SUPER COPS
Oh you people in the Gulch.
You got me thinking about the police. You outlined your experiences not once but twice. I wanted to be sure of what I was hearing. I was raised to respect police, and over the years, my experience with them has been mostly positive, with a few exceptions. But, the problems with today's police as astutely pointed out by Gulchers got me thinking, and as usual, as I started reading up on the subject it led me to some interesting if unexpected directions,. I am going to skip the footnotes and references, as I have little patience for that and just present the bare bones of my reading.
Research in police behavior starts in the national military and filters down to local police, including state police and county sheriffs. Serious studies started after the Civil War in which modern weaponry was introduced bringing with it higher death rates in battle than were previously experienced. It is an axiom in the military that equipment can help turn the tide but no battle can be won unless there were soldiers on the ground.
Cutting through all the voluminous studies on the subject, I was surprised to learn that soldiers of the Civil War and World War One didn't often kill the enemy. Only 15% shot to kill - on both sides. In World War Two, greater indoctrination provided soldiers with a higher kill rate of 25%.Part of that was improved weaponry with automatic guns , canons and flamethrowers.The big challenge, therefore, was how to get more highly motivated soldiers. Let's skip ahead in time about 20 years.
Vast improvements in body armor and the start of exoskeletons have made the soldier more effective , but killing motivation continues to be a bugaboo. Attempts with various drugs including LSD have not worked satisfactorily. The problem is consciousness. trying to create the super soldier or super cop are relying on "meatware." They forgot about Dr. Einstein.Free will comes from consciousness. Consciousness is our perception of reality. But reality is not Newtonian - it is really very weird. In the Newtonian world things can be traced backed to their origins and then moved forward in order to predict their future. However, it has failed to create the ideal soldier. I'm not going to go into entanglement and all the mind-twisting quantum paths except to say that newer more recent experiments which base their psychology on quantum theories have led to CBT, or Cognitive Behavior Therapy, which has proven to create new interneuronal connections in the brain. This is energy creating matter which creates the mental acuity of the ultimate killing predator. If you object to the actions of current police, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.This research has illuminated to me the thinking of certain current military strategists that scares the hell out of me. I doubt if any of us will enjoy dealing with mind altered super cops.
You got me thinking about the police. You outlined your experiences not once but twice. I wanted to be sure of what I was hearing. I was raised to respect police, and over the years, my experience with them has been mostly positive, with a few exceptions. But, the problems with today's police as astutely pointed out by Gulchers got me thinking, and as usual, as I started reading up on the subject it led me to some interesting if unexpected directions,. I am going to skip the footnotes and references, as I have little patience for that and just present the bare bones of my reading.
Research in police behavior starts in the national military and filters down to local police, including state police and county sheriffs. Serious studies started after the Civil War in which modern weaponry was introduced bringing with it higher death rates in battle than were previously experienced. It is an axiom in the military that equipment can help turn the tide but no battle can be won unless there were soldiers on the ground.
Cutting through all the voluminous studies on the subject, I was surprised to learn that soldiers of the Civil War and World War One didn't often kill the enemy. Only 15% shot to kill - on both sides. In World War Two, greater indoctrination provided soldiers with a higher kill rate of 25%.Part of that was improved weaponry with automatic guns , canons and flamethrowers.The big challenge, therefore, was how to get more highly motivated soldiers. Let's skip ahead in time about 20 years.
Vast improvements in body armor and the start of exoskeletons have made the soldier more effective , but killing motivation continues to be a bugaboo. Attempts with various drugs including LSD have not worked satisfactorily. The problem is consciousness. trying to create the super soldier or super cop are relying on "meatware." They forgot about Dr. Einstein.Free will comes from consciousness. Consciousness is our perception of reality. But reality is not Newtonian - it is really very weird. In the Newtonian world things can be traced backed to their origins and then moved forward in order to predict their future. However, it has failed to create the ideal soldier. I'm not going to go into entanglement and all the mind-twisting quantum paths except to say that newer more recent experiments which base their psychology on quantum theories have led to CBT, or Cognitive Behavior Therapy, which has proven to create new interneuronal connections in the brain. This is energy creating matter which creates the mental acuity of the ultimate killing predator. If you object to the actions of current police, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.This research has illuminated to me the thinking of certain current military strategists that scares the hell out of me. I doubt if any of us will enjoy dealing with mind altered super cops.
Interesting thread.
Things could be worse... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrXfh...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Soldiers are "programmed" to some degree to react without needing to think in certain circumstances because the time required to think would get them killed. So they train themselves to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. Police officers are similarly trained. But either group chooses to undergo the training and (if given time) could develop more creative responses. Robots by definition can not think - they only respond according to pre-programmed pathways. When met with a decision tree they were unable to negotiate, they would break down into an error state.
Now if you want to talk about an actual animatronic AI, one might get to where you are going. The problem is that most AI's right now are incredibly intensive to "train" - they have to be corrected by a human individual on which solutions they develop are "correct" and which are "incorrect". They have no moral compass whatsoever - unlike a human being - and will accept whatever the human tells them to be "correct" as authoritative. I have a cousin who works in micro-processors who follows the theory very closely and we talked about it over Turkey Day feasts. While there has been progress, it is in limited scope applications. They've been able to develop self-driving cars, but those never deal with ethical issues. Those are where the breakdowns in creating an actual AI take place. Contrary to what people see in the sci-fi flicks, AI is still a long ways from I, Robot.
I think it's also fascinating to study the various super-hero mythoi (had to look that one up) for which ones are the most popular. Interestingly, you can find certain comic book villains - and a few heroes as well - who have lobotomized characters (essentially robots): case in point the "Winter Soldier" of Captain America. What is interesting to me is that these individuals are almost universally de-humanized and their ability to take responsibility for their actions shifted as if they were no more sentient beings.
The reason I bring up that is because law enforcement and soldiers are two distinctly separate animals. Law enforcement officers have to have a high set of personal moral ethics to want to get into enforcement in the first place, but they also have to have substantial training and deductive skills. Soldiers are rarely ones for creativity except at the command level. To me, that means that while I could see a level of psychotropic drugs working to a degree with soldiers, they would destroy the very effectiveness of an LEO.
Today's modern weapons, in comparison, are vastly more efficient (and the soldiers better trained). There's a huge difference between a rifle that fires a modern round at 3000+ fps and the old musket-loaders which were typically 1/3 that - barely better than a modern handgun. And the ammunition differences between a lead ball and today's mushrooming hollow-point ammunition (or even more innovative designs) are huge (even though the provisions of modern warfare according to the UN require full metal jacket ammo).
I don't think its nearly as much about conditioning as it is about technological advancement of the tooling.
Pardon my density. I don't understand your comment.
What is it?
Man 1: How you doin' after you lost your leg?
Man 2: Oh, I can't kick.
But as to your other comment, upon giving it much thought over time I know I could kill to defend myself or my loved ones at the very least. Possibly others under certain circumstances.
As I have pointed out in slightly different terms, the job of the military is to kill people and break things. If you can't handle that, get a different job.
Without my rifle, I am useless.
I must fire my rifle true."~
Here is all of a Marine Rifleman's Creed.
http://www.marineparents.com/marineco...
This carries over to a civilian's concealed carry.
Without my limping old man's concealed equalizer, I am useless against an armed violent criminal.
Since the election, this question has been bumped forward in my consciousness ... at what point am I willing to kill for "a cause" and who would my likely targets be?
Two generations later, every generation is a hopeless dunce.
Load more comments...