ago visiting family, is indeed a flourishing democracy, scheduled to begin final negotiations to enter the European Union in 2004. The major roadblock to Poland's joining the EU is not the quality of Polish democracy, but rather French and Irish fears about cheap Polish farm produce. There certainly is a level of corruption in Poland, but after 50 years of Soviet military occupation and puppet dictatorship, this should not be surprising. Spain in the late 1980s also had a similar kind of immature democracy that had problems with corruption, as it had also recently emerged from a dictatorship. Greece, in the same period, as well as Italy and Japan in the 1950s & 60s can similarly be categorized. It takes a while for society to adapt, and to "get the kinks out".

As well, I might remind you that the Czech Republic, another fellow Slavic nation, is a democracy. The Czechoslovak democracy of the 1930s, the only country in Central Europe to retain a fully democratic government in that period (when even Weimar Germany had lapsed into the Nazi dictatorship), was so developed with its institutions that some ideas were even copied by the United States (social security benefits, for example).

Also, an often overlooked country in the Balkans is quiet Bulgaria, where after some political struggles in the early 1990s finally has taken solid steps on the road to Democracy. The communists of Bulgaria had expelled thousands of ethnic Turks in the 1980s but Democratic Bulgaria welcomed them back in the 90s and instituted far-reaching minority protection laws. The economy still struggles, but Bulgaria has been hurt bad by the economic isolation brought on by the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. Bulgaria fully supported the West and maintained the embargo (when most other Balkan states were breaking it) but at the cost of its own economy.

Yes, some societies have historical experiences that forces them to develop social institutions that do not work well with democratic governments - the Sicilian family-mafiosi comes to mind - but I'm a little miffed at your suggestion that Slavs are incapable of democracy.

That offense aside, let's look at your other examples. 1. The Vietnamese: Are you referring to the brief period of 1955 (from the Geneva Accord on Vietnam) to 1975 when the North Vietnamese forces overran Saigon? The fledgling Vietnamese "democracy" of the South was a crony government of the wealthy elite that spent its entire existence fighting a losing war and getting fat off American subsidies. Not a good environment for Democratic development. 2. Chinese? Two things here: First, Taiwan has developed a successful democracy. The Guomingdong finally relinquished its dictatorship and Tainwan has spent a decade now as an increasingly wealthy and stable democracy. So Chinese can indeed build a democratic government. The Chinese of Hong Kong were also heading down a similar path as Britain belatedly decided to allow them to develop self-government shortly before handing the colony over to Mainland control. The old arguments about Democracy being an exclusively Western concern have been proven lies by the Chinese, Japanese and the South Koreans. Secondly (about the Chinese), Mainland China is perilously heading down the path towards Democracy. The current communist government in Beijing is trying to build a contained, controlled capitalist experiment in China while still retaining communist control overall. Well, the sh*t is going to hit the fan sooner or later. Capitalism, like Democracy - which is why they go hand-in-hand - requires the free flow of information. Dictatorships require control over the flow of information. Beijing's current goals are incompatible, and one or the other will have to give. Either the communists will eventually have to clamp down (violently, a la Tianeman Square) and destroy their capitalist experiment, or conversely they may find themselves suddenly irrelevant and out of power one day because through their capitalist experiment they are teaching the Chinese people how to make critical decisions about their own lives and destinies - which will inevitably bring the question of why Chinese can make economic decisions for themselves but not political decisions. You wait; the Chinese periphery is already gone Democratic; the Chinese Mainland will soon face the same decision...

The Russians: Was this who you meant when you mentioned Slavs? The Russians and Ukrainians are not the only Slavs around, you know... To use a quote I wrote once in these forums, the Russians went from having a gangster-style communist government in the 1990s to having a gangster-style Democracy. It is certainly down, but not quite out. A prominent Russian writer who was despairing about the condition of his country last year wrote about a trip he took to Cuba recently. He said he was amazed at how stifling a communist country was to an outsider, and he thought this is probably what it felt like for Westerners to travel in the old Soviet Union. However, while very faulty and corrupt, Russia is not a dictatorship any longer. It is a sort of inbetween period, where it could swing either way.

