• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Author Archives: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: CAPITALISM HAS IT ASS OVER TIT.

14 Thursday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Capitalism, Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Social Media, Sustaniability, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: CAPITALISM HAS IT ASS OVER TIT.

Tags

Cap, Capitalism, Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism isn't working, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Capitalist World., Capitalistic Societies, Free market capitalism, Global capitalism, Neoliberal capitalism:

 

( A twelve-minute read.)

What is the problem with capitalism?

A question that has preoccupied its existence.

The answer is that there is nothing in its internal logic to interrupt its momentum – to stop it eating its way through our planet, and ultimately collapsing our global ecosystems.

We all know that capitalism has brought with it historically unprecedented material advances. But today it is more obvious than ever that the imperatives of the market will not allow capital to prosper without depressing the conditions of great multitudes of people and degrading the environment throughout the world.

After years of ill-health, capitalism is now in a critical condition.

Growth has given way to stagnation; inequality is leading to instability; and confidence in the money economy has all but evaporated.

We have now reached the point where the destructive effects of capitalism are outstripping its material gains.

No ‘developing’ economy setting out on the capitalist road today, for example, is likely to achieve even the contradictory development that England underwent and is now dismantling.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of capitalism"

There is a growing disparity between the material capacities created by capitalism and the quality of life it can deliver.

This is visible not only in the growing gap between rich and poor but also, for instance, in the deterioration of public services in the very countries – such as the US and UK – where the principles of the capitalist market are most uninhibited.

Capitalism was born at the very core of human life, in the interaction with
nature on which life itself depends, and the transformation of that interaction by agrarian capitalism revealed the inherently destructive
impulses of a system in which the very fundamentals of existence are subjected to the requirements of profit.

In other words, the origin of capitalism revealed the essential secret of capitalism.

To day Capitalism is incapable of promoting sustainable development,
not because it encourages technological advances that are capable of straining the earth’s resources but because the purpose of capitalist production is exchange value not use value, profit not people. 

Whatever capitalism may do to enable the efficient use of resources, its own imperatives will always drive it further. Without constantly breaching the limits of conservation, without constantly moving forward the boundaries of waste and destruction, there can be no capital accumulation.

There is, in general, a great disparity between the productive capacities of capitalism and the quality of life it delivers.

Why?

Because the ethic of ‘improvement’ in its original sense, in which production is inseparable from profit, is also the ethic of exploitation, poverty, and homelessness.

The world is changing and the only profits matter approach to business is becoming harder to justify and get away with. The old style of the end justifies the means and the purpose of business is profit is dying.

The transparency of social media and the advent of the global economy, driven by Artificial Intelligence is demanding a change to how Capitalism works.

We are on call 24/7 through email and smart phones which is causing the line between money as the great motivator or happiness to blur.

The attempt to achieve material prosperity according to capitalist principles is increasingly likely to bring with it the negative side of the capitalist contradiction, its dispossession and destruction, more than its material
benefits – certainly for the vast majority.

The system’s contradictions have always gone far beyond the vagaries of economic cycles.

The use of wealth to create more wealth is coming to an end and will be hopefully replaced with intrinsic rewards than by pure financial ones. If values are not lived and only decorate the walls they can become a demotivating factor.

Life would indeed be nasty, brutish, and short if it were solitary, fortunately for all of us, in capitalist society it isn’t.

The beautiful thing about capitalism is that it’s ultimately based on
voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.

So why does it not get sufficient credit for the amazing value it has created.

Because the destructive effects of capitalism have constantly reproduced themselves, its positive effects have not been nearly as consistent since the system’s moment of origin.

So where does this leave us?

Unfortunately there will be no escape from exploitation. Increasingly significant numbers are not so much oppressed by capitalism as they are excluded by it.

The market can no longer act as a regulator of the economy as it becomes digitized. To guarantee some rationality, some correspondence between what people want and what is produced we all Technology to be verified in order to ensure it is complying with core human values. (See previous Posts)

While capitalist discipline celebrates consumption, not all of its subjects are rightly called consumers. To the contrary, many who are subject to its discipline do not so much struggle to consume and accumulate as merely survive, which suggests that capitalism works to deform humanity.

Capitalism has so construed the market that humans interact agonistically, competitively.

All of us, winners and losers, consumers and excluded, compete for resources, for market share, for a living wage, for a job, for the time for friendship and family, for inclusion in the market, and so forth.

Capitalism is now in the process of becoming invisible on the surface.

First, it is computerized and robotized, not to lessen everyone’s work time, but instead to raise profits by reducing payrolls.

Second, it exploited low-wage immigrant labor to offset wage increases won by years of labor struggles.

Third, it moved production to lower-wage countries such as China, India, Brazil and others.

Fourth, it divided and weakened the labor unions, political party groups and other organizations that pursued labor’s interests.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer capitalist cell.

As a result, inside nearly every country of the global capitalist system, the rich-poor divide deepened.

Can anything be done?

Not much.

Capitalism makes a virtue of what an earlier era denounced as a vice, pleonexia or greed – a restless, possessive, acquisitive drive, but which today is celebrated as the aggressive, creative, entrepreneurial energy that distinguishes homo economicus.

Capitalism is bad for those who succeed by its standards as well as for those who fail by them.

In fact, in many countries today, and for much of human history, it has been widely understood that those who are rich are rich because they took from others, and especially because they have access to organized force—in today’s terms, the state.

Such predatory elites use this force to gain monopolies and to confiscate the produce of others through taxes. They feed at the state treasury and they benefit t from state-imposed monopolies and restrictions on competition. It’s only under conditions of capitalism that people commonly become wealthy without being criminals.

It fails not simply on the grounds of what it fails to do but because of what it succeeds in doing: distorting human desire and relations.

It is often unclear what exactly is being condemned when it comes to Capitalism.

The term “capitalism” refers not just to markets for the exchange of goods and services, which have existed since time immemorial, but to the system of innovation, wealth creation, and social change that has brought to billions of people prosperity that was unimaginable to earlier generations of human beings.

The above may be true but it is now being exploited by what I call the fearsome five empty calorie connections” Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Even if they remain in possession, or indeed outright ownership, of the means of production – they are subject to the demands of competition, increasing productivity, capital accumulation, and the intense exploitation of
labor.

In this barren space, they and us are now locked in competition and struggle for scarce resources.

If you have got this far I can hear you saying come to the point.

What might be the alternatives to capitalism look like?

Capitalism is a cultural system and not simply an economic one, it cannot be explained by material factors alone.

It is now obvious, that the value Capitalism created is at a cost, which we are now reaping:  Our environment, (Climate change) our core values, (We all have a core value in the unknown.) our Humanity all of which have been and are being hijacked by Greed/Profit and now technological progress.

Even if capitalism succeeds in reducing poverty, it is still wrong on account of its distortion of human desiring and human relations, rendering them antagonistic, competitive.

Over the last century, capitalism has repeatedly revealed its worst tendencies: instability and inequality. Inequality has proved to be an inherent trend of capitalism. Resting everything on self-interest is relying on a very incomplete theory of human nature.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of capitalism"

Now that the capital markets are run by Algorithms and the world has an apparent love-hate relationship with the economic social system, capitalism, is it not time to create a new model of Capitalism.

“Conscious Capitalism.” or Social-Capitalism the seeds of which can be seen in countries like Sweden, Norwegian.

The first principle is that business has the potential to have a higher purpose that may include making money, but is not restricted to it.

Truly moving beyond capitalism means breaking from the employer-employee core relationship.

