Human Advancement http://humanadvancement.net/blog/ Life, Intelligence, Technology and Freedom en-us Nucleus CMS v3.23 Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://humanadvancement.net/blog//nucleus/nucleus2.gif Human Advancement http://humanadvancement.net/blog/ <![CDATA[On Argument]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=228 SOLO. (Comments are in reverse order, newest first, so scroll down and click "last" if you want to read from the start.)

It's usually the case that there's one guy who is as slimy as they come, wants to be the alpha male, and continually tries to cover his malice with pleas for civility and, in this case "benevolence". If you want the details, go read the thread, I told him all about it, and there's no need to repeat it here.

As nasty as it got, I was always alert for rational argument - it's the reason I do things like this, not to convince the slimeballs, but to find the ones who can rise above it. I was rewarded in that as well.

What they don't know about me, and, to be honest, I gave them little explicit reason to believe it, is that I am sometimes convinced by these arguments. But you'd think that lawyer-boy over there would be familiar with the adversarial approach to finding truth, as it is the basis for his profession.

I used to be involved in a forum that was frequently got very close to these levels of vitriol, but my participation went on for years. I was wet behind the ears then, in the art of internet argument, and made some mistakes, but I think I did pretty well overall.

There was one case where an argument very much like the one at SOLO raged for, I don't know, it must have been weeks, and on the very same subject, minarchy vs anarchy. Except I was then on the minarchy side.

There was one guy, Eric something, I have no idea who he is anymore, who I went around with over and over again. It got heated, but I do recall that it stayed rational and largely impersonal. One day, in the kind of frustration I fully understand now, he told me that he was done with me, that I was beyond the reach of rational argument.

I responded with something like the following: "That's too bad, because you were two, at most three posts from convincing me. But that's OK, I can do the rest on my own. " And I did. I was convinced.

Except that I wasn't, at least not as fully as I thought I was at the moment. For years, I went back and forth over the fence from minarchist to anarchist, without settling on a satisfying reason to decide one or the other was clearly correct.

I was OK with that, these things take time, and it wasn't like I had to make a life-or-death decision based on it any time soon. Meanwhile, I had spent a lot of time pondering, arguing, and studying objectivism and related philosophies, as well as figuring some stuff out on my own.

One day I sat down with pen and paper, and collected the various pieces I had put together. I started with "Reality exists, consciousness exists, and A is A", which I still believe to be the fundamental basis of all philosophy. But I did something more, something Rand never did, and, really, no philosopher in the history of mankind has done, at least to my own satisfaction. I defined consciousness.

"That which can conceptually place itself in alternative future contexts and weigh the outcomes against its values"

The definition might not mean much to you, nor its importance (which includes the core of an argument for how consciousness can evolve from non-conscious matter, a significant historical stumbling block). There's a lot of philosophical mass resting on those few words. I also had to define "context" and "value", and more, which I did, but won't bore you with the details of right now. There's also corollaries about conceptually placing itself in actual and alternative past contexts, but that too is beyond the scope here, and not really necessary to my point.

The point is that I had created a philosophy that, while technically new and unique (as far as I know), is really just built on the shoulders of giants, one horribly stunted giant in particular, Ayn Rand. And in this new framework, one thing became obvious: government itself is an utter contradiction of basic principles, principles deeper than the non-initiation of force.

Add in a little network theory from computer science, and spontaneous order theory (such as natural selection or free markets), and it also became apparent that man is capable of effective self-governance, so long as he cannot isolate himself from the consequences of his actions - and that a network, rather than a hierarchy, is the means by which all can be held to those consequences even when substantial parts of that network fail to do so, and when no part of the network has the intention to do so.

So, with the zeal of a zealot, (the one accusation I faced at SOLO that has a kernel of truth to it, and tacitly admitted so in a way I'm sure was far too subtle for the particular lightweight intellect that made it), I proceeded to make sure everybody who wanted to listen, and some who didn't, were aware that from now on self-governance is known for a fact to be the only viable means for social and political organization.

I ran up against an interesting phenomenon. The smarter someone is, the harder it is - in general, not always - to get them to see it. Now, that would normally be a giant red flag that there was something wrong with the theory. But there was a pattern to their objections. The more intelligent someone is, the more likely he has actually worked out a lot of their philosophy explicitly. With these people, I would run up against some premise that they held firmly to, with good reason, that seemed to contradict my conclusions. Except it didn't. It only contradicted a conclusion they had heard over and over again (being intellectually curious, thoughtful, and well-read people), that sounded like mine but wasn't.

