It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This will be our journey - or it seems to me to be the case - towards self government. Learning to effectively communicate with each other, which I am guessing means learning to let go of our love affair with secrets and lies.
The vision of the future I have where everyone is allowed to express their full potential is beyond anything I can imagine.
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.
However, "the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002) Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969) Further,
"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anderson 1972)
As for the military, the UN START treaty has been recently signed where all the main armies of the world will try and work together. Like many other treaties it could fail, but an agreement to work towards ending major conflict is in the works. China is yet to sign up but I think they are waiting for some of these global economic issues to be sorted out first. On the nuclear side the IAEC has kept tight reins and held accountable all nations that invest in nuclear technology. I do see nuclear weapons more as a sign of national independence than a tool of war these days. As the global military becomes more cohesive and national conflict declines then there will be more incentive to disarm these dangerous risks.
Member States remain central providers of security; this is their sovereign right and responsibility, to be performed in conformity with the rule of law. To effectively execute these tasks, their armed forces, police and other security forces legitimately employ a range of weaponry, of which small arms form an important part. Governments also have a responsibility to ensure public safety and a vested interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. Therefore, ensuring that small arms in private ownership do not enter illicit circuits where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty must be part of the equation for every Government
Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years.
When it comes identity and character this is the first time I am in disagreement with you. I am aware how this debate has ingrained into policy and is a major flaw of social structure. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment and treat as the same they will share many similarities and talk as one. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment yet encourage them to express their differences they will become to separate people, may have some similarities but they talk and act differently. If you raise two identical twins in different environments they will also become different people, may still have some similarities but they will talk and act differently.
Genetics is a component, but it defines the physical with how the many types of cells work and operate. The brain is dynamic and organic, it learns to respond to the environment through trial and error. Good behaviour is reinforced and becomes habit, bad behaviour is repulsed and the mental pathways fade. This is why we all make mistakes, more so when we are younger. As the brain grows many connections are made and the individual tries many things, depending on how the environment responds dictates which connections are kept and which are lost. This in turn defines how the individual becomes.
It is clear from the brief summaries provided on twin, adoption, and family studies that there is no black or white answer to the age-old question of what contributes to human behavior, personality, and psychopathology. In reviewing a multitude of twin, adoption, and family studies broaching a large variety of topics, it is clear to see that the foundation for each human being is diverse in structure. For some cases, genetics seem to dominate; in some other cases, environment explains all. In still more situations, it is a strong combination of the two factors that mold people to be who they are. This is a strong indicator that there will never be an umbrella response to the question, and that personality and psychopathology may always have to be rationalized on a case-by-case basis.
Personality is a good example of a trait that has been studied in twins. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than fraternal twins. These observations suggest that personality is heritable. However, the environment must also be looked at. There are two kinds of environmental effects: shared experiences and nonshared experiences. Although identical twins are genetically identical and share the same family environment, identical twins raised together do not have identical personalities. These differences must then be explained entirely by nonshared environmental effects.
For the most part, or at least from my experience, twins tend to stick together when they are in their adolescent and teenage years. As a result of being together they would also share the same peer group. Combining these ideas and the group socialization theory, it seems logical that if twins share the same peer group then they would also share the same attitudes, beliefs, and norms. And if what we learn in our early years becomes a part of our personality, how could twins have different attitudes, beliefs, and norms when they are older?
This question seems to relate more to MZ twins than to DZ twins, because DZ twins are comparable to normal siblings in that they only share half of their genes. Perhaps the variance is greater for the nonshared environment because of the DZ twins, who are more apt to have different peer groups. Another explanation could be that both MZ and DZ twins had individual life experiences that changed how they thought and what they believed.
Even with these explanations, which are only guesses, I am still unsure why there was greater variance across the sample for certain attitudes that were attributed to the nonshared environment. I am sure further research could answer these questions.
The promotion and continuation of science is the only way we will ever find out. That is why I believe in scientism.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Swear to god, if I have to explain this to one more person... Here's a link to the internet: http:// Freakin' use it
Einstein once cracked that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time. I can't speak for anyone else, but I tried the link you provided and got a pop up box telling me the URL was invalid and could not be loaded. If other people are experiencing this as well, this might explain why you keep having to "explain" whatever the hell it is you think your 'splaining. You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You misunderstand me, friend.
First comes the technocracy, then comes the democracy. The intelligensia must run the revolutionary machinery in such a way as to lay the groundwork for a true democracy. When their task is completed, the state apparatus is dismantled, and the public finds that the machinery of democracy has already been constructed, and that the loss of the state has brought not chaos, but peaceful anarchy. For, without the state, there are no more archons left in the realm. The People are sovereign over themselves at that point. This is why Progressives endorse social engineering schemes; they are trying to produce a race of superhumanly-civilized people through education and psychological conditioning. If man's conduct towards his cousins can be improved upon, then anarchy isn't such an unappealing scenario.
It's what he said it is.....a link to the Internet. You get to fill the rest of that address in yourself. He's being sardonic. You disappoint me. I've always found you to be clever.