It means no longer assigning a relatively tiny number of people inside each enterprise to the employer position of exclusively making the sorts of decisions.

(In private corporations the employers are the boards of directors selected by the major shareholders. In state or public enterprises of the traditional socialist economies, the employers are state officials.)

Instead of either kind of employer-employee relationship, system change installs a different core relationship inside enterprises. A different group of people — all workers in the factory, office or store — democratically makes those same decisions. The rule is “one worker, one vote,” and in general, the majority decides. The difference between employer and employee dissolves.

Every business has the potential for a higher purpose. And if you think about it, all the other professions in our society are motivated by purpose, beyond a narrow interpretation of purpose as restricted to maximizing profits.

I think that capitalism and business should fully reflect the complexity of
human nature.

Capitalist interaction is highly structured by ethical norms and rules. Indeed, capitalism rests on a rejection of the ethics of loot and grab, the means by which most wealth enjoyed by the wealthy has been acquired in other economic and political systems.

Capitalist contradictions are increasingly escaping all our efforts to control
them. The hope of achieving a humane, truly democratic, and ecologically sustainable capitalism is becoming transparently unrealistic.

In the midst of the descending darkness of capital, the difference this time is that we know what happened last time.

Postmodern society thwarts our innate desire to participate politically. Just voting in an election every few years, marching once in a while, or signing petitions on Avaaz or MoveOn doesn’t count for much.

We need new avenues for passionate participation – not just in elections every few years, but continuously.

A more generous, egalitarian, patient, deliberate, and accountable form of capitalism must begin with incisive and interdisciplinary social inquiry, without which policy change cannot be successful.

All suggestions all comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WAKE UP-THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT IS A JOKE.

09 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Paris Climate Change Delegates., Post - truth politics., Social Media., Sustaniability, Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WAKE UP-THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT IS A JOKE.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Inequility, Natural disaster, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( A One minute Read)

Wake up. The Paris Climate Change Agreement which covers the period 2020 to 2030, : A system of voluntary, unenforceable pledges relies on peer pressure for ambitious commitments and the “naming and shaming” of countries that drag their feet, is a JOKE. It’s just worthless words. All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Climate change is an issue of huge public interest.

One of the biggest problems that the world is facing aside from the economic pitfalls is the unprecedented occurrences of natural calamities. Not only does a calamity bring about massive death and destruction to the country, but it also causes great financial issues.

The exit of the United States could multiply those troubles, or it could provide an opportunity to fix the looming problem of incredible goals.

Time has nearly run out for limiting warming to 2 °C. “If we wait until 2020, it will be too late.”

The talks were rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

Demonstrating, yet again, the utter folly of an approach that is attempting to save the world by putting it on a collective energy diet.

Every major climate change initiative to date has gone up in smoke.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to cut emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, was doomed from the start.

The 2009 Copenhagen conference to hammer out a Kyoto sequel was an even bigger debacle.

The carbon market is a concept based on “polluter pays” and cap-and-trade principle. The objective is to reduce gas emissions through the use of market law. It assembles voluntary organizations that exchange the rights to issue carbon dioxide.

During the year, if a company manages to emit less than the allowable amount, it can sell the remainder to another company. This transaction doesn’t change the total emissions of the group. Therefore, one company must emit a lower-than-allowable amount in order for another company to emit more.

It works pretty much like the stock exchange. The problem with this system is that it needs rigid regulations and enforcement in order to have a large impact. There is no law limiting the amount of carbon emissions by a company. The carbon market is purely based on volunteerism, which works well for the companies already involved. This system was at the heart of Kyoto.

 

We watch large global corporations make billions, we watch governments spend billions on arms, we watch drug companies make trillions, energy giants make trillions,we watch Google/Alphabet/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/ Facebook/Twitter/Algorithms plunder the world, while the United Nations has to beg for funds.

So where are we.

We either spend trillions and sacrificing millions of jobs, to reduce the average global temperature. Or Spend trillions on mopping up disasters and stopping mass immigration.

Or

Place a world aid commission on all Transactions that are Profit for Profit sake, on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions of $50,000, on all Sovereignty Funds Acquisitions, on all form of online Gambling. Creating a perpetual fund to address the problem and reduce inequality.

Ban all air/road/sea traffic one day a month.

Even if the always-wrong climate change computer models turned out to be right, no one wants to pay the cost.

Recent images bear little resemblance to reality;

Bangladesh underwater, Mexico shaking, Vast areas on fire, West Indies blown away, Wars a bucket full and inequality rampant. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the top world forest fires"

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the latest hurricane"

May all those caught up in any of the above survive.

 

Stupidity consists in wanting to come to a conclusion.

All support appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the latest hurricane"

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF LIP SERVICE.

08 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Capitalism, Climate Change., Environment, Evolution, Google, Humanity., Life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF LIP SERVICE.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Distribution of wealth, Inequility, Natural disaster, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( A three-minute read)

We live in a world where turning on the news every day means getting updated on the latest tragedy and not just finding out what the weather will be like tomorrow.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the living world"

2017 is a year of unrelenting misery and fear. We live in a world where people feel more afraid of someone with a gun than protected.

We live in a world where text messages surpass face to face conversations.

Image associée

We live in a world run by Algorithms. In a world where if you didn’t snap chat it or post it to Facebook, “it didn’t happen”.

We live in a world that has so many people without the words, “thank you” in their vocabulary.

We live in a world where people would rather sit in the comfort of their anguish and anxiety than take a small step to a better life.

What happened to the world where everyone minded their own damn business?

What happened to the world where people actually knew their neighbors, and didn’t fear them? What happened to the world where people got together and lost track of time because they didn’t have their phone attached to their hip?

What happened to the world where people could voice their opinion without getting hate mail? What happened to the world as one nation?

We live in a world where our self-esteem is managed by the amount of “likes” on our selfies and statuses.

I don’t need to tell you world news is pretty grim right now – if you use social media, it’s nigh on impossible to avoid articles about bubbling permafrost, drug-resistant gonorrhoea, and deadly obesity treatments.

And that’s just the science headlines.

We live in a world with rampant inequality due to capitalist greed, void of any common values.

We live in a world with global environmental changes locked into our future, with hidden threats to sustainability,not just because of migration that is just beginning due to lack of fresh water.

Stop, take a step back and think.

Isn’t it absurd that we, 7 billion of us living in the same planet, have grown further apart from each other? What sense does it make to turn your back on the thousands, maybe millions, of people living around you.

If we want wars we have all the ingredients.

We live in a world where our i pads and cell phones get thinner and our bodies get thicker.

We live in a world where people pass each other on the street and can’t even smile back.

We live in a world where people dish hatred out on a serving platter.

We live in a world where our world organisation called the United nations s just a gossip shop that has to beg for funds. Unable to cuts through the rhetoric because of

We live in a world where people take more than they give. We live in a world where people have completely forgotten what they were given knees for.

What happened to our world?

Most of us haven’t quite realized there is something extraordinary happening. I want to see it through a child’s eyes again.

Why is the world-changing?

We live in a world where  because we are too afraid of hurting kid’s feelings instead of teaching them the value of hard work. You get a participation trophy for merely showing up.3278764814_4d666f44ee_o-crop

We live in a world of lip service.

We are reaching our limits. It’s time for people to switch on the blender, stirring events in the non-human part of the world into their everyday lives, and see what happens.

Google might knows our names but it knows Sweet Fanny Adam about the natural world. The rest of the living world can get along without us, but we can’t get along without them.

Perhaps all living things comprise one biological entity, one large functioning ecosystem (life-force) with planet Earth as skeleton if so we had better learn quick that a skeleton earth whether it is due to Climate change, Nuclear war, or Algorithms will be worthless.

