Forum Index Off Topic The Zeitgeist Movement

History

Wittgenstein,

"We aren't designed/made to be logical."
If by that you are refering to the fact that in the present culture/society we are not educated and trained to be logicall i agree with you completely. If, however, you mean it´s not in our nature to be logical, as in we are not born to be logical, then its an arbitrary tought wich i dont agree with.

"Sure, with enough attention we can become trained in a particular science or philosophy and apply stringent logical practices to our actions."
I agree.

However, our opinions are diferent here:

"However our day to day thoughts center around 2 things.

1. How am I doing?
2. How could I be better?

Notice the double use of "I" in those statements. The "I" is what our minds are programmed around, to serve and to protect."

If I understood correctly, in your opinion these two kinds of thoughts (How am I doing? / How could I be better?) are inherent to human nature. If thats the case, then i strongly disagree.
We learned this selfish way of thinking from the outside, meaning a dangerous enviroment based on scarcity. If our minds are programed around the "I" is because we grew up in an enviroment where we had to compete to get our basic needs.
This enviroment was a real situation in the pass but our present socialeconomic structure perpetuates this scarcity deliberatly for profit. This makes people compete and distort our values to the "I" and not the "US".
In a Resource Based Economy everybody would have acces to theyr basic needs, thus, making all this competetive enviroment unnecessary.
Then you could say it can be done, its utopian. It can. We have the technology to house and feed every human on earth. The Resource Based Economy is not a superficial and weak, not scientificly based concept. So its pretty impossible for me to coer all its basis here.

"The "I" is what our minds are programmed around..."
This programation is made from the outside. Everything you are is learned from the enviroment, based on the cultural values from the place and system you grew up with. A child tought to share since is a baby, growing up in a abundant enviroment will not have the mind turned to the "I", not in a selfish way that is.

"This movement, just like communism, is good in theory."
Comunism its just another system based in money with a diferent, and so called more balanced, distribution of money. Its not diferent from anny other "isms", outhere for its based in a scarcity reality and a "having to deal with it someway" structure. A Resource Based Economy is not a comunist idea (in the pratical/economic and political sence) and its not unachievable. The only thing in practice stoping it from happening is the monetary system and its way to stop technology and mind advancement.

"For something like you suggest to actually happen, would require the foundations of all modern societies to be overturned."
I couldnt agree with you more. Its exactly this that the zeitgeist movement is about.

"In short, to get this movement off the ground, the world has to end."
I´m sorry to bring it to you, friend, but this is allreaddy hapening. Not in an apocaliptical bible way but sosciety as we know it its falling apart fast and for years.
I really hope you understand that zeitgeist does not want you to think this establishment is all good but, it would be better to change it. No. The economic system is falling apart one way or another, with or without zeitgeist, venus project or annything. This is a known fact (for those who read and research, off course) its not some conspiracy theory or something.
What the venus project wants is for people to know that there is another way. To educate people and make them review what they´ve been tought to think and belive.
You seem like an inteligent and crtical person and I would strongly recomend for you to read more about the VP and the ZM and not to base your opinion only in the film, wich doesnt present by far all the info.
I was a sceptic as you in the begining, and specially for that, after long research i saw it for what it really is. And thats why im being boring and writing all this, to share it with you guys.

lucaskf467
Feb 03, 2011 03:02:54 AM

"
Kahoder wrote:
I'm actually studying Philosophy right now. And from my sheet which explains how to differentiate religious, pseudo-scientific and scientific speech, your speech is pseudo-scientific. Since it's based on a Dogma and false science. Which is ridiculously near the religious speech. The basic premice is simple. The world sucks? join my movement.

Is that a good argument for you?


