TED Community » Max Gutapfel

Comments

• TEDCred score: +3.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  May 14 2013: If we want to ask if Science can prove anything we should talk about what a proof actually is.
  
  Lets talk about truth first.
  
  Truth results from a thought construct of definitions, before i can argue wether something is true or not ill have to define terms or circumstances under which an observation is true. As such truth results from a number of rules which we as humans defined inorder to be able to communicate information.
  If i define light of the wavelength of 680nm as being blue. And i then measure light of said wavelength and say this light is blue its perfectly true (even though light of this wavelength was previously (before i defined it as being blue) defined as being infrared) as such there can only be truth within a set of prepositions and truth is not an absolute its in itself a concept created by us which roots so deep in our beliefes that we came to expect some kind of cosmic truth (or lets call it natural truth).
  
  What we defined as being a proof (let me citate wiki): "A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition."
  
  If measure the wavelength the data which results from measuring is my proof however it needs to fullfill the requirements of what we defined as true.
  ´
  In the mathematical sense we defined the set of rules as such there can be a definite proof. In natural science however
  nature steps in and here it gets ugly. We dont know the rules of nature infact we only know the results and they are always true.
  For example we observe an apple falling off a tree this happening is in some sense the expression of truth (sorry to get a bit philosophical) as the apple wouldnt fall off the tree if the rules of nature didnt allow for it.
  As a consequence we cant observe the "not truth" of nature as such there is no "not truth" so whats the use of the concept of truth when talking about nature anyways? -none id say.

• A comment on Conversation: If the Industrial Revolution did not begin in Western Europe, could it have or would it have began somewhere else?

  Apr 17 2013: It would have i think most inventions are a result of us and the world we live in and id go even further and say that even scientific discoveries can be seen as direct result of shifting worldviews in the world, the persons immaterial because of the process we describe with "the time has come" "the time is ready" this becomes fairly obvious when you check history and see how often a discovery was made by 2 persons (independant of each other) within a timeframe of a few months.
  
  In the end the process of discovery is not centered on people but on groups of people (a country, a cultural group) where many many individuals fail, or go ahead trying to find a way and fail. The person making the discovery reaching the goal is simply the one having learned from others mistakes and putting together the indivdual puzzle pieces (maybe there will be some exceptions).
  
  From this point of view its also immaterial to discuss what would have happend if an invention hadnt been made in europe as youd have to change the whole flow of history and culture inorder to create a sound world in which said discovery couldnt have been made.
  The importance of culture become even more obvious as they found out that in ancient egypt there was an inventor who had allready discovered steampower however it wasnt used for anything else then small gimmicks/toys, its potential just couldnt be realized in said culture.

• A comment on Conversation: Would you prefer sales tax to income tax?

  Apr 17 2013: Regarding 5th.:
  If said millionaire lived the life of an avg person thered be even less reason for him to hold on to a large portion of his money. Why would we tax him lesss another point is that this DEFINATELY would lead to a spread of wealth, because inorder to get the same amount of tax back youd have to do an enourmous increase in sales tax, the point being that someone with less income will spent a larger portion of his income (for the avg citizen i guess itd be more then 100% of their income, if you also look at debt) whilst the rich wouldnt have to tax 99% of their income (which stays at the bank because its never even needed would accumulate more and more money)
  
  I have got no idea at all how you can expect this to be an in any way fair system! Your basically going to fund schools and infrastructure things which are equally important to each citizen and thus each citizen should allocate the same percentage (tax progression for higher income makes sense too, but for simplicity ill go with same percentage of income in this example) of their ressources to funding those projects. What your proposing would be funding said projects through the 99% mainly whilst leaving the 1% free to use 1% of their income (in an extreme case) on funding those.
  
  So no i absolutely reject the idea of pure income tax thank you for making me think about how ridiculous this system is.

• A reply on Conversation: Is capitalism sustainable?

  Mar 25 2013: What do you understand when talking about sustainability?
  
  I wouldnt dare to call capitalism sustainable if your talking about ecological sustainability if you talk about self sustainability (keeping itself alive) then yes it is sustainable.

• A comment on Conversation: Is capitalism sustainable?

  Mar 25 2013: I think instead of just saying no i might ask a question instead (just popped to my mind right now):
  Might it be that the fight of diffrent economic systems mightve lead to the argument that "people are greedy" which is just the ultimate argument as it touches our very foundation and thus lead to us believing that we are infact greedy which then made us confuse capitalism with the current culture in which capitalism is operating making us believe that capitalism in fact is unsustainable.
  
  Id describe myself as anticapitalist if it wasnt for the fact that i cant say im pro communist or pro "specific new economic system" so i like to ask any question no matter the potential answer :P
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: Human rights and philosophy should be taught in school!

