Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:38:57 +0000
From:      elbbit <>
To:        Andrew McGlashan <>
Subject:   Re: Any package for surveys?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 27/01/11 14:41, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Hi Simon,
Thanks for taking the time to reply Andrew.

> elbbit wrote:
>> I held off writing back because I have just launched a new website at:
>> Wait!  Don't go!  This isn't spam!   Please!  Just listen!
> Yes, it looks very spammy to me....
I sent similar emails to other lists and was promptly scalded for being
so uncouth.  I thank those who encourage me to stop spamming for
teaching me humility.  However, I think the importance of global self
awareness is too important to worry about whether or not we like to know
about the problems.  This is the equivalent of a hit-and-run, in my
opinion.  I am here to stay, I am not going anywhere and the world will
become self-aware in my presence.  It is why I have been born.

>> For anyone who is half in the know about the goings on in the world, and
>> are aware of Project Venus or the Zeitgeist Movement, you will
>> understand that there is a growing concern over many global issues:
>> - over-population of the planet
>> - resources might run out (as a result of too many people)
>> - money is a form of slavery
>> - the choices available to us are set by corporations/governments, not
>> by us the people
>> ... the list goes on.
> The problem with many "leading" questions [as per your site] is that you
> can't agree / disagree with the question properly as there are grey
> areas.  You might somewhat agree with each argument, so you are unable
> to choose b/w either given answer in a simple y/n situation.  There are
> often at least three answers to a question, "your" answer, an "opposing"
> answer and the "correct" answer; however that trivializes the fact that
> multiple answers could be equally correct for different people with or
> without further argument -- but if you define the question to rigidly,
> you can't give fair license to get the answer that is truly relevant for
> the responder.
My argument to this is a physics one.  Nothing is static.  There is no
grey area.  This so called "in between" black and white is a myth which
is perpetuated to stop us from deciding.  Let me analogise:  everything
in real matter is in a state of change.  In a car which has cruise
control, the internal computer either adds braking force or increases
the airflow in the combustion process to allow acceleration.  The
speedometer might "perceptively" appear to be "stuck" at the specified
speed, but in fact, even at the microscopic level, you are either
speeding up or slowing down.

Using this as a guide, and from all the understandings I have gleaned
from texts about psychology & human relations, technology & science,
history and predictions: I deduce that everything is definitive.  Just
like the binary bit, your answer can only ever be 1 or 0.  You are alive
or dead.  You either breathe in or out.  Your brain either receives
information or it does not.  Your computer has electricity fed to it or
not.  There is no middle ground and any variance on the polar choice
will be avoided at all costs.

> I think back to the good old Eliza program, back in my late primary
> school days in the era of the TRS-80 and Apple ][e computers.  The
> program asks a simple question, then depending on your response, it will
> ask further questions along the way to get to an artificial point of
> "knowing" the answer.  
Aah, the old Turing test chestnut.  Artificial intelligence *will*
happen, but not in the way we have previously thought it.

> Inevitably, many forum polls have the same problem.  Limit the available
> choices and you can't get appropriate or meaningful results.  There are
> always other options that aren't seen in the poll.
Just like I can switch my transistor half on?




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>