Im sorry but i have to respectfully disagree with you, Kahoder. The zeitgeist movement its neither dogmatic nor pseudo-scientific. I´m guessing you haven´t seen or readed about the acctual ideas, basing your argument only on what i wrote here in the forum.
And im not saying "join my movement", not in an arbitrary way, that is. Im saying "look what i saw, check it out and if you agree join it". If people, however, try to debunk and argument things that i dont agree with, i will try to show them otherwise.
Religion is based on faith, wich is totaly abstraction. A resource based economy is based on the scientific method, wich is logical and proven to work.
A Resource Based Economy is the aplication of the scientific method in the social structure as a whole.
Go here and check it out:
www.thevenusproject.com

lucaskf467
Feb 03, 2011 03:12:44 AM

"
Malice wrote:
Beleive it or not Jacque Fresco is not the first person to propose a utopian society.

The thing that gets me about the venus project is the whole "let a giant computer make all the decisions"
kind of makes me lol

I give them points for trying.


This acctually allreaddy is aplied in present day agronomy, where a computer register and "makes decisions" of wich action to take based on the info it captures from soil and enviroment in general. To use this in the entire planet is just a mather of scaling it out. Belive me, technology isnt the problem on making the project work, peoples endoctrinated minds are.
Some say the market/economic/profit system makes our present technology to be 60 to 100 behind what it should be. For the planed obsolecence and ciclical consumption request tech not to venture forward.
So no, its not an utopia. Utopia its just an easy word to say for those who are lasy to read and research about it, or to think.
chck this out and you will see what i mean by "60-100 years behind"...
www.zeitnews.org

lucaskf467
Feb 03, 2011 03:22:35 AM

I actually knew about the movement before your post. The details are a little foggy in my mind I grant you that. So I rechecked the venus project and the zeitgeist movement and yes, it is what I thought it was. A guy making 2 videos on conspiracy stuff(well technically the second video is more about the venus project). The 2 films had something like hundred references that point to the same 2 or 3 guys. I don't really trust this. As for the venus project, well it's kinda utopian.

Kahoder
Feb 03, 2011 05:39:12 AM

"
lucaskf467 wrote:
"
Kahoder wrote:
I'm actually studying Philosophy right now. And from my sheet which explains how to differentiate religious, pseudo-scientific and scientific speech, your speech is pseudo-scientific. Since it's based on a Dogma and false science. Which is ridiculously near the religious speech. The basic premice is simple. The world sucks? join my movement.

Is that a good argument for you?


Im sorry but i have to respectfully disagree with you, Kahoder. The zeitgeist movement its neither dogmatic nor pseudo-scientific. I´m guessing you haven´t seen or readed about the acctual ideas, basing your argument only on what i wrote here in the forum.
And im not saying "join my movement", not in an arbitrary way, that is. Im saying "look what i saw, check it out and if you agree join it". If people, however, try to debunk and argument things that i dont agree with, i will try to show them otherwise.
Religion is based on faith, wich is totaly abstraction. A resource based economy is based on the scientific method, wich is logical and proven to work.
A Resource Based Economy is the aplication of the scientific method in the social structure as a whole.
Go here and check it out:
www.thevenusproject.com


The "scientific method" is not nearly as logical as you make it out to be. It is a very useful tool, and it's our best system currently, but it isn't fool-proof or 100% logical. For example

1*. A scientist conducts an experiment X expecting to get result Y. Notice, that the scientist is already expecting a certain result (if she didn't expect a certain result she couldn't build a proper experiment). Now, lets say the expected result doesn't happen. What does she do then? Well, most likely, she will review her premises and jettison whatever premise (she now believes) prevented her from acquiring her original, desired, outcome. After she does this, low and behold, she gets what she originally expected. Now, what you have to take note of is the fact that she:

1. Already had a desired result in mind.
2. Removed whatever step she believed prevented her from achieving that result.

Thus, a strong argument can be made that all scientists really do is set up the dominoes in the way they want them to fall.

2*. Moreover, imagine that I set up a video camera in your house. The camera cannot pick up sound at all, but I can see every movement you and the others in your house do. From your movements alone I decide things like... who's in charge, what you sociology is like, what kinds of things you value, the limits of your cognitive ability. I deduce all of these things simply by looking at you walk around and interact in your house. Now, I hardly think that anyone would sign off on my research of them, or that they would review that research and decide that I am %100 correct.

