He was so right in predicting that it would lead to even greater wealth inequality than which already existed. Now you got idiots like Musk being worth more than entire countries before his recently losing most of it which again just shows how incompetent the wealthy are when they can lose more money than some countries have. Tech has simply been used to coddle and foster an even wealthier class of elites and nothing more. Yeah, technology is supposed to, in the words of Hanna Arendt, make our lives better by liberating us from necessity and needs... but it hasn't because it isn't being used that way. And that is being done deliberately. Planned obsolescence didn't exist prior to the tech age. Now you buy cellphones that are designed to die within 2 years to force you to upgrade to another phone. Or car. Or t-shirt. You name it, it's designed to fail to keep you needy for necessities.
I made the mistake of buying a phone with a non-removable battery for me and my girlfriend. Hers died literally on the 1-year mark and can't be returned or replaced as warranty expired, and battery was made to be unable to replace lest you break the phone. That's Republican America right there.
I agree with him in regard to total authoritarianism being made possible only because of computerization of government institutions, however that was evident since the Nazis began using IBM machines for collating and analyzing census data, but I guess he didn't take into account high-level programming languages and graphic UI's becoming what they are now. He wasn't an interface guy, he didn't come up with Workbench (the concept was basically stolen from Bell Labs) and was a genius who was well aware of the amount of intelligence, education and dedication necessary for someone to work with computers in his time. Right now computers often give people a way out of poverty by creating low-skill jobs, but at the same time they do make it very easy for politicians and bankers to rob us, as every single financial crisis EVER was caused by their greed and illegal meddling in economies that would be functioning well if not for their "interventions".
Jay Miner just reinforced my own beliefs that while it was fun in the beginning it like so much becomes part of a commodity controll mechanism used by those with no imagination
I use to have the sister game Banana. Use to sit for hours to clock the game at 9999 and my sisters use to keep pulling out the batteries to reset the high score so they could get it.
listened. not sure i understand who or what ur arguing against... > Call SH a 'strict Materialist'. What else is there, that has evidence? > U seem to claim that bc death is so personal, we must have a self...pretty funny.... > u seem to think SH & New Atheist's think we are not distinct, actual beings...funny too > Ur Heidegger slide seemed not support ur point, actually it was irelevant. On its own, i wld guess SH would think it was mundane anyway. and he'd be right! > The end was WORD SALAD (i listened closely)....appears you do not understand the 'Self is an Illusion' concepts. You just tell ur listeners 'It's Lies'. > YOU ARE a LIAR, if you are calling SH a liar on this subject, there is ample EVIDENCE out there for all to read. NOT AUTHORED by SH or the new atheists. I'd be glad to help people find it. You know, actual prime sources. not buffoonery. Cordially, Sam's Bulldog
Not really personally arguing against. My part was just sharing material from Michael Tsarion (primarily). He is going against the argument regularly and specifically against the ideas promoted by materialists. I'd point to his material for further understanding of the issue (argument against) as he has much more to say and is more qualified. Is there a deeper existential reality of being that is actually grounded, perceivable and real? Don't know if your alias 'Sam's Bulldog' refers to being actually guarding Sam's philosophy (as a bulldog) and if - then that would explain a lot of your outright attacking/smearing style. I did not call SH a liar. My own input was the wording "disproving" which I reflected back and did not find it perhaps the most fitting word, but that's it among with simple video-editing. It's quite a stretch to associate this with actually labeling Harris as a liar. Logic in your accusation is false. You did use the word "if", to which I reply again: no I did not call SH to be a liar. Lying means an unconscious or conscious intent to lie. I do not have any ill intent on this matter. Just putting material (by Tsarion & Heidegger among others) on the table for further study on the subject. My edited video is a poor example and deeper and better editing would definately bring more justice to the matter. That I acknowledge. To not put this out would also have not been a good idea from my perspective. The main intent is to point to Michael's work (and Heidegger and German idealistic school in general).
fair enough sir. BTW, I may 'attack' bad ideas. But my intention is NEVER to smear. That said, I still say this has nothing to do with the views of Sam Harris. Cordially, Sam's Bulldog (ed kennedy)
