Re: Science and Ideals.
Bush is the worst by far. On the topic of Bush being the worst U.S President, I’ve discovered cause to dispute that. Having just read “Lies my teacher told me”, a book intended to illustrate the inaccuracies of U.S history curriculums, I’ve read a thorough account of more egregious behaviour by Woodrow Wilson. I’d agree that Bush is incompetent at governing (although possibly exceptional at delivering public treasure to his private constituency) but his transgressions against liberty and effects on the fabric of civil society pail compared to Wilsons, it would seem. Besides which it’s always seemed to me that the real villain of the piece is the U.S Congress abdicating its responsibility to police the executive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Garcia wrote: On a different tack, some of us who are of a particular age, will remember another controversial President associated with an unpopular war, floundering economy, etc. So, what do you all think? Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse I'll say Bush is worse since he is completely incompetent. But I can understand the view that incompetent evil is better. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Waldheimer's Disease? You grow old and forget you were a Nazi. -- Jon Marans ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:12 AM, John Williams wrote: Conscript them like a jury. Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians would destroy most good qualities that they might have had in the job. The politician part is more involved in seeking office than in exercising it. I've thought myself, often, that drafting our leadership would if nothing else give us a government that actually represents us, and would remove the incentive to exploit the power of the office for the sole purpose of getting re-elected, which is what we have now. It's much harder to game that system than it is to game the current one by manipulating voters into wanting to vote for you. Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:26 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone? Those politicians are slippery. And how! What do others think about two bits of news from the American election this week: 1) The two campaigns agreed to a simplified format for the debate between the VP candidates, ostensibly so that Ms. Palin can have opportunities to present Mr. McCain's positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense., according to McCain campaign advisors. 2) McCain suggested that both candidates suspend their campaigns, including the planned debate Friday; Obama declined, saying I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l I hadn't heard about the VP debate, but it seems to me that Palin was picked to bolster McCain's appeal to social conservatives and the religious right, rather than for her experience, so this makes perfect sense to the McCain campaign. I can only speculate, but the Obama campaign may have agreed to this format because if Biden wipes the floor with her in a traditional VP debate (as he probably would), he runs the risk of appearing to be bullying, and don't think that her handlers wouldn't cry Sexist and Unfair in a minute. OTOH, according to conventional wisdom, no one votes for the Vice President, and this may all be an entertaining sideshow. This is the *perfect* time for campaigning and debating, and hopefully (but probably not) meaningful discussion of the issues facing us, including the economy. Both McCain and Obama need to tell us why he should be President instead of why the other should not. On a different tack, some of us who are of a particular age, will remember another controversial President associated with an unpopular war, floundering economy, etc. So, what do you all think? Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse? john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John wrote: So, what do you all think? Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse? Bush is the worst by far. Nixon had a few positive things going on (detente, China), he appointed moderate judges and he inherited Viet Nam. Bush has nothing, absolutely nothing positive to tout unless you're anti-choice and he created his problems out of whole cloth. Not only is Bush worse than Nixon, I have him worse by far than any President ever. The only thing he's better at than Nixon is not getting caught red handed. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24/09/2008, at 9:12 AM, John Williams wrote:\ The only thing that would put my mind at ease would be for the people to have a strong distrust for leaders as well as a culture of not forcing ideals upon others. And the courage to fight if the leaders break the trust that was placed in them when they assumed power. Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By that I mean serving, rather than merely voting. Charlie. Does Not Have A Vote Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By that I mean serving, rather than merely voting. Increasing the number of potential politicians and rule-makers would not reassure me at all. Keeping the same number of politicians (or reducing them!) but selecting them from a more diverse pool might be reassuring. But I have no idea how that might be achieved. The people who would make more reassuring politicians generally are not interested in politics. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:50, John Williams wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By that I mean serving, rather than merely voting. Increasing the number of potential politicians and rule-makers would not reassure me at all. Keeping the same number of politicians (or reducing them!) but selecting them from a more diverse pool might be reassuring. But I have no idea how that might be achieved. The people who would make more reassuring politicians generally are not interested in politics. Conscript them like a jury. To serve Man Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conscript them like a jury. Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians would destroy most good qualities that they might have had in the job. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24 Sep 2008, at 15:12, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conscript them like a jury. Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians would destroy most good qualities that they might have had in the job. They'd still be better than what we have. Partial solution Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] They'd still be better than what we have. I'd like more politicians like Mike Pence: I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car lot, said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana. The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] They'd still be better than what we have. I'd like more politicians like Mike Pence: I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car lot, said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana. The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal. One of the rules that has served me well in life is that when someone says you have to act now on a deal, it is time to walk away and keep your hand on your wallet. It has never let me down. When you learn that this plan is something they have been working on for months now, you know they were just waiting for an opportunity to spring this on people and ram it through before anyone could read the fine print. If you want to see how this process works in great detail read the book of the year, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Wagner's music is better than it sounds. -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: When you learn that this plan is something they have been working on for months now, you know they were just waiting for an opportunity to spring this on people and ram it through before anyone could read the fine print. Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone? Those politicians are slippery. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:26 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone? Those politicians are slippery. And how! What do others think about two bits of news from the American election this week: 1) The two campaigns agreed to a simplified format for the debate between the VP candidates, ostensibly so that Ms. Palin can have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense., according to McCain campaign advisors. 2) McCain suggested that both candidates suspend their campaigns, including the planned debate Friday; Obama declined, saying I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I moved to the US (which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government would be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided that was a good idea, What if the government decided all citizens who immigrated from Australia should immediately become slaves? Would you accept that? Another part of the deal (there would of course be thousands of parts) would be assurances that I would not become a slave after I emigrated (I believe the American constitution would spell that out). I agree with you in theory when you say I do not think it is fair for someone to bar me from trading with a mutual consenting partner. I just want to point out that in the bigger picture a partner could be an individual or a corporation or a government, and that agreements can't be taken in isolation, and that to be fair you should probably take into account the trade you have done with the government (tacit or otherwise) to provide you (amongst other things) security for obeying the law. You can't trade away your right to trade something (slaves say) in exchange for Citizenship, and then expect to be able to sell slaves anyway anymore than you can trade your cow to one person for a horse and the same cow to a second person for a sheep. Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that governments are consenting partners too. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that governments are consenting partners too. That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it bends to its will. Force generally is not required between consenting adults. There is the concept of a 'social contract' which is a presumption of an agreement of fair dealing between people, their fellow citizens and the government but in practice no one's enforcing that contract. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is dependant on the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. But yes. Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is dependant on the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. But yes. Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Maybe I am in the minority, but I have never felt the government is opressing me, or forcing me to do things I don't want to do, and I reckon I get fair recompence for paying my taxes obeying the law. It is not required for a government to be oppresive for it to be true that you do not negotiate with it on equal terms. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