We are not isolated from the world around us by the boundaries of our bodies. Modern science has blurred the lines of the individual by shedding light on how interdependent life is. We are dependent on microbes. In essence, all life is connected to other life because we all exist in the same space.  If you don’t like bacteria, you’re on the wrong planet.”

When it comes to making sense of the incomprehensible we can only place our trust in tales of the imagination.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "videos of the living world"

The problem is that no one is will to bear the cost not even earth so why not make Greed pay. ( See previous Posts)

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: ARE WE BEGINNING TO THINK THE UNTHINKABLE.

07 Thursday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Post - truth politics., Terrorism., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: ARE WE BEGINNING TO THINK THE UNTHINKABLE.

Tags

The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( A ten minute read.)

The empty brain:

No one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it.

The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not contain most of the things people think it does – not even simple things such as ‘memories’.

For more than half a century now, psychologists, linguists, neuron scientists and other experts on human behavior have been asserting that the human brain works like a computer.

However the state of our understanding today of an integrated plan of brain function remains incomplete. The brain consists of at least several hundred distinct cell types whose complete classification is still at present elusive.Blog post featured image

Ever since man walked out of Africa, developed different cultures and different languages we have being using his brains to kill.

To date we have burnt more neurons on self-destruction than survival.

Step back and view our species objectively from the outside, the way a zoologist would carefully observe any other animal, or see us the way every other creature perceives human beings.  The brutal reality could not be more evident or more horrifying.

We are the most relentless yet oblivious killers on Earth. 

Our violence operates far outside the bounds of any other species.  Human beings kill anything.  Slaughter is a defining behavior of our species.  We kill all other creatures, and we kill our own. We kill strangers. We kill people who are different from us, in appearance, beliefs, race, and social status.  We kill ourselves in suicide.  We kill for advantage and for revenge, we kill for entertainment:

I would venture to say that there has not been one day — not one single day — since the beginning of recorded history when one human being has not killed another. And I don’t mean by accident. I mean deliberately. With purposeful intent.

Not one.

Single.

Day.

…in thousand and thousands of years.

So is violence in our genes.  As Mr Darwin put it; Survival of the Fittest. Evolution requires a struggle to survive, so killing is a must.

Just look at the twentieth century, numerous people were killed in the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, the Jews suffered in the II World War, Ethnic massacres happened in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

Today, several Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram are butchering people in the name of Islam, while thousands of Rohingya Muslims flee Myanmar due to ethnic cleansing the shadow of a nuclear war ( that will bring equality to all, save us all from climate change and mass migration, ) can be summed up in one word: BRAINLESS.  Brain

Yet there’s no reason to assume that our empty brains will be adequate vessels for the voyage towards that answer.

Humanity has been trying to figure out how to bring an end to war since living beings evolved into self-consciousness on this planet. This effort now involves thousands of researchers, consumes billions of dollars in funding, and has generated a vast literature consisting of both technical and mainstream articles and books.

This latest up tick in the hostilities between these parties is almost irrelevant at this stage. Each side, of course, insists that it is only defending itself. And it is. Seen from each side’s point of view, all each side is doing is defending itself. Aggression is always called defense. Unfortunately every religion thinks it is the right one.

All that matters today is what it would take to end the killing, to end the aggression and counter-aggression that is threatening to embroil a whole region — and even, conceivably, the entire world at some level, if not directly — in a war that could prove unspeakably tragic for the entire human race, turning anyone that survives into an atheist, as there will be no invisible means of support as everything will glow.

But if there is a biological explanation for something, it is impossible to hold someone responsible for it. This is simply untrue.

This is a question that has been asked for many centuries. The Greeks philosopher Plato explained violent behavior by the fact that humans had a dual character because of their greedy nature. The Church always blamed the devil for possessing violent people.

Branding behaviors as incurable is hogwash fortuitously most humans are endowed with a sense of disgust but our kinship is often exploited by nations and religions, not surprisingly they are two institutions that are responsible for most, if not all, wars.

There is no satisfying answer to the question of why we go to war other than it feels good to protect our kinship.

All behavior is the product of the brain, and the brain is a product of genetics and the environment. Genes change at a glacial pace.  But territory and society shift constantly and they are molded by man.

So here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them – ever. We never did, never will.

We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers.

The idea that memories are stored in individual neurons is preposterous:

Given this reality, why do so many scientists talk about our mental life as if we were computers?

Now here is the good or bad news.

Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not. Computers really do operate on symbolic representations of the world. They really store and retrieve. They really process. They really have physical memories. They really are guided in everything they do, without exception, by algorithms.

Uncontrolled Algorithms will kill us. Now more people have mobile phones than have toilets.

Everything we know about the universe tells us that reality consists only of physical things: atoms and their component particles, busily colliding and combining.

If a smartphone could be conscious, and were it to ultimately prove that the one thing the human mind is incapable of comprehending is itself.

Since anything at all that matters, in life, only does so as a consequence of its impact on conscious brains, could you ever know that it was true?'Because it is limited in characters, texting discourages thoughtful discussion or any level of detail, and its addictive problems are compounded by its hyper-immediacy.'

Our smartphones have become Swiss army knife–like appliances that include a dictionary, calculator, web browser, email, Game Boy, appointment calendar, voice recorder, guitar tuner, weather forecaster, GPS, texter, tweeter, Facebook updater, and flashlight.

The future of the brain and the implications on ethics and human behavior is now in the hands of Algorithms.

Speculating about the ‘algorithms’ of the brain, how the brain ‘processes data’, and even how it superficially resembles integrated circuits in its structure is now all the rage.

In 2013 the European Commission awarded neuron scientist Henry Markram $1.3 billion to pursue an audacious goal: building a simulation of the human brain. It is now in disarray. There’s a fly in the ointment. Although we think we’re doing several things at once, multitasking, this is a powerful and diabolical illusion.

It is the ultimate empty-caloried brain candy.

Instead of reaping the big rewards that come from sustained, focused effort, we instead reap empty rewards from completing a thousand little sugar-coated tasks.

We are sacrificing efficiency and deep concentration. Each time we check a Twitter feed or Facebook update, we encounter something novel and feel more connected socially (in a kind of weird, impersonal cyber way) and get another dollop of reward hormones.

It is the dumb, novelty-seeking portion of the brain driving the limbic system that induces this feeling of pleasure, not the planning, scheduling, higher-level thought centres in the prefrontal cortex. Make no mistake:  texting, email-, Facebook- and Twitter-checking constitute a neural addiction to brainless thought.

Because it is limited in characters, it discourages thoughtful discussion or any level of detail. Texting discourages thoughtful discussion or any level of detail, and its addictive problems are compounded by its hyper-immediacy.

Faulty conclusion: All entities that are capable of behaving intelligently are information processors.

It is safe to say that we aren’t completely doomed to continue killing each other, as the advancement of culture appears not to be having a civilizing effect on us.

The enormous industry of print and broadcast journalism serves predominantly to document our killing.

You know who to write to. Write to them. You know whom to contact. Contact them. Right now. Our world’s leaders need someone to lead them. We thought they were going to lead us, but they can’t. Or won’t. So we need to lead them.

With the amount and duration of wars happening right now in 2017, it’s hard not to get desensitized to death and violence. It really is. That means we have to work harder to stay informed.

Remember the killing fields of Cambodia.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of killing fields cambodia"

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS TIME TO CURTAIL ON LINE/REMOTE GAMBLING.

