If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes it is a belief you have.
Right. You've lost me totally. Are you saying that that's the only way ever that this could occur? What's your point?
Yes, the incompetent would be quickly told to get stuffed instead of protected by the medical mafia. It's how the whole thing started anyway.
Which is another way of actually responding with it.
So where does money and cost come into it?
Well it obviously costs me something. Maybe I have a herd of cows and I give the builders a few of those. Maybe I have some promissary notes that the builders can use to get cows from Cows-R-Us. That's where money comes into it.
What makes you think that beliefs are any less real than rocks?
Why would I need to claim that?
Everyone would be incompetent. No-one is naturally a good surgeon. It takes years of training.
Cos you can change your beliefs in a heartbeat but a rock is still a rock.
No idea. I don't know what the fuck you are on about, I told you that.
Exactly my point. The licence and certificate don't make someone good at surgery (remember there is no such thing as a surgeon) experience and training do. So why not let everyone have access to that training and experience who wants to give it a go?
Ever heard of the Amish? What you are stating as absolutely needed isn't really.
Off-topic somewhat, but you can't change your beliefs in a heartbeat. Some external factor must occur in order for your beliefs to change - they are intrinsically linked to the world. For instance I cannot simply believe that the sky is green because I want to. It would either have to become green, or my perception of colour would have to change...
Nobody said the license and certificate did anything of the sort. They are merely proof that the surgeon has done the requisite training.
They did a similar thing in Cuba wrt farming. Turned out everyone wanted to grow tobacco because you got money for it. Now they don't have any milk. You only need a certain number of surgeons, so you go for the ones you think will be best.
Fair enough but Amish communities only work on a small scale. You might be fine with that but I don't want that. Y'see, Amish communities don't make technological advances - mainly because of their beliefs, but also because they can't do large scale manufacturing and division of labour. I'd rather have a constantly advancing civilization than an Amish model.
I can, you just don't know how yet.
Nope. Not for me at any rate.
Yeah, you can.
Same thing, and you can change your perception of colour as well.
Well someone did, cos it's illegal to practice without em.
So money is the problem then, not the solution.
theres no reason that we need the current system to have "advances" in fact because of the money a lot of blind alleys are gone down.
Actually colour is a poor example given that it is merely a matter of which wavelength of light falls on my retina. I cannot, however, believe in God on a whim.
Category error. It's illegal to practice without training and experience. The Papers merely prove that you have both of those things.
No, greed is the problem, money is the vehicle in this situation, but it could just as easily be a commodity...or it could be time (jobs where fewer hours are needed might be in demand), or lack of effort (fancy a sinecure?).
And yet I think it's naive to think that without a system of incentives, any real progress can be made. Carrot or stick...
No it's what you brain interprets that signal as that gives it the colour.
Yeah, you can.
Balls and you know it.
No I disagree. the problem is that people believe it's possible to own things at all. It's impossible but a useful belief. If you believe in it blindly then those sorts of results follow.
What progress? I don't see much. I think it's naive to think that forcing people to do things which they are not naturally inclined to do through either carrots or sticks is where the problem is. Stuff should be done because the process of doing them is enjoyed in itself for itself.
So who would do the stuff that no one wants to do but still needs doing?
Like what exactly?
How about all the people who are currently doing things that don't need doing just in exchange for paper?
The guy who has to go down the sewer to clear shit blockages, the people that work at landfill sites, the dustman and all the rest of the utterly shit jobs.
On a side note, i downloaded a speech given by the chap who write "The Creature from Jekyll Island" on your recommendation. Absolutely fascinating stuff, i want to get hold of the book now! It only seems to be for sale in America though, any ideas where i can get a copy from the UK?
You make it sound a lot worse than it is. Some people love that kind of work though, and you can hardly argue that the current system has much in the way of reward for those that do it, so it can't be that neccessary.
About the book I have no idea where you would get on. i will ring a mate tonight and find out for you though.
I'll give you a shiney pound if you can find a man who enjoys cleaning other peoples shit blockages out of the sewers!
Nice one about the book!
A bald/bold statement with no back-up. Philosophers of mind have been debating this point for decades. If you have something to share with them, perhaps you should?
No...you can't.
Again...a compelling argument...but it might be more so if it was backed up with something.
It's not impossible to own things. You're merely making another category error. Ownership is merely a state of being. The fact that it's subjective does not mean it has to be any less real.
We put a man on the moon? The method by which we're communicating right now is pretty impressive too. The list is endless.