The difficulty here is that my conclusions depend heavily on what I refer to as meta-context. It's hard enough to get people to understand context, but it can be done. I can explain meta-context to intelligent people as well, but it takes a lot of time and patience, on both sides, and then a hefty commitment of time and energy to actually argue within it. If context is like the physics of motion and acceleration, meta context is like the physics of relativistic space-time, black holes, and quantum mechanics. By the time I get their attention well enough to get that time, they've already evaluated and rejected my conclusions.

So I'm faced with a dilemma. Either figure out a way to reach intelligent people in a way that breaks the usual cycle of presenting conclusions in order to get their attention, with the result that the conclusions short-circuit the argument I really wanted to make in the first place - or start working on unintelligent people. The latter leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, so I have a lot more work to do.

I'm just gonna have to write a book, dammit.
]]> Intelligence http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=228 Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:40:12 -0700 <![CDATA[All That's Required....]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=227 Billy puts up, because too often all that is at the other end is people who ought to know better letting me down, again.

It's said that all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. This time, it's so-called Objectivists going above and beyond the call. Note to the crowd at SOLO: besides the now officially ironic handle, be aware that the opposite of "doing nothing" is not, in this context, "doing anything".
]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=227 Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:11:51 -0700 <![CDATA[Common Ground in Message Sending]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=226
Which kind of voter are you....

Are you a Hillary! supporter who wants to slap Obama for snubbing a strong, independent woman, but can't bring yourself to help put McCain in the White House?

Are you a conservative who wants to vote for a real conservative, but doesn't want to reward your fellow spaghetti-spined Republicans for nominating a liberal loser?

Are you a Libertarian who knows there's not a clothespin in the world strong enough to protect your nose while voting for the former Head Cheerleader of the war on (some) drugs?

Are you a Ron Paul supporter who was already planning to throw your vote away anyway?

Are you a disgruntled ex-voter who wants the establishment to know that you're tired of being told you have to pick from a pair of evils who seem to get less and less lesser every year?

Are you a feminist who wants to send a strong message that women don't need to ride on a man's coattails to reach the highest positions?

Are you an Anarchist, Discordian, or follower of the Right Reverend Bob Dobbs who just wants to throw a monkey wrench in the gears?

Are you an anti-voter who wants to use your vote to announce that voting is pointless?

Did you swear to your friends that you would rather sit this one out than vote for Obama or McCain, but now really want to vote, and need a way to save face?

Are you an Alaskan who is proud that your governor was chosen to be the Republican nominee for VP, but would rather keep her up North where she can actually get something done, instead of seeing her shipped off to represent the US at Mozambique's President's granddaughter's wedding?

Do you need to practice your penmanship, and punching out a chad isn't challenging enough anymore?

Do you want an alternative candidate that is taken seriously by the media, the power brokers, and the judges at the annual Anchorage State Fair Moose Chili Cook-Off?

Why not write in Sarah Palin? For President.

It won't put her in the White House, but it sure would send a message, wouldn't it? And isn't that what really counts?

]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=226 Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:41:20 -0700 <![CDATA[Lying]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=225
The first is a child's lie. "No, I didn't take a cookie out of the cookie jar." This kind of lie is subject to objective refutation, and is mostly avoided by the most sophisticated liars.

The second is much more sophisticated. It is context that provides the meaning for any statement, and a factual statement placed in the wrong context becomes a non-factual statement.

"George Bush is just like Hitler". What is the context of that statement? There is none, so you are left to fill in your own context, and most people would assume the context in which those two figures are most often discussed, that of being the top leader of a country. Leaving the context undefined, implying the widest possible context, is often a form of lie, when it isn't just the result of sloppy speaking.

But it's a factually correct statement, given the right context. Bush is of the species Homo Sapiens. So was Hitler. Of course, that context is one nobody would bother working in. There are policies Bush has pursued that are similar enough to some policies Hitler pursued that the statement could be considered factually correct in the narrow context of those policies as well. But that still leaves the statement in full context of the leadership of a country untrue.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. But still, even on those two minutes each day when it, through sheer coincidence, is reporting the correct time, it is lying to you. Coincidental correspondence to fact is not the same thing as truth.