  Feb 16 2013: Dont think about teaching in such a narowminded fashion of one person standing infront and presentig facts, that system is hugely flawed anyways.
  
  when teaching philosophy dont teach facts, dont tell, but ask thats what philosophy is about.
  You could start out with presenting questions to your students like "is it right to harm someone"
  there will in the optimal case be 20 diffrent opinions in one classroom and students will quickly figure out that there is no easy answer. From this point you could step on to reasoning what reasoning means, how mathmatical reasoning is done, just teaching the basic concepts of logic and reasoning.
  Then making another step and asking those deeper questions how would a perfect society look like. Once youve figured out those basic principles inside your classroom (the principles a perfect society would have to fullfill ) you could step back to those specific rules as (is it right to harm someone) and see if the outcome will be diffrent this time around.
  Ofcourse opnening up to all subjects students may stumble upon (maybe someone comes up with talking / discussing economic systems ... well go ahead and discuss).
  
  What this would require though is a completely neutral teacher and a grading systems which doesnt look for answers but the way in which an answer is presented and wether said answer has been given before (just repeating what youve read in a philosophers book should be valued lesser then creating own thoughts.)
  
  So the goal of the class would be to create students who think for themselves, at least thats what i would like to see.

• A comment on Conversation: Was the Pope's resignation a dignified move?

  Feb 16 2013: As far as i know he didnt even want to become pope in the first place. Besides there were some interviews about or with him in our german newspapers which led me to believe that he was a religious thinker aka a theologist putting most of his time into religious studies.
  
  I think he just didnt want to take all the intrigues anymore which he had to witness, and when the healthissues came he decided to bring it to an end.
  
  From what your media reports it seems they report diffrent things about this event then german media :D There was not even a mention of any possible powerplays like choosing his predecessor.

• A comment on Conversation: Is it possible for both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand to be correct?

  Feb 16 2013: I dont think about economic systems in terms of right or wrong because it just doesnt make sense to do so. How can we say an economic system is right or wrong if the one system uses a diffrent reasoning then the other... in fact they are both right in the end or wrong depending on wether you look at the premises marx or rand used or the system they created. a system cant be wrong, thats why its a system which defines rules whicht then create the difference between right and wrong.
  
  I also wouldnt say one system works better then the other i just think that we shouldnt use a system forever and ever as if it was the allmighty and only true system.
  Capitalism leads to economic growth yeah... but once a certain point is reached it extends its arm beyond just economy takes over politics and prevents us from making the safer, more foreseeing decisions in favour of short term profits.
  This point is reached and its the point where capitalism suddenly turns bad and prevents us from growth other then economic growth.
  
  What communism or socialism does is that it creates a system in which the state itself takes control it leads to economic stability (rather then growth) and gives back the power to the state which is then able to make the appropriate long term decisions, once those are settles we might jump ontop of the growth train again.
  
  Why dont we combine those two? Why dont we create a seperate instance nemely a system which is completely remote from any economic or governmental influence which decides when to use which system. Why stick with the same system if its clear its got its flaws and doesnt work perfectly at all times? Why threat them like religions where theres the believers and the nonbelievers?
  You dont believe into an economic system ... you use it thats what we created said systems for.
  
  EDIT:And before anyone tells that marxism didnt work... go read up on marxism, then figure out that what he imagined never existed but a system using his name.

• A comment on Conversation: "Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?"

  Feb 14 2013: What we forgott though is that said money has to be put to "good" use. To me it seems like a typical case of "who is mr. Longcock" whos got the highest economic growth the most influence on the global market.
  
  Look at the current crysis, what couldve happend? Economic growth declined some companys died, some people lost their jobs. Germany paid 170Billion € for our european bailout because some weird market went crazy, we werent on the verge of poverty we wouldnt have died due to lack of food or water there wouldnt have been significantly more cases of cannibalism because people wouldve been starving for food.
  No our states penis wasnt in a great mood and shrank by half an inch.
  
  At the same time haiti got hit by a tsunami a huge amount of people fell into poverty, lost everything from one day to another however our penis wasnt in danger ... guess how much money germany used on helping haiti? Less then 0.1% of what was spent on our Bailout...17 Million € WOW HUGE SUCESS!
  
  We just dont put enough effort into it, our state doesnt really care and yet we expect results its rididculous. Were setting a wrong focus thats about the whole point.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: "Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?"

  Feb 14 2013: The problems you are talking about have in common that they are not regarded as an important thing, at least theres one more important thing in the world which is economic growth and a shitton of profitmargins. I dont really want to sound like my point of view is unreflected and was grabbed by me on one of the non mainstream youtube channels or from one of those bazilliion of conspiracy theorists, so let me explain.
  
  The point is that we like measuring things in numbers we see growth in numbers if this numbers represent money then all the better because money can be used to build an army, to save millions of people, to buy things that just bring us joy. So in the end money seems to be the ultimate symbol of power. We all strife to be powerfull in some way or atleast to make a diffrence rather to be diffrent from the crowd. Through its universal function which extends into all scales of life everyone can relate to money, the single person can take care of his children, corporations can use it to increase our productivity, the state can use it to protect its people to help the poor, grant education.
  
  So as money is the factor we all can relate to in one way or the other it becomes our scale of measurement for success. Helping others, being generous ect. also are something both state and the single person can relate to however our economys cant, what interest does a corporation have when it comes to health of third world countrys? They are out for money thats what we/the system created them for and they have a huge influence on both politics (through sheer economic power) and the indivual through the load of advertisements and the way of live which the economy seems to indoctrinate us with.
  
  
  *To be continured in second post*