Yet, that is exactly what we do when we observe animals or any other phenomenon. We inject ourselves into the situation and describe it using terms and notions that make sense to US as WE are.

3*. A great deal of scientific investigation does not rely on DEDUCTIVE reasoning (if A then B, if B then C) rather it relies on INDUCTIVE reasoning. Inductive reasoning (as Hume proved) is not a valid form of reasoning at all, and cannot be shown accurate without appealing to the past correctness of inductive reasoning (a circular argument).

In short. I think this movement places way to much emphasis on the Human mind. Also, it has (unsupportable) faith in the capacity of our species as a whole. No matter how convincing an argument one could make that humans can fly if they flapped there arms up and down, it doesn't change the fact that humans can't fly.

Also, science has led to just as many atrocities and bad decisions as any religion ever has. Especially once you realize that every militaristic advancement is itself, a scientific one. Thus, any weapon used in a "holy war" was made by a scientist (assuming we are using "science" as analogous to "human technological advancement"). Thus, I see no reason to assume that technology alone can save our planet.

In order to "save" our planet, what needs to take place is an awakening of the populace to realize that this is the only planet we have. Killing our planet is the same as killing ourselves. This "awakening" needn't have anything to do with technology at all, and we don't need super computers to help us realize that trivial fact.

Wittgenstein
Feb 03, 2011 20:01:12 PM

Very insightful post Wittgenstein i agree with you. Reminds me of my Scientific theory class.

Zidjian
Feb 03, 2011 20:06:58 PM

"
Wittgenstein wrote:
"
lucaskf467 wrote:
"
Kahoder wrote:
I'm actually studying Philosophy right now. And from my sheet which explains how to differentiate religious, pseudo-scientific and scientific speech, your speech is pseudo-scientific. Since it's based on a Dogma and false science. Which is ridiculously near the religious speech. The basic premice is simple. The world sucks? join my movement.

Is that a good argument for you?


Im sorry but i have to respectfully disagree with you, Kahoder. The zeitgeist movement its neither dogmatic nor pseudo-scientific. I´m guessing you haven´t seen or readed about the acctual ideas, basing your argument only on what i wrote here in the forum.
And im not saying "join my movement", not in an arbitrary way, that is. Im saying "look what i saw, check it out and if you agree join it". If people, however, try to debunk and argument things that i dont agree with, i will try to show them otherwise.
Religion is based on faith, wich is totaly abstraction. A resource based economy is based on the scientific method, wich is logical and proven to work.
A Resource Based Economy is the aplication of the scientific method in the social structure as a whole.
Go here and check it out:
www.thevenusproject.com


The "scientific method" is not nearly as logical as you make it out to be. It is a very useful tool, and it's our best system currently, but it isn't fool-proof or 100% logical. For example

1*. A scientist conducts an experiment X expecting to get result Y. Notice, that the scientist is already expecting a certain result (if she didn't expect a certain result she couldn't build a proper experiment). Now, lets say the expected result doesn't happen. What does she do then? Well, most likely, she will review her premises and jettison whatever premise (she now believes) prevented her from acquiring her original, desired, outcome. After she does this, low and behold, she gets what she originally expected. Now, what you have to take note of is the fact that she:

1. Already had a desired result in mind.
2. Removed whatever step she believed prevented her from achieving that result.

Thus, a strong argument can be made that all scientists really do is set up the dominoes in the way they want them to fall.

2*. Moreover, imagine that I set up a video camera in your house. The camera cannot pick up sound at all, but I can see every movement you and the others in your house do. From your movements alone I decide things like... who's in charge, what you sociology is like, what kinds of things you value, the limits of your cognitive ability. I deduce all of these things simply by looking at you walk around and interact in your house. Now, I hardly think that anyone would sign off on my research of them, or that they would review that research and decide that I am %100 correct.

