Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[Asher]

And which question does he keep asking? The pseudo-intellectual unrelated cliche quantitative vs qualitative bull**** that we've answered repeatedly, and he's ignored?

Or is there some code he's using that I missed?

GePap's latest argument can be summarized as: "Sure computers are used everywhere, but they don't have to be! We can do stuff without them. Sure they make everything more efficient but does that translate into an effect on human life? qualitative quantitative qualitative quantitative answer me answer me qualitative quantitative qualitative quantitative! You can't answer me so I'm wiping the floor with you."

That's despite the bunch of posts illustrating qualitative impact of computers on every day life, and higher-level abstract views on it as well.

He not only changed the topic from his original argument, he's ignoring replies and claiming victory because he doesn't see any replies. Maybe he just doesn't understand them (that applies to you as well, apparently).

[Asher]

And I'll leave by saying that someone who thinks databases are called dadabases and thinks that all computer science work becomes obsolete in 50 years (apparently we only write desktop software?) speaks volumes about how inept GePap is to even argue about computers and their use. You are similarly pretty clueless about what computer science is in general.

You've both been spanked pretty harshly here, and what makes it "doubly hilarious" is it somewhat backfires against your position in favor of modern philosophers. We should hope that true modern philosophers are brighter than you guys, but from what I've seen that's not the case either.

The reason why the ancient philosophers were so successful is they were open minded and perceptive -- they saw things most other people did not, and these ended up founding the sciences. Today those bright people usually end up in one of the fields of science or several of them, and the people left in the Philosophy department are the dorks who wear berets and emo glasses because they think they're smart and know everything. Whenever they enter an argument with someone outside their field, such as this, they illustrate just how close-minded and unperceptive they actually are, and thereby contrast the difference between modern and ancient philosophers.

[Fake Boris]

The problem with your post, Asher, is that none of the examples you point to truly relate to "fundamental" stuff. As you said, computer and telco technologies are catalysts; what drives the initial reaction, though, is related to a more essential part of humanity.

[Fake Boris]

Oh, and I'm posting this from my new iBook.

[Fake Boris]

Aggie, I still can't see your ****ing greek characters. And that's from my new Mac.

[Fake Boris]

Then let me tell you a story. About a month ago, I moved to Bordeaux, France, for a one-year student exchange.

For the first two or three weeks, I didn't have a phone, a computer, etc. I went to the library of the crappy, piss poor French university, and looked for books I had to read using a paper index (because the philo department here doesn't have the money to equip its library with computers).

I then wrote my 2,000 words essay the good old way: with a pen and paper. Instead of emailing it to the teacher, I gave it to him in proper hands the next day. During lunch time, since I didn't have a phone, I agreed to meet some friends the same night while I could talk to them in person.

The next morning, I woke up to the sound of my mechanical clock (whose mechanism I have to reload every day by hand). I don't have a TV, neither the Internet, and neither a radio, but on my way to the tramway stop, I grabbed a paper from a newsstand. Neither do I have an mp3 player, but that didn't prevent my ears from aching of the previous night's concert I had seen.

Anyone care to explain the fundamental difference between my experience and that of Kuci or KH?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The problem with your post, Asher, is that none of the examples you point to truly relate to "fundamental" stuff. As you said, computer and telco technologies are catalysts; what drives the initial reaction, though, is related to a more essential part of humanity.

You mean apart from his, mine, and KH's depiction of a life completely unrecognizeable fifty years ago?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Then let me tell you a story. About a month ago, I moved to Bordeaux, France, for a one-year student exchange.

For the first two or three weeks, I didn't have a phone, a computer, etc. I went to the library of the crappy, piss poor French university, and looked for books I had to read using a paper index (because the philo department here doesn't have the money to equip its library with computers).

I then wrote my 2,000 words essay the good old way: with a pen and paper. Instead of emailing it to the teacher, I gave it to him in proper hands the next day. During lunch time, since I didn't have a phone, I agreed to meet some friends the same night while I could talk to them in person.

The next morning, I woke up to the sound of my mechanical clock (whose mechanism I have to reload every day by hand). I don't have a TV, neither the Internet, and neither a radio, but on my way to the tramway stop, I grabbed a paper from a newsstand. Neither do I have an mp3 player, but that didn't prevent my ears from aching of the previous night's concert I had seen.

Anyone care to explain the fundamental difference between my experience and that of Kuci or KH?

It took you a hell of a lot longer than it would've taken anyone with access to a computer.

[BeBMan]

Technology (no doubt it can be - and often is - useful) alone doesn't guarantee a society that's worth living in.

[GePap]

I will not reply to each and every post of Ashers, but to continue with what Boris said: I might not remember being a student before computers, simply because I was never a student before computing, but the fact is that from what I have heard of the experience of a student in college, say, circa 1970, my daily student life was not fundamentally different from theirs- it might take me less time doing a variety of things than it took them, but I would still understand what they were doing and why. Their work might take more time to get done, but the same work has to be done. I do not judge that to be a trully qualitative change.

As for the arguement that because computers are everywhere, this means so fundamental change- metal alloys and plastics are everywhere as well. In my daily life almost everything I use has plastics or modern metal alloys in it (and if you define synthetic fibers as plastics, even my clothing), but I would not judge the invention of plastics or modern metal alloys as being a fundemental development of modernity that happened to create a new paradigm.

I would be hard pressed to have any understanding of the daily life of anyone prior to the paleolithic agricultural revolution or those people's who still live that way. I am still hard pressed to understand much of the daily lives of anyone prior to the industrial revolution and the 19th century revolution in transportation. But I have very little problem understanding the lives of people at the end of the second world war, just before the computing and digital revolution. I take that as a sign that the changes brought about by this revolution as of yet have not been as significant as those before. I have always heard all the talk about how computers would lessen commuting, be the death of cities, whatever, and yet, just as more computing has meant more, not less paper, people's commutes get longer, not shorter, and this digital age has as of yet not done much to increase the drain on cities that begun prior to computers becoming common household items.

That is what it boils down to. I see Asher focusing on the shallowest of differences- stating that just because almost every activity he does during the day currently involves computers, then computers have fundamentally changed his life, ignoring not only that other basic technologies have the same effect on him (since all those computers have plastics and modern metal alloys in them, so by that logic his life is dependent as much, if not more, on those techs) but failing to realize that yes, in fact, your day could have gone on much the same, if not exactly the same, without those tools.

Compare that to the fact that without the modern agricultural, industrial, and transportation revolutions of the 18 and 19th century you would probably be a farmer, and your life would be fundamentally different from anything you do, or would, or could, have today. Just because of that I would not equate the digital revolution to those far more important changes.

[Kuciwalker]

As for the arguement that because computers are everywhere, this means so fundamental change- metal alloys and plastics are everywhere as well. In my daily life almost everything I use has plastics or modern metal alloys in it (and if you define synthetic fibers as plastics, even my clothing), but I would not judge the invention of plastics or modern metal alloys as being a fundemental development of modernity that happened to create a new paradigm.

I would.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It took you a hell of a lot longer than it would've taken anyone with access to a computer.

No one disputed that. That is the whole issue of efficiency. But does the fact it took more time equate to a real difference in how one lives their life?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It took you a hell of a lot longer than it would've taken anyone with access to a computer.

So basically we're talking about the same tasks being done, with similar results. The debate might come to a dispute about the meaning of the word "fundamental", but personally I don't see a mere increase in efficiency as "fundamental".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

As for the arguement that because computers are everywhere, this means so fundamental change- metal alloys and plastics are everywhere as well. In my daily life almost everything I use has plastics or modern metal alloys in it (and if you define synthetic fibers as plastics, even my clothing), but I would not judge the invention of plastics or modern metal alloys as being a fundemental development of modernity that happened to create a new paradigm.

I would.

Great. At least you are willing to argue, thought it would be nice for you to add in some further stuff than one sentence answers. Asher on the other hand seems unwilling to say anything worthwhile, as it might have the taint of actual debate (perish the thought)

Oh, and on the issue of Credit Cards, they came into being in the thirties, and the more common ones in the late 1950's, before the banking system had been digitilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_cards

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You mean apart from his, mine, and KH's depiction of a life completely unrecognizeable fifty years ago?

Fifty years ago, people listened to vinyls instead of iPods. They drove cars with no computers, but that didn't change much in the way car works. They looked for directions on paper maps instead of GPS phones. There is nothing about our lives they couldn't understand just by telling them "it's the same as X only better and more efficient".