Is the blue state/red state theory of superior education real, or an illusion?

Started by fauxlaw

Replies
34
Posts
35
Page
2 / 2

Conversation

#31 •••
@SergeantLynch

Metaphorically? That's simple academia excuse for the failure of the Internet to separate truth from fantasy. You will hear any shit you want to hear from the Intrernet, just as was once said of television as a media source. We have learned a bloody thing since the 50s in that regard. "When you think of the education possibilities of television," said media observer, and communications professor, Marshall McLuhan in the 60s, "aren't you glad it doesn't?" He was a man well before his time, who anticipated the Internet and its great potential to follow down the same primrose path as television. Television has learned nothing since, itself. A blight on what society could be, and wifi and A.I. are just as idiotic. And why not? They are also controlled by the same generational idiots who think A.I. will solve all their problems. Nope.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#32 •••
@fauxlaw

Well, I'm probably with you there, to a degree.


Though one either considers, that material progression, either is or isn't inevitable and purposeful.


And therefore one also considers that humanity is either primary or secondary to material progression.


So I run with the idea that material progression/evolution is inevitable and purposeful (GOD principle) and everything that humans achieve in this regard, is necessary and contributory.


So we might also see the side effects of technological development promoting a sort of mass stupidity, but let's not forget that folk once invented religion, which, although beneficial to the furtherment of material development has also led to millennia of mass stupidity.


But the masses do need to be entertained, distracted and controlled, in order to allow the cogs of development to keep ticking...And tick they do...A.I next Faux, no matter how much you fear it or attempt to discredit it.



Edit post

#33 •••
@SergeantLynch

I do not dear A.I. in the least, simply because I can and do discredit it as credible, self-conscious intelligence. We, it's creators, called it ":artificial." How more idiotic can that be?

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#34 •••
@fauxlaw

We it's developers, the basic seeds of which existed within us in the form of an electrochemical computer.


All that we are now doing is rapidly developing a newer version that is less mushy and less fragile.


And true...We should be proud of our achievements rather than be fearful.


A truly omniscient GOD would hopefully be pleased with the rate of progress.

Edit post

#35 •••
@SergeantLynch

Totally agree.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University