Why should stuff be done because you enjoy it? That doesn't seem to have any more basis in reality than the concept of ownership.
Philosophers can kiss my arse on this one. Physicists sorted it out years ago, and the fact that I can change my colour perception if I want tends to suggest it's in my head, doesn't it.
To stay in the playground, yeah, I can.
Hmm see above.
Yes, it is.
?
For a start, ownership as you mean it is not a property of the owner, it's a property of everyone else who isn't the owner. Think about it. the fact that's it's subjectivemeans you will act as if it's real even though it's not I quite agree. that doe not make it real. Of course this is all for a given value of real innit.
I suspect that real for you is what everyone else agrees on, whereas for me it's a purely physical real world test. i.e. you say the pen is yours, but I can pick it up and write with it unless something physically prevents me. Ergo, you are insane. (But normal)
I'll think you'll find that all those things were done by people who were interested in the discoveries themselves, rather than frantically trying to avoid punishment or make a few quid. Proving my point really. In fact, once they had enough funding and could actually pursue their natural bent then they got more creative, which is another reason for coming up with a better idea than money.
Oh so ownership isn't real now. If I were to just debate this rather than communicate ideas I would be laughing right now. I quite agree with you though, but the benefits are clear - more inventions and happier people.
Oh aye and Cap'n -
No go on the book i am afraid - have a link to Abebooks -
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=1&kn=The+Creature+from+Jekyll+Island&x=18
You have yet to show me how this can voluntarily be done.
This rather sums up the above points. I can see you haven't been following but trying to explain seems an exercise in futility since the connections the rest of us make with the real world don't seem to be ones you are comfortable with - in fact you seem to take great pride in being different and as such I'm happy to let you remain in your utopia.
This doesn't say anything.
There are aspects of the 'real' world which rely on the agreement of other people. They are just as real as anything else. Just because you can pick up and use my pen, doesn't mean you own it. It merely means you are using it.
As for 'ergo you are insane', that is a non-sequitur.
You've proven nothing. Who says the people who invented the rocket would've turned up at work at all if they weren't to be paid (or under threat from the Nazi government I suppose)? Speculation throughout.
I said the argument could be made just as easily for both.
Ownership is not a right based on reality. Possession is a reality- the strongest person is in possession- but that is not the same thing as ownership.
Hypnosis would be quickest I reckon, but you could probably wear lenses for a few days to change the colours around and then take em off for a similar effect.
No, you don't make the connections between yourself and the real world, you rely on your connections with other people to make things "real". What Utopia? Very few of you can maintain a good mood even for a short time, and when you do it's not a very juicy good either. I don't take any pride in it. It's just a fact.
Yes, it does. Ownership isn't something you do, it's something all the other beleivers don't . i.e. they don't use "your" stuff even though you have no practical way to stop them and theres no reason why not. You, in turn don't use stuff you believe to belong to other "owners". Ownership is what people don't do, not what they do do. (Fnaaar he said do-do)
Nope, they are entirely seperate. Social conventions aren't facts or physical realities. Your belief in your ownership of an object resides only in your head and the heads of those who share your delusion. (Most people I admit)
Look, go and read about famous scientific discoveries and tell me that they were made by people frantic about their rent or in search of a pot of gold. Read about the Wright brothers etc You will find that very few of them were aiming for cash or made to for want of money. In almost all cases they were able to ignore the money thing because they had more interesting things to be doing with their time. As it should be.
Rocket technology was pioneered in the `30s by Jack Parsons and his "Suicide Club" (at Caltech,I believe).As Klintock alludes to,this WAS a labour of love for them.The military,no doubt on seeing the "usefulness" of the technology,later took control(no surprise there :impissed: ) .
All the pioneering work and advances done by a bunch of kids(for the sake of it) was the foundation for Neil Armstrong taking that giant leap for mankind.
seeker
wasn't it done by german engineers?
That maybe so,JimV.There were crude variations in ancient Greece as well.I guess pioneer wasn`t the best word to use.Many(perhaps all ?) "modern" developers are,you might say,standing on the shoulders of (ancient pioneer) giants.
Talking of the Chinese,one of Parson`s cohorts was Hsue-Shen Tsien,who was later accused of being a Communist spy during the McCarthy period because he refused to testify against a colleague.He was arrested by the US government and kept prisoner for 5 years.Understandably,at the end of this period he couldn`t leave quick enough.
10 years after leaving the US,he was accredited with the successful establishment of the nuclear missile program of China.Ironic,eh ? :eek2:
seeker