You have no way to know when the stopped clock is right. You know that for 1438 minutes of the day it is lying, and for two minutes it is correct, but the only way you can know which two minutes are the correct ones is to trust that the clock is always giving the correct time. If you always checked it against another clock, the first clock's statements about the time would be redundant and useless. Once a clock's veracity is determined, it becomes its own standard of truth.

Until it is caught in a lie, that is. From that point on, everything it says has to again be considered a lie. An intelligent and malicious clock, one determined to mislead you about the real time, would realize that it could occasionally give you the correct time, yet still be providing misleading information. The bonus is that if you called it out on one of those statements, it could claim "See, I was telling the truth.". And a really clever clock could claim that the time it gave was correct, in some context other than the one you assumed it was working in. The time was correct in Singapore, so technically, the clock wasn't lying. But now you know that it is always lying.]]> Intelligence http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=225 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:25:26 -0700 <![CDATA[Hilary!'s Faint Praise; Michelle's Throwing Daggers]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=224 did it. Hillary's purpose today required somebody who could speak out of both sides of their mouth simultaneously, who could look you in the eye while stabbing you in the back, who could undermine while staying on the high road. She rose to the occasion as I knew she would.

The whole speech was damning by faint praise. The pundits pretty much covered that. I didn't count, but I think she mentioned McCain's name more often than she mentioned Obama's, and there was as little fire in her condemnation of McCain as there was in her praise of Obama.

But did you see what she did to Michelle? I've never seen anyone at a political event such as this throw more overt hatred toward the podium than the little Missus did tonight. If there was any purpose besides self aggrandizement and firing up her base to that introductory video, it could only have been to piss off Michelle. Then, right off the bat, the fourth line of the speech: "I'm a proud American." It wasn't the words, but the blatantly mocking tone. It was a shot fired across Michelle's bow.

Why piss off Michelle? Watch for it in the next few days, the next time they let her speak publicly after they think she's cooled off a bit. That look in her eyes tonight said she'll never forget, and never forgive. Hillary!'s hoping the vision of an angry black woman on everybody's TeeVees will put McCain in the White House and leave the 2012 nomination without an incumbent presumptive.

That mission accomplished, she turned her attention and simultaneous lack of attention on Barack. I'm sure that if this speech hadn't been so carefully crafted for other purposes, she could have found the bulk of it on the net complete with "Fill in candidate name here" blanks. A political Mad Lib.

When she wasn't making everybody's eyes glaze over in preparation for losing the next Barack mention in white noise, she was busy reminding us of Barack's "57 states" gaffe with her emphasis on having been to all 50 states plus Guam and the territories. Again, watch for the tone of that if you see a clip later.

Then, and this was a master stroke:
"John McCain is a friend, and he's served this country with honor and courage, but we don't need ...." beat .... "four more years..."
What do you think the people in that audience, and the millions on TV filled in that beat with? I know I did. Talk about damning with faint praise: "Vote for Obama because we don't need honor and courage." And she never had to say it out loud.

Oh the subtlety - sheer genius. She knew she only had to turn a few of her supporters over to McCain, and maybe convince a few more that they have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November, in order to have a clear shot four years from now. That she did it without once getting her hands dirty was quite an accomplishment.

UPDATE: Evidence that she nailed it. Of course, it's reported as evidence that she fell short of what she was trying to accomplish, but that's because everybody was reporting that her purpose was to "heal" the divisions, rather than deepen them. I'm sure the leaders of all those pro Hillary groups that suddenly sprung up out of nowhere (wink wink, nudge nudge) after she lost the primary were told to keep up the good work. The WaPo article is part and parcel of that.
]]> General http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=224 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:10:23 -0700 <![CDATA[MLK Quote]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=223 Matt, at the Null Planet that is Rashy, digs up a truly brilliant quote from MLK, and timely to some business I'm attending elsewhere. I think though, that the meaning of it goes deeper than his analysis. I've made it before, but the takeaway is that you have to look for freedom from within before you can productively address the impediments that lie without. He's right about voting - at best it is looking for freedom in the wrong place, at worst it is offering to trade freedom for privilege at someone else's expense. Thanks, Matt.