04 Monday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Gambling

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS TIME TO CURTAIL ON LINE/REMOTE GAMBLING.

Tags

Gambling

( A seven minute read)

Don’t get me wrong.

Every adult is responsible for his or hers choices. Yes you can change channel or turn you mobile phone off but gambling is now a large revenue source for many governments, due to its ease of implementation, popular appeal and high real tax rate it can bear (up to around 40%).

It is often promoted by spending on “good causes” designated as “additional” to existing government activity.

However gambling taxes are effectively hypothecated  (specifically designated rather than fed into the general tax pool) they are often, diverted into education, health, and social and economic development, potentially substituting for taxation raised elsewhere in the economy.

But this is not the problem, it is the potential to carry a 24-hour bookmakers shop around in our pocket, all day, every day – simply by downloading one of the many gambling apps.

The advent of online gambling, in combination with the development smartphones is making “responsible gambling” a joke.

To market it as harmless fun and entertainment, when it’s been totally designed to addict an individual and take all of their money, is obscene.

Gambling companies send ‘free bet’ incentives straight to your phone –particularly if they see that you haven’t been using the app for a while.

Technology advances are making a joke of gambling laws. Remote gambling circumvents all laws and needs to be regulated like an other dangerous commodity or activity – alcohol, cigarettes, gun licences, etc.

(888, one of Britain’s biggest online gambling firms, is to pay a record penalty package of over £7.8 million as a result of serious failings in its handling of vulnerable customers.)

For every person with a gambling problem, there are estimated to be a further 5-10 people affected,.

Pathological gambling, this form of a gambling addiction persists even in the face of appalling damages to the individual’s personal, professional or family life, and is classified in the field of mental health as a disorder.

The undesirable social and financial consequence of excessive and unbridled gambling is, of course, well-known however gambling has become widely viewed as a socially acceptable form of recreation.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of gambling addiction"

Ireland has the second highest spend, per person, on gambling – in the world.

Unlucky Brits lost a record £12.6 billion on gambling last year – that’s up £1.4bn on the year before. Online gambling accounted for almost a third of latest gambling losses, with punters losing £3.6 billion to internet betting and online casino and bingo sites, almost £300 per person.

The UK gambling industry is worth £7.1 billion, in the form of point of consumption tax, not including the National Lottery.

As a general rule, the minimum legal age for gambling in the UK is 18 years old. This applies to adult gaming centers, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos, racetracks and online gambling. The exceptions to this are the National Lottery, lotteries and football pools – you’re allowed to take part in these from the age of 16 as well as some non-commercial gambling, or low stakes and prizes gambling.

Answer me this existing laws were not drafted with internet online gambling in mind. How many online of remote gambling activities verify the punters age. Online gaming is the industry’s fastest-growing sector, and accounted for 11% of the $385bn of gambling profits posted in 2016.

There is a limit to what regulations can do.

Most of what we know [about gambling harm] is through research and evidence heavily influenced by industry.

Industry funds all the research in the country through Gamble Aware. (Gamble Aware is the charity formerly known as the Responsible Gambling Trust, charged by the department for culture, media and sport with commissioning research into, and treatment of, gambling harm.) Five of Gamble Aware’s 13 trustees have direct links to the gambling industry.

In the financial year 2015-16, the UK government  raised £7.6m in contributions from the gambling industry. Of that it spent £919,654 on research. Meanwhile £3,788,698 was given to the gambling harm treatment charity Gamcare. Of Gamcare’s 11 trustees, six have direct connections to the gambling industry.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of gambling addiction"

The amount of gambling adverts on TV, and social media platforms are spiraling out of control.

I am sick to the back teeth of seeing advert after advert after advert for online casinos  “spend £10 to get £30 to bet with” at nearly every ad break or bet in play (betting on football matches) that now pollutes nearly ever sport event shown on TV. We need to radical change the current gambling advertisements on the grounds that they contravene principles of consumer protection or the requirement to protect children and young people, and more generally to call into question the role of advertising in promoting gambling, particularly at hours and on media seen by children.

This frenzy of advertising is caped of by the Lotto results that are now deems worthy of the BBC main line – Ten O clock News.

The prevalence of gambling disorders worldwide is highly variable, ranging from 1 in 500 people (Norway) to as high as 1 in 20 people (Hong Kong). In the USA, around 1% of the population are pathological gamblers (those with the worst problem), while a further 1% to 2% are problem gamblers (those with the next most serious level of addiction).

In the UK, around one in 200 people is a pathological gambler, while in Australia the prevalence is 0.5% to 1% depending on the region studied.

The explosion of gambling opportunities-especially online-will increase the visibility of gambling disorders, and people not currently exposed to gambling opportunities will increasingly have access.

Although technological advance his long been associated with improved gambling opportunities, there is little written in the literature explicitly pointing out this link and its implications for problem gamblers.

Technology is and will continue to provide new market opportunities not only in the shape of internet gambling but also in the shape of more technologically advanced slot machines, video lottery terminals (VLTs), interactive television gambling and telephone wagering. In addition, other
established gambling forms will become more technologically driven
(e.g., bingo, keno). Linked jackpots for every type of gambling activity
appear to becoming the norm.

The most frequent gambling activities across most countries are lotteries, scratch cards, sports betting, and gambling machines.

The gambling sector differs from other economic activities, because it is regulated almost exclusively at the national level rather than by the European Union law. This allowed companies to move offshore to tax havens such as Gibraltar, Malta, The Caymans, etc., from where they could allow punters to bet tax-free.

Image associée

Australia’s gambling addiction has made it the world’s biggest loser. The country spent $US761 ($992) per capita last year, with Hong Kong and Finland coming in second and third place, according to UK-based Global Betting and Gaming Consultants.

The biggest prize by far is the United States, where bettors’ total losses reached $117bn last year. The untapped potential is enormous: Americans wagered $150bn illegally on sports alone last year, by one estimate.

The US, with its casinos mecca Las Vegas, ranked seventh.

LAS VEGAS may be synonymous with gambling, but the industry’s biggest expo is actually held in London.

In the end all life is a gamble over which we have little if any control but would it not be a step in the right direction if our laws ensured that all gambling generated revenues, was more directly related to local need, in order that issues of community harm and benefit from gambling can be more effectively addressed.

There is no social or national advantage to these gambling companies, they serve only to line the pockets of the already rich and can cause misery to those caught in their grasp.

When one looks at the world of gambling, the chances of this happening is zero.

Not only is technology a tool of the market but technology can also be a regulatory tool.

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because of the revenue source there’s scant will for political change:

this is causing social devastation within our towns and cities, let’s do something about it.’

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE: WHAT’S THE CATCH?

01 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: WHAT’S THE CATCH?

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

( A non-negotiable read of fifteen minutes.)

Watching the pathetic British approach to negotiating its departure from the EU, ( In as much as England seems to think that it is the EU that is leaving England rather than the other way around.)

If the European Union was negotiating to join the UK it would be understandable that UK Justice system would apply.How the UK and EU line up for the third round of Brexit negotiations

It beggars belief that UK negotiators think their EU counterparts lack imagination and flexibility.

The UK side appear to have left all planning and preparation for this incredibly complex operation until after the referendum, and then to have stitched together a bunch of deliberately ambiguous “positions.”

It behooves England to remember that they initiated this stupidity and to be grateful the EU is still prepared to talk.

Michel Barnier, chief negotiator for the European Union is right to insist that the UK is subject to the European court of justice (ECJ) which can hold Britain to whatever treaty is agreed after Brexit whether there is a transition period or not.