Every country needs its own special type of government to maximize that country's potential and bring its society to the highest level. Not everyone should try to be like the USA. USA systems of government only work for the USA situation, all the other nations need to find their own unique way of getting things done.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I don't think I said this anywhere in my last post. Democracy is a broad term and democratic governments around the world are not all structured the same. The Canadian form of democracy is very different from the American - take this from one who lived for years on the Canadian border near Toronto - and yet both are Democratic. The British is different again, as is the German hybrid Federal-style system of Democracy, from the French corporate-state style, from the Italian and Greek styles, from the Japanese style, from the South Korean style.... The list goes on. You get my point. When I use the word Democracy, I am referring to a general system of government that engages the people it rules in the decision-making process of politics. Is there any perfect kind of Democracy around the world, or "true" Democracy? Sorry, not really. All are faulty because they are run by people, who are also imperfect. The 20-minute Italian governments, the voting fiasco in Florida in last year's American presidential elections, the failure of the Canadian system to adequately represent the Western provinces, the Japanese Democratic goverments' uncomfortably close ties to business that make it almost impossible to reform its rotting banking industry, the Swiss canton that only in the last decade voted to allow women to vote; these are all examples of how humans are imperfect. This also gets back to my original statement about how no political theory can magically and mystically solve all problems (like communism claims). Democracy offers the best hope by offering the highest level of participation by its citizens; the government doesn't tell citizens what to do, it must reach a consensus and the citizens (through political parties or issue groups) can influence decisions that affect them.

Societies need to develop certain characteristics before a Democracy can develop. You may recall that Democracy failed throughout Europe in the 1930s, including in Germany and Italy. Now both are prosperous and Democratic countries. Today there are far many more successful Democracies than failed ones - Argentina and Chile, South Africa, most of Eastern Europe, Mexico, even Iran is slowly trying to develop a native form of Islamic democracy. There are no guarantees, but Democracy clearly offers the best chance and can work anywhere. It is not merely a Western anomoly...
 
"eventually i'm certain that computer's never will use their power badly.It's simple ,a computer has no wil.and it doesn't need a will to work ,only a command."

And who gives the command? And what is the command? I.e. humans will still rule--the programmers. And who controls the programmers?

The scenario you described (computers ruling) implies a self-aware AI. And where does self-awareness come from? Are we sure that it couldn't one day surface in a sophisticated AI, perhaps even unexpectedly?

Aside from this, "intelligence" isn't the only criteria for good rule--there is wisdom, intuition, compassion, and vision--all human traits that computers (at least as we know them) cannot have. Computers cannot understand the spiritual dimension of existance either. Simply put, a machine of pure logic would not understand us humans at all, and I for one would like to be ruled by beings who UNDERSTAND us--and so far that is only us humans who are so qualified. And probably always will be.

I don't need "perfection"--whatever that is (can anybody know?). Basically, I prefer to rule myself as much as possible, and have a limited government there to protect me, and all others, from threat of violence or fraud. I understand myself better than anyone else, and I have only one life (that I am aware of anyway) to enjoy--why should I not have complete control of it? Things don't always go the way I want them either--but I can accept that so long as I have freedom to try and improve things for myself.

In the end, "perfection" probably has as many definitions as there are people....

"Don't praise capitalism too much ,especialy in America."

I know by that comment that you didn't read my post too well. Read it again--I don't want to repeat myself.

"Why do you think that much hand gun's are sold in America? America has a big gun industry ,where a lot of people work."

Nope, America has a big gun industry BECAUSE lots of people (not just here) want to own guns. You have the causality backwards.

"Eventualy ,alternative energy could have been invented and used on a bigger scale much earlier ,wasn't it for the power of the oil industry.bush himself is paid by a lot of polluting industry's ,like oil.that is something that slowens the reforms to a cleaner industry."

EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my last post, which is why American capitalism isn't perfect capitalism. The fact that government officials CAN be bought, and CAN regulate at the request of the buyers, is what makes American capitalism imperfect, just like you (and I) said. Take away government power to interfere like that, and we'd probably all be driving solar-powered cars right now, or better.... Read my post again.
 
um, i'll just voice my support for my communist comrades in this discussion, 'go my comrades!!!' and be off.
 
It p!sses me off to go to work everyday and make someone else richer, only to squeek out an existance with some modern amenities. Truth is, capitalism isn't all its cracked up to be.

I don't argue that collective-communism in theory sounds pretty good sometimes. However there is no functioning communist society anywhere in the world that I would want to have to live in.

The USSR was the worst example of Totalitarianism, with China a second runner up, of all the 'communist' nations. I don't equate the two (Communism=Tyranny) in theory, its just that every 'workers revolution' has just dissolved into despotism and more misery for the people.

Even socialism (not Nazism!) held more promise in actual practice than any real communist nation. My city, Milwaukee, was the only city in America that elected a socialist mayor to office time and again for over a decade. It was a heavily German/Polish population, that having been exposed to European exploitation for generations, then American, said enough to capitalism.

I cannot argue economics, I am not educated in that area. But I have common sense. A good mix of competition and social care is probably for the best, a fair deal.

Even though I didn't win the lottery again, I could be alot worse off. I could live in Cuba!;)
 
Communism is not inherently evil. It is an ideal, distasteful to people of means, but not evil.

Communist revolutions the world over have been 'hijacked' by some who in turn have screwed the revolutionaries in the end, setting up governments that hurt the people as much as any capitolist state.

Face it, once your in power, you can do what you want. At least with a democracy, you can check some activities of the government. Voting, demonstration, free speech, privately owned media... The list goes on. A Stalin could not flourish in a modern democracy, nor a Mao, Kemer Rouge or Castro.

Thats the problem with communism in practice. Too much centralized power.

A communistic democracy has some promise, but no one in an existing 'free' country would want it, except the impoverished. And to buy their grudging acceptance of things, we have a welfare system, social security etc.

It just wont happen.

One could argue that Hitler came to power in a democratic way, but thats not true. A lost world war, intimidation and open violence, hatred and playing to peoples fears, and a catastrophic economic situation brought that monster to rule.
 
I can't believe there are people on here that are proponents of communism. Even in its truest, most perfect form, it robs men of their competitive inhabitions. To even suggest communism is a good idea, to me, is just ignorance.

~Chris
 
Sonorakitch wrote: I can't believe there are people on here that are proponents of communism. Even in its truest, most perfect form, it robs men of their competitive inhabitions. To even suggest communism is a good idea, to me, is just ignorance.
Click to expand...

Eh, there are still some fools who follow Hitler too. Both fascism and communism have proven about as spectacular failures in application as any political experiment anywhere, and yet some people are determined to remain blind.

My professors in Hungary a decade ago used to fume about Western intellectuals who praised Marxism and communism, though they lived comfortably and safely in the democratic West. They hated papers like Le Monde who had praised every word that came from Moscow since 1945, again from a comfortable vantage point. When confronted about the failure of every attempt anywhere to implement any kind of communist experiment, the Western believers mumble meakly about "purity"; "That wasn't real communism..." Trust me, it was.

Two Quick Hungarian jokes from the very dark 1950s, a variation on a theme:

1.
Q: What is Capitalism?
A: The system where man is exploited by man.
Q: So what is Socialism then?
A: The system where man is exploited by the state.

2.
Q: What is Capitalism?
A: The system where man is exploited by man.
Q: And what is Socialism then?
A: The other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

innonimatu
Religion, liberalism, socialism, conservatism - the past casts long shadows
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Cimbri
[C3C] (WIP) Oh no, not another Operation Barbarossa scenario
Replies
3
Views
315
Cimbri
Cimbri
Zardnaar
Progressives How Many?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Predator145
12.7mm DShK Heavy Machine Gun (Wheeled Infantry Version)
Replies
0
Views
412
Predator145
Predator145
P
MODERN CIVILIZATIONS (my wishlist)
Replies
16
Views
2K
gdr_willter
G
Back
Top Bottom