Member 2394
4 entries

Gregg Shields (M)
Glasgow, UK
Immortal since Nov 7, 2009
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From BenRayfield
    Thought It Was Hard But...
    From nagash
    Does Consciousness Depend...
    From nom the puppet
    Is Space Collective too...
    From Schmuck
    Should SpaceCollective Be...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    Whenever I visit this site, more than anything else, I get the sensation that people are thinking. We seem to find companionship in our common curiosity of ourselves and the Universe.

    You don’t need to read this post to know what I’m talking about, as you are likely more experienced in Space Collective than I am.

    No, the purpose of this post is to pose a question, and the question is this.

    Should Space Collective be Open?

    I encountered this place entirely by chance, I was using the random chat service Omegle, when I got talking to NotThisBody, we had a very interesting conversation, and he directed my attention to this site. I expressed my interest, and he sent me an invite.

    In that sense I am lucky, because had I encountered this site in another way, I would have had no way to join, while I very much would have wanted to.

    I think Space Collective has the potential to be something of great importance on the internet: it demonstrates a world of profound thought, and encourages a deepness not found on the staples of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

    I understand the reasoning behind the current system of invite-only membership, as it ensures a degree of quality to contributors to the site, but unfortunately this is at the expense of the kind of rapid expansion that I think it could achieve.

    If anyone is free to join and contribute to Space Collective of their own accord, it is of great advantage to all of us, as it encourages more minds to engage in the topics we discuss, and brings more ideas and perspectives into the mix, which will encourage further and further thought.

    Frequently here, we speak of the importance and openness of the internet, and how profound it has the potential to be. Can the same not apply to this site? Is there any disadvantage in the encouragement of greater participation from the rest of the world?

    What is the purpose in limiting ourselves to only those that we know?
    Fri, Dec 10, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: Space Collective
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)
    The political system with which we are currently presented is based on antiquated problems. The main notion of a Democracy is that the people choose how the country is run, however, the problem with this ideal had always been that of representation.

    It has always been a problem to accurately represent the collective views of the people, as there are so many people, and so many different and conflicting views.

    To solve the problem of the sheer number of people, the idea of representatives came about; an elected individual who would represent the collective views of a few thousand people within a constituency.

    These several hundred representatives would then join together in a parliament, and debate on the specifics of how to run the country. This is the current established system which is apparently the best possible way of representing what several million people want collectively. The very reason that this system arose is because it was simply impossible for every citizen to contribute their view, and have that heard.

    In order to solve the problem of the many different and conflicting views of the people, political parties were established, effectively dividing the myriad of options into 2 or 3 established, general viewpoints, attempting to cover every view which they could. And the very reason that this system arose was because it was impossible for every opinion to be considered for every issue that a country encountered.

    However, these problems no longer exist. Technology has made it possible for every person to express their view, and have it considered. The ubiquity of the Internet has allowed everyone to make their voice heard.

    And yet, every established democracy in the world still has a system which is built around a problem which no longer exists.

    It is no longer impossible for every person to be able to vote on every issue, it is no longer impossible for the viewpoint of every person to be considered in every issue.

    And yet, as technology continues to progress, politics stagnates, using very much the same system of representation that it has done for the past 100 years.

    The pure notion of democracy is that there is no division between the Government and the People, so why does this division exist? The only justifications for it to be the case have long since ceased to exist.

    Current politics is a static system trying to work in a dynamic world.

    When your voice consists of a cross in a box, once every 5 years, it is a sign that what you think is not being heard.

    When there are riots in the street, and outcry over policy, it is a sign that the people are not being accurately represented.

    When the opinions of the few in charge are at odds with the opinions of the many, you do not have democracy.

    We never choose our own countries policy; we never choose its actions, its words.

    We choose a group of people, who are under no obligation to hold up to their promises, and who’s only key to power is to distract the people with speeches and rallies, with propaganda and jokes, all to get your cross in their box, so that they can obtain free reign over all policy for another 5 years.

    What we have is not democracy, what we have is a society of Us and Them. Once the group has your vote, and no longer has to perform, your country is in their hands, and they won’t care what you want until voting time comes again.

    Nothing you think is ever represented, you are forced to wedge your perspective into a category, and you are then forced to trust the ambassadors of that category to act in your interest, which they have absolutely no obligation to do.

    Democracy is an old notion, an ambition of true representation, held back by old limitations.

    This century calls for a new system, a Neo-Democracy, where every person has the opportunity to vote on every policy, every decision that a country needs to make.

    The internet has solved the problems that held back the original Democracy; we are now comfortably capable of making the Government and the People synonymous.

    Your representative would be yourself; your established viewpoint would be your own. Every situation could be independently considered, and not processed through a cookie cutter viewpoint.

    Such a system would realise a much purer method of representation than the current systems.

    Politics and Technology need to work together, rather than be opposed, if any kind of social progress wants to be realised in the 21st Century.
    Thu, Dec 9, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: Democracy
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
    Our understanding and perception of the Universe is greatly regulated by established forms of language and numerals.

    While the primary function of language serves to communicate thoughts between people, language also makes up a great part of our internal brain chatter, allowing us to allocate words and descriptions to stimulus that we perceive; giving order to what might otherwise be a chaotic reception of stimuli.

    While this layer of understanding can be advantageous, there is an argument to be made that such stringent regulation of how we see and understand the Universe could also have negative consequences.

    There is often confusion between the established semantics of a word, and the truth of what this word represents in the Universe.

    A good example of this is the concept of Free Will.

    The common established semantics of the term “Free Will” is the ability to make a choice uninfluenced by any external factors.

    This concept is widely accepted as a real and relevant topic, and is in fact the source of much thought and debate.

    However, what does this collection of symbols: “Free Will” actually represent in our Universe? Does it actually exist?

    The truth is, we currently have no way of knowing if Free Will even exists as any kind of rule or force in the Universe, leaving the truth of free will essentially ambiguous.

    The fact that we have to be scientifically agnostic about Free Will, but accept it without question as part of our language highlights something.

    There is potentially a huge difference between what is true in the Universe, and what is true in our language. We unconditionally accept a plethora of concepts, ideas and words as part of language, which represent things that may not even exist.

    To us, they are relevant, even though they may be utterly irrelevant to the Universe.

    This means that we run the risk of getting tied up in arguing the semantics of our syntax, when neither may be relevant or even true.

    Is this an efficient way to see the Universe? Do unfounded concepts aid in providing us with truth?

    Regardless of the answer, we may do well to make more of a distinction between what is real, and what is language.
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    Should we assume that the Big Bang Theory is correct; the idea of fate could in fact be plausible.

    If everything that exists is derivative to a single event, it means that every subsequent event is a result of how the original event occurred.

    If you consider the Big Bang to be the original event, and everything in recorded history and more to be these derivative events, it can be seen that absolutely everything that has occurred is dependent to the Big Bang.

    In that respect, we are the Big Bang: we are all the results of a single reaction.

    Therefore, if we imagine that nothing exists, or ever has existed, and that a Big Bang occurs identical to this Universes, it could be concluded that events would unfold in precisely the same way, eventually reaching the point of you reading this sentence in this exact point in time.

    And in this logic, if all of our past is already predetermined from the nature of the Big Bang, it would also mean that all of our future would be predetermined as well.

    Hence, if we assume the Big Bang theory to be accurate, and that we also assume there are no other outside forces in play, it would mean that we all have a Logical Fate which is all derivative of a single event.
    Mon, May 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: Big Bang, Universe, Fate, Logic
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)