He would be right to remind Mr Fox who is claiming the EU is bribing the Uk that his Conservative party is a dab hand at bribery using in effect £1bn of public money, buying DUP MPs’ in Northern Ireland votes. A sellout to all those who voted Conservative.Theresa May stands with first secretary of state Damian Green, while DUP leader Arlene Foster stands with DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds, as DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson (in glasses) shakes hands with parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Gavin Williamson inside 10 Downing Street on Monday

The UK that needs to engage with reality – and a little flexibility wouldn’t come amiss! Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Between two stools one falls to the ground.

This is where the negotiations stand so for.

What the EU wants: The EU’s basic position is that EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU should keep the same rights as they do now, including those ‘super-rights’ which they hold over and above British citizens in the UK. The EU has also shown a willingness to compromise in these areas, although new disagreements have opened up over its hardened stance in other areas, such as over local election voting rights and the right to move between different member states for UK citizens in the EU.

What’s the catch? 

The EU has demanded that the European Court of Justice maintains a direct ability to enforce EU citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit, while the UK has been adamant that the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ will end.

What the UK wants: To pay as little as possible, and to agree on payment as late as possible. The UK has committed to paying what it believes it legally owes, but so far its approach has been to critique the EU’s proposed financial settlement, rather than submit a proposal of its own. British officials are concerned about being “salami-sliced” by the EU over the ‘bill’ and are hoping to hold out for as long as possible before agreeing to any figure, in order to maximise the UK’s leverage when it comes to issue of the future trading relationship later on in the negotiations.

What the EU wants: The EU is anything but frugal, and the UK’s impending departure leaves a net €12bn hole looming in its annual budget. Failure to secure a significant sum from the UK would force the EU into the uncomfortable position of either having to go round the remaining wealthy member states with a begging bowl and asking them to cough up more, or having to cancel future projects funded via the EU budget. Money, and lots of it, is a key priority for the EU in the negotiations.

What’s the catch? Any significant payment presents the UK with its own problems in terms of selling the deal politically at home. While there is some logic to the claims that Britain should not be paying at all – can anyone imagine the EU handing over a large lump sum in the case of a net recipient such as Poland or Greece deciding to leave – this is ultimately an area where long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs for the UK. Phasing the payments over a transitional period could make it more palatable to the UK, as the ‘bill’ could then effectively take the form of Britain continuing with a similar level of annual budgetary contributions for a couple of extra years.

What the UK wants: The UK has made preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland its top priority. To this end, it has unilaterally committed to a fully open and invisible border with no new physical infrastructure on the UK side of the border, preserving the Common Travel Area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland and the special status that Irish citizens enjoy in the UK, and writing the Good Friday Agreement into the Brexit withdrawal agreement directly to reaffirm all sides’ commitment to it. The UK has also called for a customs exemption for small and medium-sized businesses, which are primarily engaged in local cross-border economic activity, and the use of technological solutions and mutual recognition schemes to ensure that any other customs checks can take place remotely.

What’s the catch? The catch here is pretty hard to miss – coming up with any solution to how goods can move across a border is obviously not going to be possible until both sides have discussed what the customs arrangements for moving those goods will be. However, the EU has ruled out any discussion of trade and customs at this stage due to its rigid phasing of the negotiations. This internal contradiction may explain why they have yet to publish a position paper on the issue. Ultimately, the EU’s position may be that joint agreement on high-level principles satisfies its criteria for “sufficient progress” in this area of the negotiations, but the fact remains that no long-term solution will be possible until the EU engages on technical customs issues.

What the UK wants: The UK’s ‘future partnership paper’ outlines two possible models of a future relationship, although the UK’s intention at this stage appears to be primarily to spark further discussion about the relative merits of each scenario, rather than set out a definite position. One would involve maximising the use of technology and remote procedures to yield highly streamlined customs arrangements requiring a minimum of physical infrastructure and checks at borders themselves. The second essentially proposes the adoption of two parallel customs systems in the UK, one aligned with the EU and one with the rest of the world, although this has been dismissed by many critics as being too complicated to implement.

What’s the catch? As covered above, the obvious catch is that the Irish border issues cannot be resolved until the EU talks customs, although this has now led to accusations from the EU side that the UK is trying to use the Irish border issue to force them to talk about trade earlier than they want to. In this case, however, it’s hard to argue that it’s not just common sense.

What the EU wants: The EU has so far stuck to its guns on its demands that the ECJ keeps the direct ability to enforce the withdrawal agreement in the UK, particularly over citizens’ rights, although there have been hints that its position may be softening. Another issue is that the ECJ itself has a track record of vetoing the creation of new EU legal bodies which impinge on its position as the sole body allowed to adjudicate on the interpretation of EU law, which could pose a legal headache out of the Commission’s direct control.

What’s the catch?  There are catches on both sides here. One problem for the Commission itself is that the negotiating directives handed down to it by the European Council of member state leaders may not allow it to compromise on an issue as significant as this without approval from the Council first. In practice, this means waiting until after Angela Merkel has secured her likely re-election in the German federal elections on 24 September. The catch for the UK lies in the precise detail of the agreement. If the UK accepts a model too similar to the EFTA Court, in practice this could lead to the UK still effectively being overruled by the ECJ when it tries to sign future trade deals or reform EU law, depending on how any post-Brexit agreements are worded.

What the UK wants: The UK is happy for legal cases already in progress at the Court of Justice of the European Union (of which the ECJ is one part) to continue after the day of withdrawal, but does not want new cases to be able to be brought to the CJEU after Brexit has happened, even if the facts of the case took place before withdrawal.

What the EU wants: The EU wants the CJEU to retain the right indefinitely to adjudicate over any legal case where the facts of the case took place before withdrawal, even if the case itself is not brought until years after Brexit.

What’s the catch? The EU has seemingly gotten itself into a mindset where it is convinced that the UK is liable to become some sort of rogue state overnight with no regard for the rule of law, unless the CJEU maintains a degree of direct authority in the UK. Any compromise on legal issues will be hard to achieve until the EU is able to temper it’s overly paranoid attitude in this area.

What the UK wants: The UK’s preferred option is to essentially keep the status quo by opting into existing EU regulations which govern the choice of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, for instance whether a dispute between a British and a German business should be heard in a British or German court. Otherwise, the UK would attempt to fall back on the Lugano Convention, which governs the EFTA states, or the Hague Conventions which apply more generally in international law.

What the EU wants: The EU’s civil and commercial paper is focused on resolving ongoing cases which are already in progress, rather than looking ahead to the future relationship, while the criminal cooperation paper also calls for the “orderly completion” of ongoing cases involving EU instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant. It also calls for both sides to be able to keep all confidential information exchanged by law enforcement agencies prior to Brexit.

What’s the catch? The difference is over the scope – the UK is looking ahead to the future relationship while the EU is committed to resolving ‘separation issues’ first. However, given the UK’s desire to continue existing EU processes, it will probably deem the EU’s specific separation demands in this area to be largely acceptable.

What the UK wants: The UK is seeking continued close cooperation with the EU on nuclear issues along with a “smooth transition” to a new UK safeguards regime with “no interruption in safeguards arrangements”. The UK wants to prioritise minimising barriers to civil nuclear trade and ensuring continued mobility of skilled nuclear workers and researchers, along with continued collaboration on nuclear research and development, as well as resolving issues around ownership of existing nuclear materials and waste.

What the EU wants: The EU paper is more limited in scope, focusing mainly on issues of safeguarding arrangements and ownership of nuclear materials and waste. The EU also wants the UK to pay for the transfer of any safeguarding property in the UK as part of the financial settlement.