]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=223 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:07:01 -0700 <![CDATA[Recreate '68?]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=222 12 campaign. Oh, I know, the pundits will all tell you that it is about this November, and they'll be right to a certain extent. Barack may believe it as well, and of course, to him, it is about 2008. But to Hillary!, it's all about there not being an Obama to run against in 2012.

Just watch the whole shebang through that lens - Barack trying to beat McCain this year, and Hillary! starting the long 4-year march toward the White House.

Of course, there are those who think that it really is about this year, even for her. I think there's only a slim chance she's even trying, but I wouldn't put it entirely past her. If she does, the Recreate '68 people might get their wish in a way they hadn't bargained for, starting with the metaphorical slaying of Martin Luther King all over again .
]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=222 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:19:08 -0700 <![CDATA[Urgent Announcement from Counselor Tatchell]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=221 Hypoxia is now open. As you know, we've had some problems this year. After cracks were found in the foundations of several buildings at Camp Climate Change, our inspectors determined that the structural damage was irreparable and recommended we abandon the camp. It took us a while to find a new site, but we believe that the new Camp Hypoxia will provide all the amenities we are accustomed to, and even more.

As usual, Counselor Marx will be available to answer all your questions during the transition, and to make recommendations on activities and social functions. He will also be a huge help to us in the new advertising campaigns. While Camp Hypoxia is now open, many of the barracks as well as the main stage and beach facilities are still under construction. For this reason, your accommodations may be a little sparse for a while, and the activity calendar will be limited. But we expect to be in full swing by next year. Here's to a wonderful 2009 and beyond!

Those of you wishing to remain at Camp Climate Change during the transition may do so, but be aware that most of the facilities are being held together basically with duct tape and baling wire. While we believe that, with diligent repair and patching by our dedicated maintenance staff and outside contractors, they will remain functional until Camp Hypoxia is fully operational, there may be temporary outages. We will attempt to keep the activity calendar in full swing, weather permitting, but we cannot guarantee sufficient attendance at any event for it to remain viable.

A final note, those who procrastinated in renewing your ID cards after the recent name change, and still have your "Camp Warming" branded cards, these will be honored at Camp Hypoxia, but in the future you will be given only 30 days to have your card reissued. Good luck and happy camping!

EDIT: Forgot to hat tip Stevo, commenting over at Warren's other place]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=221 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:33:29 -0700 <![CDATA[The Culmination of Conservative Dreams]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=220 Mark Levin. His heart is in the right place, for whatever that is worth. He aspires to, and sometimes reaches, genuine intellectual prowess. He's is both willing and able to think in the abstract, in terms of principles, unlike those who wouldn't know a principle, right or wrong, if one bit him on the ass, which often happens.

Because of this, I think that Mark may be able to appreciate the following in the spirit in which I write it: a humble and benevolent attempt to gently correct a long-held error in principle that is both profound and profoundly dangerous.

You see, if you are a conservative, Barack Hussein Obama is the culmination of all your political dreams.

I don't mean this in the crass and cynical way, so often the subject of accusation today, that people need an enemy, and so Obama is the lightening rod which will unify you in opposition, energize your base, and catalyze real change.

He won't do that; you're not capable of any of that. Your philosophical principles have rendered you impotent to take up an effort so serious, so utterly dependent on abstractions, on principles. It's not that you don't have any, you do, and you're to be commended for not just having them, but also being explicit about what they are, and doing all you can to actually live them, to put them in practice.

It's that you have the wrong principles. The harder you try, the deeper you dig the pit into which all of us in this country have fallen, from the depths of which the likes of Barack Obama rise up to grab at our ankles and pull us into the muck.

No, I mean that he is, not a means, but the end to which all your hopes and dreams have pointed. Because Barack Obama is a Marxist. That's not news to anybody who has been paying attention, it's certainly not news to Mark. It's also irrelevant, except for the fact that it is what makes Obama the most qualified to see your dreams through to their logical conclusions.

To you conservatives, Obama represents the worst disaster imaginable. And, indeed, he is. You wonder why, after reading so many things saying basically the same things the above linked editorial says, after radio hosts like Mark Levin reaching millions of people each day with the same message, with all your efforts to explain to your less politically astute friends, and even some of your enemies, what Obama represents... how can they not see it? How can they let a man like him get so close to taking the reins of such an awesome power as the United States government?

You should learn to be careful what you wish for, because you may be about to get it, good and hard. You forged those reins that may be about to be handed over to him. You don't realize that people do see it, and they want it. Your horror at the apparition doesn't mean you didn't want it, you just didn't want it in quite such a terrible form.

Despite your insistence on "small government", you've never really disagreed with even the most liberal Democrats, nor even with Marxists, about how much power the government should have. You're content to quibble over how those capabilities are used, whom they are to be directed against.

Did you really think your mere preferences would hold sway over those who also long for power - and want it over you? Over those who want money, property, and prestige that they never earned, but are more than willing and able to take from you by force?

Did you really think that you could make a "nation of laws" that would supercede the individual reason and judgement of men without rendering reason and judgement helpless against it? Did you really think that words on paper would not be subject to interpretation, modification, and just plain disregard by the men empowered and entrusted to interpret, modify, and implement them on your behalf?

Did you really think that you could create a government powerful enough to effect a "war on drugs" and not have it turned against your homes, your property, via eminent domain?

Did you really think you could create a government powerful enough to build bridges and roads and plumbing with your resources without that same power being used to build a welfare state with your resources?

Did you really think you could create a government powerful enough to compel your children to attend their schools from early childhood right through early adulthood and not have it turn your children against you, against your values?

Did you really think you could create a government powerful enough to tax and to regulate private economic activity without limit and still be able to stop it from creating economic incentives and disincentives powerful enough to sway the choices of millions of voters?

Did you really think that once that happened, you would fix the problem by voting?

You're collectivists, despite your claims to want individual rights and responsibilities. You want us all in this together as much as any leftist. You want us to be united as much as any Marxist does. You want us all subject to a common moral and political authority as much as any bleeding heart or neighborhood busybody.

You just prefer that we unite behind your goals instead of Obama's goals. I'm sorry to tell you this, but "we" are not in anything together. "We" are not united behind any goal. "We" are not subject to the same moral authority. I reject togetherness, unity, and external moral authority, whether it is yours or Obama's.

Obama may yet be kept out of the White House. But if so, don't think you've won anything. You'll have dodged a bullet, but that bullet will circle around again, and again, every time new ballots are printed. You'll never escape it until you change your core principles. Because those principles are what that bullet is made of. You can't run, you can't hide, and most of all, you can't stand up against it, because that bullet is you.

I know that individualism, rights, freedom, and personal responsibility are not your core principles, because you throw them under the bus whenever they conflict with what is really important to you: collectivism and moral authority vested in the state. Make them your core values, pursue them to the ends of the earth in their fullest meaning, and you can dodge that bullet for good. Until you do, I say, let Obama take the reins of power. You worry that he would destroy the Republic, and he would. Let it be destroyed. Let us have it gone all at once in an orgy of misery, depravation, moral collapse, and poverty. It would be better than the generations of slow deaths of a thousand cuts you'll have us suffer through with your lesser of two evils candidates and promises that they'll use the power for good. Power over others can never be used for good, and the lesser of two evils is still evil if he wants that power. Let anyone, anyone at all, have it and the best you can hope for is to spread the pain, deprivation, and moral collapse across the decades with the hope that you can die of old age without it hurting too much.

Until you conservatives start following what you claim to believe in, following it where you are most afraid it will lead, the Republic is dead anyway, a zombie staggering through history, slowly shedding its human trappings in a decrepit trail that shows only where it has been, not where it is going. Because where it is going is oblivion. ]]> Freedom http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=220 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:20:15 -0700 <![CDATA[Frankenbot]]> http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=219 This is huge.

First, they have a functional neuro-electronic interface able to provide coherent signals. That alone, unless I've missed something, is a major breakthrough.

Second, they've been able to get individual neurons to self-organize to the point where they can cause observable behavior and respond to external stimuli.

Third, they've not only shown that a small collection of neurons, on the order of 100,000, can learn, but they have been able to influence it's learning and behavior by chemically altering individual or small groups of neurons.

Just the research avenues this allows are significant. The computational possibilities are astounding. The medical/enhancement possibilities this opens up are, no pun intended, mind-boggling.

I have a healthy skepticism of some of the more out there claims of the singularity-ists, but this is not just a move in that direction, it is an olympic-sized leap.

UPDATE: A better article with more detail
]]> Technology http://humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=219 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:21:45 -0700