From: Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that governments are consenting partners too. That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it bends to its will. Force generally is not required between consenting adults. There is the concept of a 'social contract' which is a presumption of an agreement of fair dealing between people, their fellow citizens and the government but in practice no one's enforcing that contract. Maybe I am in the minority, but I have never felt the government is opressing me, or forcing me to do things I don't want to do, and I reckon I get fair recompence for paying my taxes obeying the law. AND if I felt I was being hard done by I am free to move to NZ, or to any other country that I can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with. Sure some governments are brutal dishonest, but so are some corporations individuals. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another part of the deal (there would of course be thousands of parts) would be assurances that I would not become a slave after I emigrated (I believe the American constitution would spell that out). Since the American constitution can be amended, that would not protect you if there was a super-majority of people who wanted to force you to do something. Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that governments are consenting partners too. You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent to do any new thing that the government decides to tell you to do, as long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples I listed are new rules. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent to do any new thing that the government decides to tell you to do, as long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples I listed are new rules. I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. Democracy doesn't seek consent, other than the consent to be governed by democratic means; it seeks consensus or lacking that, majority. I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don't know when to take your posts seriously. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:14 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don't know when to take your posts seriously. Yes, you said nothing about consensus. That is exactly why I brought it up. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you said nothing about consensus. That is exactly why I brought it up. You seem to have confused me with someone else. You get confused a lot, don't you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrotemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent to do any new thing that the government decides to tell you to do, as long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples I listed are new rules. I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. Democracy doesn't seek consent, other than the consent to be governed by democratic means; it seeks consensus or lacking that, majority. I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Olin Elliott wrote I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Let me guess Nick's response: I see some confusion about elected versus selected by a vote. Let's debate which is better. Or perhaps we could all vote on a rule about which language we may use. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust system. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams wrote: This is a myth. He (Hitler) was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust system. I have no fsking idea what you are trolling about. OTOH, Bush II was _accepted_ by 75% of the USA voters - only 25% voted against him. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no fsking idea what you are trolling about. That makes two of us! I'm having a good day if I understand more that 50% of what I am trolling about. OTOH, Bush II was _accepted_ by 75% of the USA voters - only 25% voted against him. 26%, you didn't count my vote. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Alberto Monteiro Hmmm ... I'm no expert on German History, so I'll take your word for it. Still, being elected by Parliament isn't quite the same as being selected by the electoral college, since the Parliament itself is presumably elected democratically, and the electoral college is not -- it is just a functional represenation of the various voting strengths of the states. And Bush in 2000 wasn't selected by the electoral college -- most independent audits have shown that Gore would have won Florida in a fair count, and thus would have carried the electoral vote. Bush was chosen, finally, by the Supreme Court. All this is nitpicking, though. My point was simply that being chosen by Democratic means does not mean that a leader is fit to rule, or that he has any respect for Democratic process. The consent to be governed should rest, not just on how the person was chosen, but on how they function once elected. That's why the drafters of the US Consititution were very determined to put pro visions for Impeachment into the process -- I suspect that it has been used less frequently than they invisioned. The idea that we have to continue to conesent to any government that is elected Democratically, no matter what it does, is not in keeping with America's founding principles. Olin - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Olin Elliott wrote I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point was simply that being chosen by Democratic means does not mean that a leader is fit to rule, or that he has any respect for Democratic process. If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy is in trouble. Perhaps so. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy is in trouble. Perhaps so. Or perhaps people place too much faith in politicians and government, and would be better off reducing their power and scope. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24/09/2008, at 3:11 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Olin Kind of. Was horse-trading in the parliament that got him the Chancellorship as part of a coalition, even though the National Socialists were a minor party. He'd already been imprisoned in the '20s for his part in an attempted coup. Not exactly the best example of democracy in action... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place. And absent that you haven't had the opportunity to give consent. At best you're accepting of the current system. Modern Democracy is more than just voting for government, the term and concept is generally used to encompass social orders that include rule by law and institutionalised consideration for individual rights as well as the mechanism of electing government. The philosophy it represents is generally thought to be that the only proper authority to govern is derived from the consent of governed (as opposed to ancient claims by monarchs and the like to derive authority from Gods or right of force). That consent supposedly obtained from the majority in free competition in elections. But the 'consent' in that concept is a different thing than the literal consent that is given by one person to another. Perhaps you refer to the philosophical concept of popular consent to govern and not a more literal meaning? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. While initially true it is inaccurate to claim he took power democratically. His party was elected to a significant proportion of government but the position of authority he abused was bestowed by presidential executive fiat. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust system. The Nazis received about 38% of the seats in 1932 and were the biggest party in parliament. Mostly thank to the consequences of the ongoing depression (which was particularly onerous to Germany it is often argued because of the crushing terms of reparations in the treaty of Versailles). Because of the fractured nature of German governance at the time Hitler was able to use his leverage to get Hindenburg to appoint him Chancellor. As far as it goes Hitler getting power in 1934 was a legitimate process in the Weimar republic and a blunder by Hindenburg. It's the next election that matters. Having gained power the Nazis used it to remove competition and ensure no further fair elections. That combination of economic depression and exploitable militarism is something to worry about, really quite topical. As an interesting aside: Algeria had an election some time ago where popular votes won it for an Islamic party. The existing military dictatorship fearing a theocracy that would ban further elections (and possibly pursue them for past crimes) attempted to void the election and instigated a very vicious civil conflict. Although a problematic example it does give on pause to wonder about the situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid Constitutional rule. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] That combination of economic depression and exploitable militarism is something to worry about, really quite topical. I agree. I think it is scary. Although a problematic example it does give on pause to wonder about the situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid Constitutional rule. I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined leader with control of the military and the support of even 25% of the people. The only thing that would put my mind at ease would be for the people to have a strong distrust for leaders as well as a culture of not forcing ideals upon others. And the courage to fight if the leaders break the trust that was placed in them when they assumed power. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
it does give on pause to wonder about the situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid Constitutional rule. I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined leader with control of the military and the support of even 25% of the people. Obviously no guarantee is given, but the idea is the one employed in the U.S - directing loyalty to the country and constitution rather than government or executive. As history demonstrates it doesn't always work but does provide a rallying point for resistance and a structure within which to work for the re-establishment of subverted authority. I don't claim it's THE answer, but it does have an argument for being a positive preparation to the danger of electing the undemocratically minded. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