What’s the catch? The UK’s heavy involvement in European civil nuclear activities mean that there is strong mutual benefit to both sides agreeing a deal. However, with a number of EU states shunning nuclear power altogether, including Germany, it may be lower down the EU’s list of priorities than the UK’s, although France’s heavy reliance on nuclear power should offset Germany’s indifference.

What the UK wants: The UK wants all goods already legally placed on the market at the time of withdrawal to continue to be able to be legally sold, as well as goods which have already undergone compliance procedures, even if they have not yet reached the market. The UK also wants services supplied along with those goods, such as maintenance and repair services, to continue to be supplied without added restrictions.

What the EU wants: The EU also wants goods already on the market to continue to be legally sold without added restrictions, although their paper does not address compliance-checked goods yet to go on sale or services accompanying goods, as proposed by the UK.

What’s the catch? There may be disagreement over the scope, as outlined above, although it is possible that the EU had simply not got round to considering the additional cases outlined by the UK at the time of publishing its own position paper.

What the UK wants: The UK wants to preserve as close to the status quo as possible on data protection and data transfers between the UK and the EU. The EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force in May next year and will be implemented by the UK before its departure. The UK is seeking an enhanced version of the EU’s existing ‘adequacy model’ which it currently uses to grant approval to third countries for EU data sharing, including Switzerland and New Zealand.

What the EU wants: The EU has not yet indicated its position on data protection.

What’s the catch? The decision to grant data protection ‘adequacy’ to third countries is a decision of the Commission which can be unilaterally withdrawn, while securing approval has often proved to be a lengthy and difficult process, with even Japan failing to receive approval in the past. The UK will want a more permanent bilateral agreement than this to ensure ongoing certainty.

In my opinion it is only the lawyers that are going to benefit from any agreement.

Stupidity consist in waiting to come to a conclusion. Nothing is so exhausting as indecision, and nothing is so futile. Long term planning does not deal with future decisions, but with the future of present decisions.

What ever about Europe it sticks out like a sore tum that if it was not for trade and free movement of people England would be a country heading for bankruptcy.

It is beyond comprehension that a government refuses to offer the British public a chance to choose again.

m.jpg

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS HAPPINESS.

31 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Emotions., Energy, Google it., Happiness., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS HAPPINESS.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Distribution of wealth, Happiness., Inequility, The Future of Mankind

( A follow on read: Twelve minutes from the post – WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF NOW.)

While writing:( what is the concept of now) my daughter suggested I write a happy post. This post is therefore dedicated to her continuing search for happiness.

What is happiness?  How do we find the key to happiness?

Is happiness the sole purpose of life or is it just good health with a bad memory.

To day this is the default view. Skepticism about the afterlife drives humankind to seek not only immortality but also earthly happiness.

Who would like to live for ever in eternal misery?

What stands between us and an answer to this deceptively complex questions is the problem of subjectivity –happiness means different things to different people.

To behaviorist, happiness is a cocktail of emotions we experience when we do something good or positive. To neurologists, happiness is the experience of a flood of hormones released in the brain as a reward for behavior that prolongs survival. According to the tenets of several major religions, happiness indicates the presence of God.

This question has no straightforward answer, because the meaning of the question itself is unclear. What exactly is being asked? Perhaps you want to know what the word ‘happiness’ means. In that case your inquiry is linguistic.

Chances are you had something more interesting in mind: perhaps you want to know about the thing, happiness, itself. Is it pleasure, a life of prosperity, something else? Yet we can’t answer that question until we have some notion of what we mean by the word.Image associée

Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you’re happy?

Do we have the power to choose to be happy or unhappy?

Are all kinds of happiness created equal?

Happiness is not a single all-encompassing concept it is a complex the notion.

A state of mind. What is this state of mind we call happiness? Typical answers to this question include life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional condition.

A life that goes well for the person leading it. Perhaps you are a high-achieving intellectual who thinks that only ignoramuses can be happy. On this sort of view, happy people are to be pitied, not envied.

We are inclined to think that pleasure is the key to happiness.

Is it purpose, or goal?

Has a goal that is an end-in-itself, nothing that he does is actually worth doing.

For most people, happiness is a central aspect of well-being, since most people very much desire to be happy. Even a slave might come to internalize the values of his oppressors and be happy, and this strikes most as an unenviable life indeed.

Is happiness overrated?

How if at all should one pursue happiness as part of a good life?

Is it possible to objectify and even quantify so subjective and elusive a quality as happiness?  The individual pursuit of happiness may be subject to non-moral norms as well, prudence being the most obvious among them.

The pursuit of happiness is self-defeating especially when it is associated with pleasure. The virtue of compassion or kindness, giving not receiving, produce happiness.    

Philosophical “theories of happiness” can be about either of at least two different things: well-being, or a state of mind. To be happy, it seems, is just to be in a certain sort of psychological state or condition.

Is it a psychological state (for example, feeling overall more pleasure than pain) and happiness as a positive evaluation of your life, even if it has involved more pain than pleasure.

Above all, there is the fundamental question: In which sense, if any, is happiness a proper goal of a human life?

Wealth, beauty, and pleasure, for example, have little effect on happiness.

What is needed to achieve genuine happiness?

Answer me this:  Would you choose to attach ourselves to a device that would produce a constant state of intense pleasure, even if we never achieved anything in our lives other than experiencing this pleasure. We all need to answer this question for ourselves.

Morality itself is a worthy goal of human existence. Our good or bad fortune can play a part in determining our happiness; for example, happiness can be affected by factors as our material circumstances, our place in society, and even our looks, whether we are married or not. In the long run marriage is not a major source of either happiness or unhappiness.

When asked Aristotle said” that the supreme good is happiness.”

And of this nature happiness is mostly thought to be, for this we choose always for its own sake, and never with a view to anything further: whereas honour, pleasure, intellect, in fact every excellence we choose for their own sakes, it is true, but we choose them also with a view to happiness, conceiving that through their instrumentality we shall be happy: but no man chooses happiness with a view to them, nor in fact with a view to any other thing whatsoever.

But what is happiness?

For Aristotle, it is by understanding the distinctive function of a thing that one can understand its essence.

Whereas human beings need nourishment like plants and have sentience like animals, their distinctive function, says Aristotle, is their unique capacity to reason. Thus, our supreme good, or happiness, is to lead a life that enables us to use and develop our reason, and that is in accordance with reason. Unlike amusement or pleasure, which can also be enjoyed by animals, happiness is not a state but an activity. And like virtue or goodness, it is profound and enduring.

By living our life to the full according to our essential nature as rational beings, we are bound to become happy regardless.

For this reason, happiness is more a question of behavior and of habit—of virtue—than of luck; a person who cultivates such behaviors and habits is able to bear his misfortunes with balance and perspective, and thus can never be said to be truly unhappy.

Some goals are subordinate to other goals, which are themselves subordinate to yet other goals, but happiness needs sadness. Without sadness there can be no happy moments unlike pleasure which can be manufactured by algorithms.

Being happy doesn’t come easy with the stress of modern life.  Take for instance the average American who uses sixty times more energy than the average stone age hunter-gatherer. Is he sixty times happier?

It took just a piece of bread to make a starving medieval peasant joyful.

It appears that even with all our unprecedented accomplishments even if we provided free food, ensured world peace, provided free medical care, gave everyone a thousand bitcoins the Capitalism system ensures that the ceiling of happiness remains out of reach.

Our exceptions are driven by our biochemistry level rather than our economic, social or political situation. Pleasure v pain. Unpleasant bodily sensations.

PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS DISAPPOINT TO REMAIN HAPPY YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO FORGIVE, FORGET, “ Comparison is the thief of joy.”

Self-actualization is Happiness. Joy goes in and out of vogue. We can deceive ourselves into thinking we’re happy when we’re not and we can be happy without realizing it.

Happy.

It’s pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a pig in shit"

I would be as happy as a pig in shit if I could live in THE CONCEPT OF NOW.

All comments happily appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF NOW.

29 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Cosmology

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF NOW.

Tags

Age of Uncertainty, Different Aspects of Time

 

( A mind-blowing, thought provoking ten minute read)

Humans seem to be the only animals who know they have to die sometimes. Therefore, the concept of time is fundamental to us and we have to argue from the basis of our transitory existence.

We can measure it, but we can’t feel it so we can’t experience it.curved space time

Is the concept of “now” an illusion or is now the past.

We know how to calculate the effects of velocity and gravitational potential on physical processes, we explain this in terms of time dilation, but we do not actually know that it is time that changes, and we most certainly do not know what time is. We completely avoid the fact that time flows, or that there is a special moment in time we refer to as “now.”

Time feels like one of the only constants in life — it passes day after day at the same pace.

You never be able to see now as the brain take time to process it.

So, will now as it is decoupled by external Algorithms that organise our lives lose it meaning or is there a time gene ticking in the twilight of our DNA.

Google it and see. Know thyself is never easier or cheaper.

One true time is the tick of imagination, without imagination there can be no time. It’s not, because time doesn’t exist, it’s just an illusion of the human mind, everything happens in the present, there was no past, there is no future, only a now that is invisible.

Change needs time, different moments in time need time but how does time work.

Time exists in shapeless color.  It flows around us but there is no answer to how it works. Fortuitously or unfortunately our brains need time to process (but at different speeds) to predict the future, to recall the past, or to realize the present.

So when is now?

Is it the delay period for our brain to replace what we cannot see?

Time can only go forward. If it were possible for time to go backwards, then there would be no past, present, or future.

I am sure I am not the first nor will I be the last person to ask, just what time is.

We don’t know what it is or how it works but all moments of time are equally real.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cosmology time"

The concept of “now” is completely alien from all physics, although Einstein despaired of his inability to understand it. He worried that its reality might lie outside of physics.

We’ve all heard the phrase that “time is relative,” but it can be difficult to wrap the mind around what that actually means. Relative to what as it flow differently in separate area.

Time is always relative to the traveler. So is it possible to travel through time while stopping time. Does each universes have its own timeline?

We really need to understand nature to properly understand the world of time. Time goes on no matter what. It is or it is not fundamental to the world?

The existence of now is not yet explained by physics, but that means that we don’t yet have the best theoretical understanding of time.

Space-travel with speeds close to that of light may be unfathomable far beyond the reach of current technology. But sending elementary particles on round trips in a particle accelerator at 99.99999 percent of light speed is routine.

We’ll ever be travelling back in time.. but you could never meet your future you!!!!!

In Einstein’s special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as “time” in the singular.

Time passes differently for different observers, depending on the observers’ motion. The prime example is that of the two hypothetical twins: One of them stays at home, on Earth. The other journeys into space in an ultra-fast rocket, nearly as fast as the speed of light, before returning home, he has slightly gone back in time-younger.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cosmology time"Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of moving clocks with time"

Stephen Hawking is generally considered one of the smartest people on Earth. “We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate.” He believes in spontaneous creation from nothing.

Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of an immaterial invisible being. What Hawking did do is show how the universe could come into existence without a Prime Mover to set things into motion.

He re-acquaints us with the standard debate between two eternal ‘somethings’-–the uni/multiverse and God.” We do not need a God who is outside space-time and who Himself was created from nothing, to create the universe. God is superfluous.

Space time however is a now slice of time that without motion goes nowhere, with motion it might encompass a worm hole to past present and future.

We all measure our experience in space-time differently. That’s because space-time isn’t flat — it’s curved, and it can be warped by matter and energy.

So technically, gravity doesn’t affect time, rather, affected time is what called gravity. Gravity is only the force which can decelerate the time…so it is not time.  Every object attracts every other object with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So it stand to reason that time travels at different speeds.

In my opinion that mover is not gravity, its the space that occupies the space between dark matter and anti matter.

This bizarre ingredient dark matter dominates the universe but does not emit light or energy, but studies of distant supernovae revealed that the universe today is expanding faster than it was in the past, not slower, indicating that the expansion is accelerating.

This would only be possible if the universe contained enough energy to overcome gravity — dark energy.

So what we are saying is that dark matter particle interactions with ordinary matter to produce dark energy.

The familiar material of the universe, known as baryonic matter, is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons and sterile neutrinos only interact with regular matter through gravity, making it a strong candidate for dark matter.

However most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen.

Now we come to antimatter, it is routinely made in high-energy collisions inside particle smashers the world over.

Every particle has an antiparticle with the same mass but the opposite electric charge. The proton has the negatively charged antiproton; the electron has the positively charged anti-electron, or positron.

Notoriously, matter and antimatter destroy each other, or annihilate, whenever they come into contact. These are also produced in some radioactive decays.

Time passing is actually a function of velocity, although velocity is distance over time.

Time is the 4th dimension, but we all know it is qualitatively different. We can stand still in space (choose any coordinate system) but we can’t stand still in time. Physics ignores this difference, and uses relativity theory to relate aspects of space and time intervals.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cosmology time"

Ultimately, time is a parameter that measures how something changes with respect to a reference clock changing. By the time I have written this post and you have read it neither of us can get back the time we spent doing so.

“In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind.” This is a good reason why time must only go forward. I will never travel in time but someone will, one day.

Perhaps there was no time before the big bang, it emerged as a consequence of the formation of a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe.

This seems unlikely as there must have being time before the big bang. Why? Because the past is different from the future. Why did the Big Bang have the properties it did because over time it developed them.

The observable universe is not all there is. It’s part of a bigger multiverse and the Big Bang was not the beginning of these universes.

Causes precede effects.

We remember the past but we don’t remember the future because at the center of Universes there is no time.

Why because time as a visible product does not exist.

However rest assured our personal data is probable the most valuable resource most humans still have. In time Google, Face Book and Twitter will become the all-knowing time oracles that will evolve into agents and finally into sovereigns.

Like Big Ben a black hole can never get back the time it lost, it remains silent.

I know what time is until you ask me for a definition about it, and then I can’t give it to you.

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE INDIVIDUAL IS BECOMING A TINY CHIP INSIDE A GIANT SYSTEM THAT NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS.

22 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Evolution, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Post - truth politics., Social Media, Technology, The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE INDIVIDUAL IS BECOMING A TINY CHIP INSIDE A GIANT SYSTEM THAT NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS.

Tags

Algorithms trade., Artificial Intelligence., Social Media, The Future of Mankind

 

(Two minute read)

Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organism are algorithms a, and life is data processing. Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness. Non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves.Image associée

Every day we absorb countless data bits.

This relentless flow of data gives rise to new inventions, disruptions that nobody plans, controls or fully comprehends.

For instance no one knows where global politics is heading, or how the global economy functions or what the climate is doing.

For all intensive purpose we don’t give a fuck providing we don’t pick up a virus, and even then our wireless brains want to remain in the flow of data.

Algorithms are constantly watching us, monitoring our thoughts,and feelings to such an extent that the meaning of life is disappearing into the invisible hand of Dataisim called Google, Face Book. Twitter and their disciples.

Experiences are valueless if not shared with an Algorithm on a smart phone.