Yet, that is exactly what we do when we observe animals or any other phenomenon. We inject ourselves into the situation and describe it using terms and notions that make sense to US as WE are.

3*. A great deal of scientific investigation does not rely on DEDUCTIVE reasoning (if A then B, if B then C) rather it relies on INDUCTIVE reasoning. Inductive reasoning (as Hume proved) is not a valid form of reasoning at all, and cannot be shown accurate without appealing to the past correctness of inductive reasoning (a circular argument).

In short. I think this movement places way to much emphasis on the Human mind. Also, it has (unsupportable) faith in the capacity of our species as a whole. No matter how convincing an argument one could make that humans can fly if they flapped there arms up and down, it doesn't change the fact that humans can't fly.

Also, science has led to just as many atrocities and bad decisions as any religion ever has. Especially once you realize that every militaristic advancement is itself, a scientific one. Thus, any weapon used in a "holy war" was made by a scientist (assuming we are using "science" as analogous to "human technological advancement"). Thus, I see no reason to assume that technology alone can save our planet.

In order to "save" our planet, what needs to take place is an awakening of the populace to realize that this is the only planet we have. Killing our planet is the same as killing ourselves. This "awakening" needn't have anything to do with technology at all, and we don't need super computers to help us realize that trivial fact.

Pulling things out of your ass much?
You clearly don't know a damn thing about science if those are the best examples you can come up with against science.

Septile
Feb 03, 2011 20:42:09 PM

None of what I said came out of my ass. Also, I was not trying to say that science is "bad" or "wrong" or needs to be abandoned, or that it can't give us very valuable insights into the workings of the world, or that it isn't a reliable method with which to advance our society.

What I said was. That science, and the scientific method that supports it, isn't 100% accurate (any scientist would agree) is isn't %100 reliable (any scientist would agree) and.. most importantly... scientific discoveries aren't the "word of God" or anything. They are the best that we can do, the best answers we have. nothing more. nothing less.

Thus, trying to base an entire society off of the workings of science, and using the scientific method as some "guiding light" towards a utopian vision, isn't a thing we should do.

What we SHOULD do, is use the findings of science to (at the least) reinterpret our beliefs about what society is and can be, what morality is and can be, what government should and could be.

Saying that we have (currently) discovered all we need to know in order to make the society the OP propposes assumes something that I find dangerous. Namely, that science has progressed to a point that we now KNOW what is the best thing to do. If we assume that science has reached that point, then it also seems that science is no longer needed (if we have the answers what are we looking for?)

So, basically, the purpose of science is circumvented if we decide that the answers we need are already found.

Lastly, I must stress, that the problems with science that I raised are (in fact) problems with science. It doesn't mean science should be abandonded, anymore then the incompletness theory of mathmatics means that we should abandon algebra.

Wittgenstein
Feb 03, 2011 23:32:15 PM

Well truthfully science isn't so much the problem as the people that are studying it are. We want results that prove our biased beliefs, so we find results that prove it. If anyone was completely unbiased they would have 100% percent accurate data assuming there methods weren't flawed.

Also with the scientific method is it leaves room for interpretation. Sometimes results are found and they say "hey we can make a banana not freeze in -20 Fahrenheit" This of course is ok, but if the study can only be found to be true partially or some of the time when it is replicated then the hypotheses is flawed.

That being said it is still a widely used method and one of the best we have. I think what he's trying to say is that sometimes scientific results can be flawed because the scientists involved are biased or have preconceived notions. The best way to have sure fire evidence is peer review and multiple independent studies that concur with the hypothesis thus making it a theory if there is enough support.

Zidjian
Feb 04, 2011 01:17:38 AM

"
Septile wrote:

Pulling things out of your ass much?
You clearly don't know a damn thing about science if those are the best examples you can come up with against science.


You seem to know alot about pulling things out of people's asses.

I got 20 bucks that says you work for the circus.

Ironembraced
Feb 04, 2011 06:49:47 AM
  • Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • Next