At 05:35 PM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Euan Ritchie wrote: I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place. And absent that you haven't had the opportunity to give consent. At best you're accepting of the current system. Modern Democracy is more than just voting for government, the term and concept is generally used to encompass social orders that include rule by law and institutionalised consideration for individual rights as well as the mechanism of electing government. The philosophy it represents is generally thought to be that the only proper authority to govern is derived from the consent of governed (as opposed to ancient claims by monarchs and the like to derive authority from Gods or right of force). That consent supposedly obtained from the majority in free competition in elections. But the 'consent' in that concept is a different thing than the literal consent that is given by one person to another. Perhaps you refer to the philosophical concept of popular consent to govern and not a more literal meaning? IOW, as someone has said, Taxation WITH representation ain't all that all-fired great, either? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
At 03:36 AM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: You can't trade away your right to trade something (slaves say) in exchange for Citizenship, and then expect to be able to sell slaves anyway anymore than you can trade your cow to one person for a horse and the same cow to a second person for a sheep. How about anymore than you can sell a bridge in New York to more than one person? Beach Front Property For Sale Cheap Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. The universe is stranger than we can imagine :) C ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:49 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan, barring a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of stock, raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning internet gambling, restricting offshoring, supporting a bailout of the financial industry using taxpayer money, windfall profit taxes, price ceilings on gasoline, repealing NAFTA, farm subsidies, banning smoking, trans-fats, etcI could go on, but that will do for now. By the way, I do not mean to imply that you support these practices. I am only giving examples. Is it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice? Huh? I'm struggling to see those as examples of people imposing their will on others. They seem to be examples of people imposing their will on themselves -- decisions made via the processes of law and justice, whose ideal is quite the opposite of imposing one's will on others -- they are intended to allow a nation to choose the rules it imposes on itself. That's democracy in action, except when it has been subverted by those who use their wealth and power to corrupt the system. Did you mean that those are all examples of such corruption? That they are unlawful imposition of ideals by a minority against the majority? Or perhaps you don't believe in self-rule? I'm not getting the big picture here, as I hope I have made clear. As for my second question... For example, what ideal is being imposed when raising taxes for a national health care plan, if not social justice? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm struggling to see those as examples of people imposing their will on others. Pick one that you are struggling with and I will be glad to explain if you really cannot see it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
Well, I'm finally back with power. Dan, why do you say Richard's history lesson is an aside to the main thrust of your argument? Because most ancient regimes did not place value on individual human rights, and are often replaced with different despots? Of course some despots are worse than others, what else is new? Wouldn't you agree that the human race has been making progress since the enlightenment? What do you think are the reasons for that? I think the human race is better of now than before the enlightenment. I attribute this to these reasons. 1) The increase in per capita wealth allowed for a structure in which people could have wealth without pushing folks to the margins. Historically, humans have had marginal existences. For example, in The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan, Crossan argues that if perfect Christian charity and sharing were practiced in the Roman empire, it would push back starvation no more than one generation. To have enough wealth to allow one's sons to study full time and become scholars required having access to the products of many people. This slowly changed with the advent of new technology, such as the horse collar and new techniques, such as three crop rotation in Europe. But, the industrial revolution allowed for great leaps in productivity...which allowed for a different type of model. 2) The Enlightenment brought forth new ideas about the rights of individual human beings. They weren't, of course, developed in a background, but were well grounded in earlier arguments made within Christianity. In a real sense, they were the direct descendents of Erasmus, who took a middle, and reason based position during the reformation. 3) Two Republics formed out of the Enlightenment: the French and the US. The US was extremely fortunate in the people it had to found its Republic. Not only were they great thinkers and orators, they developed a novel answer to the age old question of who guards the guardians. The answer was to use separation of powers to have the self interest of one guardian motivate him to watch the others guardians like a hawk. 4) The US was lucky enough to have the North win the Civil War. If the South had won, most (including Lincoln) believed that the West would follow suit and secede. We were very fortunate to have Lincoln, especially since there is a great risk in a very non-experienced leader run the country. But, even given his skills, and his ability to break the law and then pull back within the law, we had to have external events go for us. If Egypt didn't have record cotton harvests that coincided with the war, and the mills of England needed Southern cotton to keep going, things would probably have turned out differently. 5) Key leaders in the US relinquished power. The most important of these is Washington (a general who stood in sharp contrast to Napoleon), who set a strong example in stepping down after 8 years. 6) We were lucky during the Cold War to find ways from having nuclear war, from the Berlin airlift, to the Cuban missile crisis, to the Yom Kipper War (when the US threatened to stop any resupply of their allies by the USSR), to the time when Yelsen (sp) reversed the coup against Gorbachov (sp). 7) The US was not interested in empire. It didn't keep Germany and Japan as conquered subjects (the reverse certainly would have been true if we lost). You can call the US cultural and economic dominance as empire, but it really is quite different from the USSR, from Japan's sphere of influence, from the European empires of the 17th-20th centuries. So, that's a start. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan, barring a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of stock, raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning internet gambling, restricting offshoring, supporting a bailout of the financial industry using taxpayer money, windfall profit taxes, price ceilings on gasoline, repealing NAFTA, farm subsidies, banning smoking, trans-fats, etcI could go on, but that will do for now. By the way, I do not mean to imply that you support these practices. I am only giving examples. I would argue that the above are part of the detail of a consensual deal between and individual and a state, and therefore part of a meta free market. I am a citizen of Australia, and I have been issued a passport, and am free to move to and live in any other country I wish, providing of course I can come to a mutually agreeable arrangement with that country. That agreement would include abiding the laws of that country. If I moved to the US (which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government would be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided that was a good idea, so in the end everything above is part of a free market. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I moved to the US (which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government would be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided that was a good idea, What if the government decided all citizens who immigrated from Australia should immediately become slaves? Would you accept that? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:16 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Dan, I hope that You and yours and your home are OK. I heard that half of the Houston area is still without power, if you're home I hope you're among the lucky half. Power came on, finally, yesterday afternoon. Thanks for asking. Dan wrote: Ok, where on the web can I read about the truth apart from us?Can I find widespread support for the idea among scientists? Well, there was a multiplicity of articles in Phys Rev. Letters (_the_ place for a physicist to publish in the US; Europe has Phys Letters) on the falsification of local realism. That is what I was talking about, when I talked about the difficulties of realism. Science is, well when it's done right it is, not philosophical in its fundamental nature. I've worked with folks with a wide variety of ontologies and epistemologies. Or will I find, as Wiki suggests, that most physicists consider non-instrumental questions (in particular ontological questions) to be irrelevant to physics. They fall back on David Mermin's expression: shut up and calculate BTW, Mermin may have said it, but Feynman said it much earlier. But, you can shut up and calculate and still accept Bell's work on the EPR paradox. Let me quote the Wikipedia article on the EPR paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox quote The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable (but actually wrong, or questionable as a whole) conditions (referred to as locality, realism, counter factual definiteness, and completeness; see Bell inequality and Bell test experiments), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor - as it turns out - does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions. end quote EPR is probably the best example of non-intuitive QM. If we limit ourselves to this, and we agree that when physics and commons sense differ, we take physics, I think I can make my case without referring to other physics (except for answering questions about say the inequality inherent in Bell by pointing to experiments that show the same physics without resorting to inequalities. The point is that there are certain well verified and long researched results of quantum mechanics that need to be taken into account into any philosophical system that has observations as having some validity (i.e. just about everything except the most extreme forms of idealism and narcissism). The Kantian worldview, which I tend to favor, certainly associates some correlation between phenomena and nomena. Wearing my scientists hat, I think I know my QM well enough to state the well verified outcomes of the theory. When it comes to interpreting those outcomes, then I take of my scientist hat and put on my philosopher's hat. So, MWI, Copenhagen, pilot waves, etc. all interpret the same physics. Thus, I cannot use physics to falsify any of these interpretations (they are just philosophy). I can, however, use the QM to state what must be part of such an interpretation for it to be a proper interpretation of QM (proper in that it needs to be consistent with the theory it interprets). Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best- suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is dependant on the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. In some cases, such as eyes IIRC, there have been separate evolutionary developments of eyes, so they could be seen as nearly inevitable. But humans, well we're the dominant species and there is recent evidence that we almost went extinct (50k years ago, I think)...so fittest to survive a given sequence of events need not be the same as fittest to survive a slightly different sequence of events. In other words, we're lucky to be here. First of all, I respect Guatam's credentials, but he's been wrong on more than one occasion (remember the guarantee that there would be WMDs in Iraq) so his they aren't impeccable. Second, you state that totalitarian regimes
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? There is at least one problem with best that strikes me immediately -- the environment is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is best at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. Surely best-suited in this context means best-suited for survival as a species. But that one gets messy, too, since speciation begs the question. And then there's the definition of a species, which blurs around the edges. If we survive by becoming different species, who/what survived? Selfish genes? But they change, too! This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Nick SS Can't set foot in the same river twice ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? If it included a TOE, then yes, I did. But maybe reconciled is the wrong word. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:33:20 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? If it included a TOE, then yes, I did. But maybe reconciled is the wrong word. I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that which they obviously do not know. Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics reconcile perfectly. Quantum mechanics describes all of Newtonian physics as well as quantum phenomena. Newtonian physics is a subset of quantum physics that provides a convenient approximation of most large scale phenomena. Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know what your college physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general relativity and quantum mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that which they obviously do not know. Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know what your college physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general relativity and quantum mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. Which made me realize that I didn't say what I was really thinking, which was what you said -- reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics. Hey, it's still kind of early in the morning here (for a Sunday) and I haven't finished my coffee. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't try to force his will on others with mistakes like that! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Yes and the fact that the people who think they have the knowledge and the ability to fix everything, who have to take care of the patronizing people have to be take care of by the people who think that the others don't have the knowledge and ability to fix the people who... oh, never mind. Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be wrong because I misspoke here. I guess we allow thread cross-pollination, for the sake of hybrid vigor. Vigorous debate and all that. And for heaven's sake, it was at best a metaphor and here we are obsessing about it, while the topic at hand (the nature of evolution) is being ignored. And I'll bet it is lonely. I think I hear it starting to whimper off in the corner. Nick P.S. We allow mistakes here. Otherwise, how could we evolve? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be wrong because I misspoke here. I am not implying that anything must be wrong, only that some know less than they think they do. P.S. We allow mistakes here. Otherwise, how could we evolve? We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they never will be? Let's make it a rule! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they never will be? Let's make it a rule! Criticism is most certainly honored in David Brin's writings, which implicitly makes it valued here. On the other hand, belittling people when they make a mistake is not so honored. May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe? I would not presume to tell you what to believe. I rarely know what to believe myself. But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals on me, I feel that I should oppose them. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals on me, I feel that I should oppose them. I think this may have a connection to Doug's post. The statement above could perhaps be taken as part of the basis of an ethical system. Something along the lines of do not impose one's ideals on others, but oppose others who attempt to impose thier ideals on oneself. What kind of culture would evolve out of such a system? I guess it would be more stable than systems that are more aggressive, since all the more aggressive rules I can think of would seem to result in escalating conflicts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 12:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? There is at least one problem with best that strikes me immediately -- the environment is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is best at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Species, and fitness, are both snapshots in time. There are various analogies that are used to picture the wider possibilities over time and space - adaptive landscape is one, morph space is another. But really, species is a description of a population at a particular period in time, and fitness is a relative measure of success at a particular period in time. Biologists take all this as a given - the fuzziness and the continuous nature of biology is just the way it is, and understanding this and seeing nature as a snapshot, looking at broader timescales while observing a moment, is something that once learned changes one's perspective. (It's not how it's always been, as biology started as pigeon-holing). Geologists and cosmologists see things similarly. Good post. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 2:16 AM, John Williams wrote: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't try to force his will on others with mistakes like that! It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Ack! I'll never earn a living this way! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 6:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Ack! I'll never earn a living this way! Heheh! Seriously, it's a good point you made, but it's more philosophy of biology (as species concepts are) than practical biology, as when one's in the field (which I've not been in the research sense for a looong time) one just knows this is a snapshot in time. Even walking into a woodland and looking around, one can see different stages at once - the different successions in a clearing that eventually culminate in old-growth oak woodland, and so on. Charlie. Off To Work Now Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. That is not what I was implying. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. I disagree, obviously. I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out reasons why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one of the few ways I can oppose such rules. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. Charlie. Too true. There is a passage in The Mote in God's Eye where Kevin Renner who is fond of rebutting arguments by blurting out wrong, and then explaining why, is told that it might be more appropriate to start a rebuttal with That turns out not to be the case. A lesson for everyone maybe? And on the subject of the Mote in God's Eye, I wonder if some of the doom gloomers on the list see a cyclic boom bust civilisation that that of the moties as a possible future for mankind, or if they will settle for nothing except a disaster that wipes that plague that is mankind from the face of the Earth for ever. :-) Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. That is not what I was implying. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. I disagree, obviously. But it really IS a discussion list. ;-) I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out reasons why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one of the few ways I can oppose such rules. Perhaps I'm not the only one who is unsure of what it means to take a position that leads to imposing one's ideals on others. Can you give an example or two? The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain charities that believe do good work. Or reporting drunk drivers, in which case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver. I imagine you mean some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be. Is it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Science and Ideals.
Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. you're projecting, john, you do that a lot... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain charities that believe do good work. Are you being serious here? Do you really think that might be what I meant? How is endorsing a candiate or charity imposing or forcing someone to do something? Or reporting drunk drivers, in which case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver. While this comes slightly closer to what I mean, it is still not very close. Reporting a law breaker is not really what I meant by imposing one's ideals. I imagine you mean some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be. Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan, barring a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of stock, raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning internet gambling, restricting offshoring, supporting a bailout of the financial industry using taxpayer money, windfall profit taxes, price ceilings on gasoline, repealing NAFTA, farm subsidies, banning smoking, trans-fats, etcI could go on, but that will do for now. By the way, I do not mean to imply that you support these practices. I am only giving examples. Is it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice? Huh? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan, I hope that You and yours and your home are OK. I heard that half of the Houston area is still without power, if you're home I hope you're among the lucky half. Dan wrote: Well, I guess it depends on what you base your understanding of evidence on, and to what degree you accept science when it counters common sense. I would hope that, if I give the results of extremely well verified theories of science (e.g. theories that give precise results over many orders of magnitude (IIRC the range is 10^20) that you will accept such theories as valid, and common sense understandings that contradict them as limited. That, if there is a conflict between the two, you would side with science vs. common sense. An example of this is the fact that evolution shows that the order in nature does not prove the existence of a creator, Ok, where on the web can I read about the truth apart from us?Can I find widespread support for the idea among scientists? Or will I find, as Wiki suggests, that most physicists consider non-instrumental questions (in particular ontological questions) to be irrelevant to physics. They fall back on David Mermin's expression: shut up and calculate That we have There is no constant, absolute right or wrong. Its the one that works best in the given situation with the caveat that in five years or five months or even five minutes the circumstances that made it work well might change. How quickly and completely did American attitudes and indeed, their ethics change on Dec. 7, 1941 or on 911? The question of whether a particular action is right or wrong is dependent on the circumstances involved. But, look at what you said Its the one that works best in the given situation This, as with Charlie, simply moves the question slightly. What I have stated repeatedly is the question of how one defines things like best, worst, good, bad, etc. Self referential statements don't address the question, they are mere tautologies. Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? If in one hand and... But if either of them had won, how long do you think that they could have kept their conquests under their thumb? Do you think that their social constructs would have been successful? Well, leaning on a former list member who is a PhD candidate in international relations, and who believes that a proper study of history is important to this, the answer is that the evidence is strong that totalitarian regimes are internally stable. The USSR failed after 60 years or so, but that was in a situation where it was competing with the US militarily and ended up spending 40%+ of its GDP in that competition. First of all, I respect Guatam's credentials, but he's been wrong on more than one occasion (remember the guarantee that there would be WMDs in Iraq) so his they aren't impeccable. Second, you state that totalitarian regimes are inherently stable but the only valid example you can give is a regime that lasted less than a century. Thirdly I don't believe it is valid to compare societies from different eras because of the widely varying circumstances. It's like trying to compare experiments that had thousands of uncontrolled confounding factors. So aside from the fatal flaws in your historical analysis that Rich pointed out, I don't believe that that type of comparison is valid in the first place. Would they have stood the test of time? I have serious doubts that they would have, Well, then you stand against most students of the field. Can you site an example or two? In a long term competition, countries with representative governments have advantages over totalitarian governments. But, the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated that freer societies have long term advantages in productivity, but it took a long time for those advantages to take hold. And, in times of war, the US required a president who went outside the law to defend the country and then stepped back inside it. Some of what FDR did was unneeded: e.g. the internment of the Japanese. But, the pushing of the boundaries of lend-lease, the use of US destroyers against Germany before war was declared, etc. was necessary. In the case of the Civil war, the illegal arrest of the Maryland legislators on their way to a vote on secession from the Union was absolutely essential to maintaining the Union. The fact that Lincoln could violate the constitution to save it is amazing. But, it also shows the weakness republics have; if it were someone like Nixon instead of Lincoln doing
Science and Ideals.
So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? Olin hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~) jon Now, that's something I can pray for. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:11 PM Subject: Science and Ideals. So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? Olin hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Kevin said: Minor nit. The battle of Manzikert was in 1071. Yes, you're right. Thank you. Rich, who must read more about Byzantine history. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help me out here Dan? Anyone? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help me out here Dan? Anyone? Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said as the second law about 100 years earlier. There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I don't have time to write it now. If anyone is interested, I'll do it later. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Let us begin with this basic knowledge. This is found in the tautology of true and false statements or simple basic yes or no logic. I am sure yes and no is not beyond the grasp of any conversant on this page. The truth or falsity of a particular idea exists in the truth of logic, which is either TT or TF or FT or FF. Given this mathematical probability tree the yes/no existence of an idea is TF or FT it cannot be TT or FF in those events being true factually or false factually. The Boolean analogies and API applications are found in these basic mathematical applications in semantics and also in statistics. However, I must say I do not know where it rests in gibberish if such a science exists at all. Now that this groups discussions exist beyond this basic scientific principle of a tautology I assumed that the expressions on the ideas and science were suitable for evaluation on these basic principles which provide the assembly languages and logic of both the world of semantics, computer and scientific communications; Boolean analysis and now I am reaching when I say alien technologies because the term itself indicate it is out of the human conscience reach although human accept alien as being. Since the probability tree express 100% then the existence of TT is 25% and FF is 25% then the TF and FT are flip sided of each other both comprising of 25% making the 50% for that phenomenon that Andrew C implied by saying if mathematical. The flip side is if not. The arguments about perception are different than those of mathematics. Perception rests in the receiver not the sender. Altruistic ideas, which may drive the individual, are mater of receiving what is sent and therefore there is the idea of a mindset. An idea arises from internal or external resources. I propose an innate potential within humans which process ideas. I propose that humans are aware and driven from birth. The mathematics of statistics is used to determine if such ideas are true of false of partially true and false. Ideas generated by mind-set are separate from human ideas so my reading Andrew C Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals and here we touch on self-awareness: I would assume he touches on self-perceptions and good senses to mean hearing seeing and higher intelligence in humans and animals. I say to Andrew C 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no but the human perception is more than mathematical logic so Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability This simply indicate to Andrew C that he has made a grand leap from altruistic ideaism as being in touch with one self to propose And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens Develop the same ethics as us? All or this is still separated from whether a mind set is wired to receive the idea of being altruistic. And I attempt to provide a scientific argument related to the mathematical evaluation, which would limit his argument to 50% certainty using any Boolean system. He further proposes that aliens might develop our ethics if it’s like mathematics. I am believed that the question beg answering so I ventured that the helix of genetic of the human structure has something to do with the mindset which we humans inherit. It is the basis of the movement of energy and the processes and drives our awareness. Our feelings and processing ideas are unique and we may or may not see something call an idea. Some minds are said to be empty and even after receiving a barge of ideas, say in a class on booleagean mathematics or one measuring finite existence, some mind-sets remains blank. What is seen, imagined, repelled or retained is based upon the individual’s mind-set. If the receiver is wired to accept the stimulus of the idea and has a potential suitable to accept altruism it is increased in society as part of the ethical i.e. good life. So I was satisfied Andrew C proposal that suggest Andrew C wrote 9-4-08 Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. Indicating to me that altruism rest upon someone being in touch with their own self and the visions related to such ideas is individually driven. I did not necessarily agree with the idea that altruism is an unselfish action, which is evident in children because I do not equate altruism with unselfishness. I cannot understand the ability to care for another without caring for oneself. It is my belief that once a human acts it is first upon self. Even if the focus of
RE: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Dan M wrote: Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said as the second law about 100 years earlier. There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I don't have time to write it now. If anyone is interested, I'll do it later. Consider me interested. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? Olin - Original Message - From: Dan Mmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: RE: Science and Ideals. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help me out here Dan? Anyone? Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said as the second law about 100 years earlier. There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I don't have time to write it now. If anyone is interested, I'll do it later. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
At 08:40 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (New Testament | Luke 10:25 - 37) That Thou Doest, Do Quickly Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
At 08:40 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. So what if you don't believe in God At this holiday season in December, we want to wish all our Christian friends 'Merry Christmas, all our Jewish friends 'Happy Chanukah,' all our Wiccan friends a prosperous Solstice, and to all our atheist friends 'Good Luck!' . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
At 08:18 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Dan M wrote: Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said as the second law about 100 years earlier. There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I don't have time to write it now. If anyone is interested, I'll do it later. Consider me interested. Me, too. Obligatory Second Line Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
At 06:44 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help me out here Dan? Anyone? Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. Reference: But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (New Testament | Matthew 22:34 - 40) or if you prefer the NIV: Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Science and Ideals.
I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that history, Richard. I will accept that my quick recollection of history was all too facile, and I honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping it, because I do think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument. But, if you find historical errors in what I am about to say, do not hesitate to shout out. Empires can last a long time. They do reformulate, different dynasties do exist. But, I think it is fair to say that regimes that do not place a great deal of value on individual human rights can last centuries, and when they are replaced it is often/usually not be a group that emphasized human rights. You also rightly said that these empires were not totalitarian. I agree, and never intended to imply that. Indeed, I used the example of restraints on the French King that did not apply to Napoleon because I had some awareness of that fact. Totalitarian governments are fairly modern. The tools needed for them probably didn't exist 300 years ago. My argument is that they have proven to be fairly resilient, falling only when faced with strong outside challenges. Indeed, the requirement for such challenges was planned as part of the final post I was going to write in the series I started a bit ago. In a sense, I've been building up to that point. But, that's for later. Dan M. Dan, why do you say Richard's history lesson is an aside to the main thrust of your argument? Because most ancient regimes did not place value on individual human rights, and are often replaced with different despots? Of course some despots are worse than others, what else is new? Wouldn't you agree that the human race has been making progress since the enlightenment? What do you think are the reasons for that? Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Richard Baker wrote: The second major collapse occurred with the defeat of Romanus Diogenes by the Seljuk Turkish sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert in 1054. (The Seljuk sultanate was a successor to the Arab Caliphates that had inflicted the earlier defeats on the Byzantines.) Minor nit. The battle of Manzikert was in 1071. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 I have not failed. I have discovered 1,000 things that do not work. -- Thomas Edison ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Dan M said: Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. It may be an aside, but both of those statements are misleading. I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that history, Richard. I will accept that my quick recollection of history was all too facile, and I honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping it, because I do think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument. But, if you find historical errors in what I am about to say, do not hesitate to shout out. Empires can last a long time. They do reformulate, different dynasties do exist. But, I think it is fair to say that regimes that do not place a great deal of value on individual human rights can last centuries, and when they are replaced it is often/usually not be a group that emphasized human rights. I would add a speculation that in this matter we might see the same acceleration that we have seen in so many other spheres of the modern world. We may well be in an era where 100 years would now be an upper limit for empire. The British empire made it around 200 years, but the American version looks like less than 100 years. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed. Bill Gates, 1995 interview, Focus Magazine (Germany) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world around us? What are the odds of it being like mathematics or not like mathematics? 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals which drive human awareness Say it is innate potentials with development and growth curves Say that the innate potentials are hard wired but mixed based upon The helix or energy contained in the structure of the human genes This is either incredibly deep, beyond my ability to grasp, or its pure gibberish. The sentences don't even make sense to me. Olin - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Andrew C wrote 9-4-08 Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. (And yes, I am saying that very young children will only behave in a selfish way). And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens Develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world around us? What are the odds of it being like mathematics or not like mathematics? 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals which drive human awareness Say it is innate potentials with development and growth curves Say that the innate potentials are hard wired but mixed based upon The helix or energy contained in the structure of the human genes Say the innate potentials are constantly seeking some evaluated formula Some rational to measure its measure of reason and only ideas serve the Conscience but attachment to these ideals leads to domestication i.e. Draw in the creature like the process of domesticating the wild animal The constant luring with food or any other act which the wild attach pleasure Or completion serve to bring basic drives of the innate potentials into Harmony with the environment---thus cause the engine to afford a new motion Say that ethics or any other thesis is only the written records of man’s Beliefs or directions recording the new motions which men tribes followed Willing acceptance of himself i.e. the ideas of others of himself Then you have simply a truth as revealed of him as he wishes other To see him an willingly become the domesticate of the visual commune seeker This become the more than mathematical evaluation of 50% beast and 50% human with reason as a purely mathematical system would yield Such a human machine would provide something more than an alien who is hard wired to a binary computer or some tautology based in yes / no Ethics is then termed more than good and bad; right and wrong; ect. It may be akin to those ideas, which seek itself in others and find peace knowing Of the shared existence which begins with the human’s first pull on this mothers Breast this is beyond the binary codes and bars on the spectrometer which that same Mind repels as alien communication across the galaxies. -- Original message from Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Science and Ideals.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:59 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Dan M wrote: No, actually, I believe that there exists truth apart from us. Which, with the absence of any evidence, is akin to magic, but you missed my point entirely. Well, I guess it depends on what you base your understanding of evidence on, and to what degree you accept science when it counters common sense. I would hope that, if I give the results of extremely well verified theories of science (e.g. theories that give precise results over many orders of magnitude (IIRC the range is 10^20) that you will accept such theories as valid, and common sense understandings that contradict them as limited. That, if there is a conflict between the two, you would side with science vs. common sense. An example of this is the fact that evolution shows that the order in nature does not prove the existence of a creator, That we have There is no constant, absolute right or wrong. Its the one that works best in the given situation with the caveat that in five years or five months or even five minutes the circumstances that made it work well might change. How quickly and completely did American attitudes and indeed, their ethics change on Dec. 7, 1941 or on 911? The question of whether a particular action is right or wrong is dependent on the circumstances involved. But, look at what you said Its the one that works best in the given situation This, as with Charlie, simply moves the question slightly. What I have stated repeatedly is the question of how one defines things like best, worst, good, bad, etc. Self referential statements don't address the question, they are mere tautologies. If in one hand and... But if either of them had won, how long do you think that they could have kept their conquests under their thumb? Do you think that their social constructs would have been successful? Well, leaning on a former list member who is a PhD candidate in international relations, and who believes that a proper study of history is important to this, the answer is that the evidence is strong that totalitarian regimes are internally stable. The USSR failed after 60 years or so, but that was in a situation where it was competing with the US militarily and ended up spending 40%+ of its GDP in that competition. Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. There were two Republics that came from the Enlightenment and one failed and fell into a tyranny that had more absolute state power than the previous King, and the other clung to existence by the skin of its teeth. Historians have often remarked how fortunate the US was to have such remarkable people found it; and to have Lincoln when it needed him. You could talk about the liberalization in England, but you have to remember, after the experience of France, democracy and republics were associated by the ruling elite in England with mob rule. Goldstone specifically stated that the success of Lincoln in maintaining the Union was influential in his reforms. And, it is clear that England could not have stood against the Soviet Union. Would they have stood the test of time? I have serious doubts that they would have, Well, then you stand against most students of the field. In a long term competition, countries with representative governments have advantages over totalitarian governments. But, the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated that freer societies have long term advantages in productivity, but it took a long time for those advantages to take hold. And, in times of war, the US required a president who went outside the law to defend the country and then stepped back inside it. Some of what FDR did was unneeded: e.g. the internment of the Japanese. But, the pushing of the boundaries of lend-lease, the use of US destroyers against Germany before war was declared, etc. was necessary. In the case of the Civil war, the illegal arrest of the Maryland legislators on their way to a vote on secession from the Union was absolutely essential to maintaining the Union. The fact that Lincoln could violate the constitution to save it is amazing. But, it also shows the weakness republics have; if it were someone like Nixon instead of Lincoln doing that, would he then release the power? but if they did, if their constructs _worked_ you'd have to say that their ethics were superior. OK, so a totalitarian state would be right, and individual freedoms would be wrong, all on a chance. Evolution
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M said: Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. It may be an aside, but both of those statements are misleading. To begin with, Constantine reunified rather than splitting the administration of the Roman state. The history of the separation between West and East bears closer examination. Under the Republic, the Romans had a long history of the division of the supreme magistracy, first between two consuls and later into first an ad-hoc and later a formalised triumvirate. This tendency briefly re-emerged during the second century with the co-imperium of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Verus, which enabled the presence of emperors at several trouble-spots concurrently. During the troubled third century this need for divided absolute authority became even more pressing and was formalised by the emperor Diocletian's institution of the tetrarchy, in which there were two senior emperors (Augusti) and two junior emperors (Caesars). It was Diocletian's intention that the Augusti should periodically abdicate in favour of their junior colleagues who would in turn appoint two new Caesars from the best men of the state. The succession of the emperors would thus be regularised, putting an end to the cycle of rebellion and civil war that had plagued the empire for fifty years. Unfortunately, it didn't work like that, as sons of the Augusti who had been passed over in favour of new, unrelated emperors, asserted their supposed hereditary rights, alternative centres of power crystallised and a new phase of civil wars began. The ultimate victor was Constantine, who became sole ruler of the Roman empire in 324. Before Constantine, there had been many temporary Roman capitals - for many decades the capital had effectively not been Rome but wherever the emperor was. Under the tetrarchy, for example, the capitals of the Augusti had been Nicomedia in Asia Minor, Mediolanum in northern Italy, Sirmium in what's now Serbia and Augusta Treverorum (modern Trier). One of Constantine's several innovations was the establishment of a permanent new capital at Constantinople. Rather than this city being the capital of an Eastern Roman Empire, it was the capital of the whole empire. Even during periods of division of the imperial authority, the empire itself was seen as a unitary whole and the usual procedure was for edicts to be issued in the name of all the current emperors and to be enforced across the Roman world. It's commonly held that the final division of the Roman empire occurred in 395 at the death of Theodosius I, at which Honorius became emperor in the west and Arcadius in the East. From then until the extinction of the western dynasty in 476 there was always an emperor in Constantinople and another usually in Ravenna. However, even as these two centres of power solidified, the Roman world formally remained whole. The two emperors provided each other with military assistance even as late as a major joint naval expedition against the Vandals in 468. Even the man sometimes seen as the last fully legitimate western emperor, Julius Nepos, was appointed by the eastern emperor Leo I. Furthermore, following the overthrow of the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, many of the Germanic successor rulers claimed to be ruling not as independent kings but as representatives of the emperor at Constantinople. As for when the Eastern remnant of the Roman empire fell, I think there were two very clear periods during which large swathes of territory were lost and the character of the empire deeply changed. The first was during the lightning conquests of the Muslim armies in the seventh century, which cut away from the empire the ancient Roman provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. Augustus might well have recognised the sixth century empire of Justinian as a successor, however much transformed by the passage of centuries, to his own; but the Byzantine empire of Heraclius and his successors was a different world. The second major collapse occurred with the defeat of Romanus Diogenes by the Seljuk Turkish sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert in 1054. (The Seljuk sultanate was a successor to the Arab Caliphates that had inflicted the earlier defeats on the Byzantines.) In any case, much of this is a distraction from the central questions: what endured for those 1500 or more years, and was it totalitarian. In my view the main continuity was that of the administrative bureaucracy created by the Romans, despite the changes at the highest levels of power, the shifts of culture and
RE: Science and Ideals.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Dan M said: Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. It may be an aside, but both of those statements are misleading. I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that history, Richard. I will accept that my quick recollection of history was all too facile, and I honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping it, because I do think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument. But, if you find historical errors in what I am about to say, do not hesitate to shout out. Empires can last a long time. They do reformulate, different dynasties do exist. But, I think it is fair to say that regimes that do not place a great deal of value on individual human rights can last centuries, and when they are replaced it is often/usually not be a group that emphasized human rights. You also rightly said that these empires were not totalitarian. I agree, and never intended to imply that. Indeed, I used the example of restraints on the French King that did not apply to Napoleon because I had some awareness of that fact. Totalitarian governments are fairly modern. The tools needed for them probably didn't exist 300 years ago. My argument is that they have proven to be fairly resilient, falling only when faced with strong outside challenges. Indeed, the requirement for such challenges was planned as part of the final post I was going to write in the series I started a bit ago. In a sense, I've been building up to that point. But, that's for later. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 6 Sep 2008, at 01:18, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Dan M said: Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. It may be an aside, but both of those statements are misleading. I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that history, Richard. I will accept that my quick recollection of history was all too facile, and I honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping it, because I do think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument. But, if you find historical errors in what I am about to say, do not hesitate to shout out. Dan - why is it when one of your repetitively egregious errors is called out it never seems to matter to the main thrust of your argument, which you persist in tediously and hectoringly presenting, despite its only apparent basis being fabrication, logical fallacies and hand waving? What Argument Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 4 Sep 2008 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote: I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in the genetic sense. This isn't of course a bar to forming ethics, but it does create issues extending them outside your tribal grouping - most animals don't form the larger sort of associations Humans do. As I said the capacity is innate but we can and do elaborate it using our intelligence. The primitive ethics of tribes and religions is extended by moral and political philosophy to include more abstract concepts of justice and fairness. Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. (And yes, I am saying that very young children will only behave in a selfish way). And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world arround us? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 4 Sep 2008, at 17:27, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2008 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote: I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world arround us? I did say 'might' :-) I was thinking that *if* there was such a thing as an objective ethics then all ethical creatures should be able to discover it. I'd certainly expect aliens to have come up with compatible mathematics. Intuition Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 9/2/08, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just like how without an external yardstick there is no way to call Uwe Boll's _BloodRayne_ better than Shakespeare's _Hamlet_. Because if it's all just opinions they are all equally valid and there is no way to call one better than the other? That's absolutely correct. Some people think that the length of fight scenes is the ultimate guage of how good a martial arts movie is. Some say it's a matter of how realistic the martial arts are. Some say that script and cinematography are important factors in martial arts films, some say script and cinematography are irrelevant. While I personally doubt I would like the script for _BloodRayne_ as much as I like the script for _Hamlet_, I'm also pretty sure that there have been performances of _Hamlet_ that I would not enjoy as much as the movie _BloodRayne_. And just for the record, I thought the movie _BloodRayne_ was pretty awful. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Andrew C wrote 9-4-08 Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. (And yes, I am saying that very young children will only behave in a selfish way). And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens Develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world around us? What are the odds of it being like mathematics or not like mathematics? 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals which drive human awareness Say it is innate potentials with development and growth curves Say that the innate potentials are hard wired but mixed based upon The helix or energy contained in the structure of the human genes Say the innate potentials are constantly seeking some evaluated formula Some rational to measure its measure of reason and only ideas serve the Conscience but attachment to these ideals leads to domestication i.e. Draw in the creature like the process of domesticating the wild animal The constant luring with food or any other act which the wild attach pleasure Or completion serve to bring basic drives of the innate potentials into Harmony with the environment---thus cause the engine to afford a new motion Say that ethics or any other thesis is only the written records of man’s Beliefs or directions recording the new motions which men tribes followed Willing acceptance of himself i.e. the ideas of others of himself Then you have simply a truth as revealed of him as he wishes other To see him an willingly become the domesticate of the visual commune seeker This become the more than mathematical evaluation of 50% beast and 50% human with reason as a purely mathematical system would yield Such a human machine would provide something more than an alien who is hard wired to a binary computer or some tautology based in yes / no Ethics is then termed more than good and bad; right and wrong; ect. It may be akin to those ideas, which seek itself in others and find peace knowing Of the shared existence which begins with the human’s first pull on this mothers Breast this is beyond the binary codes and bars on the spectrometer which that same Mind repels as alien communication across the galaxies. -- Original message from Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:36, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote: I accept a variant of the golden rule, I just don't accept that it's anything other than a personal and social contract. OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal contract is actually better than any other. Oh for fuck's sake. Where have I EVER said THAT? OK, it seemed to logically follow, because I didn't expect an appeal to infinite regression as a response. Of course some are better than others. But what actually is better depends on what one is trying to achieve. If we're trying to achieve the best outcomes in terms of personal freedoms and responsibilities, then some ways of living are demonstrably better than others. OK, we've just moved a step downwards (not in a derogatory sense, but in, say, the sense of an excavation) in assumptions. There is no doubt that if we are trying to achieve X, then we can demonstrate that some ways of reaching X are better than others. But, different people want to achieve different things; different cultures had different goals. Which desires are good, and which are not good? What objective framework exists for measuring these goals? And if it exists, where does it come from? And, what about the variety of goals, both individual and communal, that existed in the past and now exist. Are any of them better than the others? If so, where's the yardstick for measuring them? That would be some kind of meta-ethics? A system for comparing ethical systems? Of course there are an infinite number of self-consistent meta-ethical systems so what yardstick do you use for measuring them? That would be some kind of meta-meta-ethics? A system for comparing meta-ethical systems? Of course there are an infinite number of self consistent meta-meta-ethical systems so what yardstick do you use for measuring them? That would be some kind of meta-meta-meta ethics Now, you can add another layer to this argument, and it may very well be turtles all the way down. But, that's what I've seen you do.. Ethical things are things that help us meet this good goal. That doesn't sound so bad...except it doesn't answer the question, it just moves it form what is ethical to what are good goals. Maybe the question is flawed? Clue Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote: I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in the genetic sense. This isn't of course a bar to forming ethics, but it does create issues extending them outside your tribal grouping - most animals don't form the larger sort of associations Humans do. And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. Fortunately people don't spend much time arguing about which language is 'best' ;-) They don't? Heh. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 3 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote: I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in the genetic sense. This isn't of course a bar to forming ethics, but it does create issues extending them outside your tribal grouping - most animals don't form the larger sort of associations Humans do. As I said the capacity is innate but we can and do elaborate it using our intelligence. The primitive ethics of tribes and religions is extended by moral and political philosophy to include more abstract concepts of justice and fairness. And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Fortunately people don't spend much time arguing about which language is 'best' ;-) They don't? Heh. Obviously Objective C is best Maru The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M wrote: No, actually, I believe that there exists truth apart from us. Which, with the absence of any evidence, is akin to magic, but you missed my point entirely. That we have partial understanding of that truth. That the Critique of Pure Reason did a good job defining and a fairly decent job addressing the truth. There have been many social constructs in history. If one defines morality in terms of social constructs, and they contradict one another, which one is right? Is it the one that won? There is no constant, absolute right or wrong. Its the one that works best in the given situation with the caveat that in five years or five months or even five minutes the circumstances that made it work well might change. How quickly and completely did American attitudes and indeed, their ethics change on Dec. 7, 1941 or on 911? If that is the case, we only have to look at who won the three great wars of the 20th century: WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Take the US out of the picture, and there are only two real important players in WWII: the USSR and Germany. Take the US out of the picture, and Europe would have no power to resist the USSR. (Granted the UK may have survived for a while on Hitler's fear of water). If either Germany or the USSR won, they would have the dominant social construct. If in one hand and... But if either of them had won, how long do you think that they could have kept their conquests under their thumb? Do you think that their social constructs would have been successful? Would they have stood the test of time? I have serious doubts that they would have, but if they did, if their constructs _worked_ you'd have to say that their ethics were superior. I've been been reading a book about the rules of baseball* and one of the rules they discuss is the distance between the bases. When the rule were first codified the distance was within 15 of the distance used today, 160 some odd years later. The distance is effective because it challenges both the hitter and the fielder; its fair and competitive. But what if something changed? For argument's sake, what if fielders were no longer able to throw as hard as they do now? A routine ground ball would be a hit almost every time. The rules would have to change to maintain the balance between offense and defense. Less than a hundred years ago women couldn't vote in this country, and we elected a couple of presidents that were demonstrably racist; at least one was a member of the KKK. In November the ticket of one party will include a woman and the other an African American. As we change, so do our ethics. Doug *my apologies to our international members for the baseball analogy and the inches. 8^) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