No wonder we are all busy converting our experiences into data.

Your Dog or Cat or Fridge, might soon have a Facebook or Twitter account.

By equating the human experience with data patterns it is undermining the main source of authority, meaning of life, and this shift will not be just a philosophical revolution, it will be a practical revolution.

After a few hundred years of data flow your feelings which were once your best algorithms will have being replaced by a filtered personal platform or platforms all attached to the Cloud for an annual fee.Image associée

Its good-by democracy, elections. Have you had your DNA sequenced, are you wearing a biometric device that is connected to your smart phone.

The personal cloud god algorithm will tell you who to marry, what career to follow, what to put in your fridge.

All of this begs the question are we humans developing a seed algorithm that when it combines with machine learning will develop its own path, going where no human has gone before or can follow.

We have no idea whether it will develop consciousness and subjective experience.

Before we are reduced to non- conscious algorithms would it not be prudent to establish a New World organisation that vets all technology against our core values as humans. ( See previous posts)

What prevents us from collaborating in a global effort to solve climate change, or any other problem is probable the same reason why we are being exploited by Social media. Humans are deeply divided by nationalism and sectarian beliefs.. However with knowledge comes responsibility. So this failure is a global moral failure, as well as a failure of political will.

The world is changing faster than ever before with us relinquishing authority to crowd wisdom/data in the form of social media that is being mining by capitalist organisations which is governed by algorithms.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of humanity"

While inequality on all fronts grows and our world organisations become irrelevant we are flowed with irrelevant information.

The answer is bleakly simple: We cannot get these issues on our political radar screens without a huge prolong popular uprising.  It looks like humanity will soon be a ripple within the cosmic data flow. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of humanity"

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO STOP THE FREE FOR ALL ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

20 Sunday Aug 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Social Media

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO STOP THE FREE FOR ALL ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

Tags

Power of Social Media, Social Media, Social networking, Social world

( A seven minute read )

What are the serious civic consequences for a world where information flows largely through social networks?

Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organism are algorithms a, and life is data processing. Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness. Non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves. Social media inhibiting our ability to explore our thoughts and feelings so we can develop as individuals?

When one looks at the current state of the world is Social media tearing apart of the fabric of our societies … We’re getting countries where one half just doesn’t know anything at all about the other. Social media hasn’t just swallowed journalism, it has swallowed everything.

When we click ‘share’ what exactly are we saying.

More often than not, the stories we all decide to share seem utterly random.

 

But it might also be true to say that it is indirectly responsible for terrorists acts. It certainly contributed and was a product of the so-called Arabian spring.

It can spread extremists’ messages virally in minutes. Imagine getting news about middle East issues presented only by Jihadists, because somehow they’ve managed to manipulate social media. There is no “magic algorithm” for identifying terrorist rhetoric and recruitment efforts on the internet.

They say that Social media have revolutionized the ways in which people get involved with causes. In short, it hasn’t. But it has certainly changed the ways in which people can influence others. The more people disclosed about themselves on social media, the more privacy they said they desired.

It has swallowed political campaigns, banking systems, personal histories, the leisure industry, retail, even government and security.

The rise of Donald Trump is ‘a symptom of the mass media’s growing weakness’,especially in controlling the limits of what it is acceptable to say”. (A similar case could be made for the Brexit campaign.)

These  issues underpinning digital culture, and realise that the shift from print to digital media was never just about technology. Technology and media do not exist in isolation – they help shape society, just as they are shaped by it in turn.

Social media has swallowed the news – threatening the funding of public-interest reporting and ushering in an era when everyone has their own facts. But the consequences go far beyond journalism.

One thing is for certain with “Filter bubble” the pathway into the digital future is not going to be a linear journey up a ladder or pyramid.

If we are all not to become chips feeding algorithms Facebook, Google and Twitter must deal more effectively with the darker elements of the platforms they have created.

Algorithms such as the one that powers Facebook’s news feed are designed to give us more of what they think we want – which means that the version of the world we encounter every day in our own personal stream has been invisibly curated to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs.

ISIS has a well-established playbook for using social media and other online channels to attract new recruits and encourage them to act on the terrorist group’s behalf.

Why are we allowing this to happen?

One reason for the companies’ fragmented approach to purging videos that support or incite terrorism is the lack of a universal definition of “terrorist” or “extremist” content—social media companies are unlikely to want to rely solely on the judgment of the CEP or their peers.

Those running social media platforms should ensure that “their algorithms priorities countervailing views and news that’s important, not just the stuff that’s most popular or most self-validating.”

It’s also because we’re mainly interested in ourselves but the problem is that if you reveal everything about yourself or it’s discoverable with a Google search, you may be diminished in your capacity for intimacy.

It feels like theft when someone tells your secrets or data miners piece together your personal history — using your browsing habits, online purchases and social networks — and sell it.

Facebook, are the single fastest-growing source of news referrals online—with more than a billion items shared each day

.No longer do we balancing this type of news exposure with exposure to news that is pertinent to world events?

The problem is the sophisticated algorithms that filter what you read or see.

Are we being entirely closed in on ourselves and our personal world or are we making an effort to step outside of ourselves and become informed about the world at large?

Increasing narcissism of mankind. Self-enhancement and social promotion. Or is sharing really grounded in very basic human motives.

Somebody wants to relate positively to somebody else. This argument might not hold much longer. Social media has created a dilemma around how we reach people.

Each individual may share for a different specific reason: which is really related to how we evolved as a race.

Social media may constitute a force that drives citizens to read news, or at least headlines and abstracts but it is desensitizing us to the problems we all face such as Climate change, Inequality, Wars, Refugees, to the extent that most of us don’t really know where we fit into the greater scheme of things.

Digital crowding, or data grabs perpetrated by Internet companies, or Surveillance, or our vulnerability to cybersnooping which is incompatible with a free society.

They all demonstrate less individuality and creativity.

Social endorsements fundamentally alter the way news is consumed
and shared on the internet. The ever-growing digital native news world social media doesn’t always facilitate conversation around the important issues of the day.

While we are exposed to more information each day because of social media venues such as Facebook and Twitter, we may not necessarily be more informed about critical issues occurring in the world.

We must start taking responsibility for creating the kind of world we want to live in by lobbing the formation of a new World Organisation that vet all technology and AI Algorithms to ensure they abide to our core human values. ( See previous Posts)    

We were going to live online. It is going to be extraordinary. Yet what kind of living is this?

The opportunities for scholars exploring social media effects are vast in scope ( The psychic toll of the current data free-for-all.) and critical to our understanding of how communication is evolving.

Not “liking” anything on Facebook or following anyone on Twitter, making their social networks and preferences harder to track.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "algorithms pictures"

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin )

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
← Older posts
Newer posts →

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS ENGLAND IS POLITICALLY TEARING ITSELF ASUNDER, AND HERE IS WHY. April 23, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS WITH THE ARRIVAL OF SMART GLASSES THE CONCEPT OF ANY PRIVACY IN A LIFE IS ABOUT TO DISAPPEAR FOR GOOD. April 19, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT TRUMP’S DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AND ASKED HOW MUCH LONGER DO WE HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE WE ALL FUCKED. April 18, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE. LOOKS AT TODAYS WARS. April 15, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE ASKS AFTER 76 YEARS IN EXISTENCE NATO NEEDS TO YET AGAIN TO REVENT ITSELF. April 15, 2026

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

Jason Lawrence's avatarJason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
bobdillon33@gmail.com's avatarbobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
Ernest Harben's avatarOG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 98,907 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WordPress.com News
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Join 222 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar