The USA Patriot Act

[dougkeenan]

Very interesting speech Greg. (Did it go over well?) Sarah Palin strikes me about as "Magicalist" as one can imagine, deserving every bit of the opposition she's received ... yet I believe you endorse elevating her nuttiness to the Vice-Presidency. How does that compute?

 

[GregBurch]

Very interesting speech Greg. (Did it go over well?)

The audience was, shall we say, predisposed to agree with many of the thoughts expressed in that talk. but that was a very different era. Much has changed since then.

Sarah Palin strikes me about as "Magicalist" as one can imagine, deserving every bit of the opposition she's received ... yet I believe you endorse elevating her nuttiness to the Vice-Presidency. How does that compute?

A couple of things. First, despite the hysterical rhetoric from the left, there's not THAT much difference among the candidates in terms of their EXPRESSED views on religion. They all say that they believe that a magic boss is in charge of the world, that he intervenes regularly in the natural world, and that his will is expressed in an ancient book. I suspect that many on the left tell themselves that their candidates don't REALLY believe these things -- that they just say them to get elected because a majority of the foolish electorate believes these things and wouldn't elect somebody to the office of dogcatcher if they don't publicly avow these beliefs (outside of San Francisco, Eugene, Boulder and Madison).

Second, while Palin says she's a "young earth creationist," and that her magic boss is against individual control over reproductive activity, I see no sign that she's tried to impose her views on anyone through state action -- again despite the hysterical and dishonest propaganda from the left.

But third, and more importantly, the actual core of Enlightenment views about the world as a strictly natural phenomenon are very thinly held in the United States. The vast majority of Americans think that their magic boss is regularly intervening in the natural world and, depending on which polls you read, a majority reject the notion of biological evolution on the grounds of supernatural authority. This isn't going to change any time soon, so unless we insist that people elect leaders very different from themselves in this key area, chances are that political leaders in the US will have these kinds of views in one flavor or another.

As I point out in the text to which I refer, the constitutional separation of church and state is one of the bedrocks upon which our republic was founded and, again hysterical leftist propaganda to the contrary, I see no actual sign of institution of theocracy in the US, or really even any significant threat of it.

But finally, I don't think that all religions are the same. Some are far, far more dangerous than others and far, far less compatible with liberal values than others. Although it is largely forgotten by "progressives" today, one of the main historical trends that lead to the Enlightenment was the Protestant Reformation, and Protestant congregationalism was one of the most important factors leading to the formation of modern liberal governmental institutions (this written by one raised as a Catholic). There's a reason why the Enlightenment was mainly a phenomenon of Protestant countries. And Scotland, England and Holland, the real incubators of the Enlightenment, were very devoutly religious societies at the time they gave birth to the liberal world.

Which leads to the last point, what happened just a few weeks after I gave that talk. I came to realize in the most direct way that things were worse than I thought. And the more I looked into what had happened, the worse I realized they were. At a certain point, I realized they weren't just QUANTITATIVELY worse, but that they were QUALITATIVELY worse. This caused me to change some of my thinking in fundamental ways.

 

[dougkeenan]

I suspect that many on the left tell themselves that their candidates don't REALLY believe these things -- that they just say them to get elected because a majority of the foolish electorate believes these things and wouldn't elect somebody to the office of dogcatcher if they don't publicly avow these beliefs (outside of San Francisco, Eugene, Boulder and Madison).

Ah - like wearing a necktie, it comes with the territory (or a regional accent). If so Palin deserves credit for not being hypocritical, since it seems she does REALLY believe those things (humans and dinosaurs, speaking in tongues, protection from witches, etc.). We'll soon see if that translates into votes!

 

[Linguofreak]

I also found your speech quite interesting. At some point I'll probably write up a counterargument, but for now I'm just rather intrigued by the fact that you lump postmodernism in with "traditional" religion under the "spiritualist" category. I tend to see postmodernism as being the result of people realizing that modernism's dismissal of God leaves no anchor-point for moral absolutes, that its dismissal of faith leaves, in the end, no ability to be sure of anything, whether religion or science, and, when they really think about it, that they like this lack of absolutes because it lets them believe what feels good.

 

[GregBurch]

I also found your speech quite interesting. At some point I'll probably write up a counterargument, but for now I'm just rather intrigued by the fact that you lump postmodernism in with "traditional" religion under the "spiritualist" category. I tend to see postmodernism as being the result of people realizing that modernism's dismissal of God leaves no anchor-point for moral absolutes, that its dismissal of faith leaves, in the end, no ability to be sure of anything, whether religion or science, and, when they really think about it, that they like this lack of absolutes because it lets them believe what feels good.

In the analysis offered in that text, the commonality between traditional spiritualism and postmodernism is the willingness of both to reject the idea of philosophical naturalism, i.e. both reject Occam's Razor when it comes to explanations of the natural world and human behavior. In their approach to truth, that commonality defines a spectrum -- one side of the "Iron Triangle" of opposition to Enlightenment thought I posit -- in that traditional spiritualism accepts at most only a dualistic foundation of reality, while postmodernism embraces an essentially unbounded reality defined only by subjective experience and, ultimately power relationships (and thus the latter revealing its own origins in traditional Marxist analysis).

I would offer as evidence that this is indeed a real spectrum in the fact that figures representing points along the extreme reaches of that spectrum in both directions do seem to agree on their antipathy to technology and their rejection of the notion of augmentation of the human animal. (The latter having been the narrow focus to which I was trying to bring that speech.)

 

[Linguofreak]

In the analysis offered in that text, the commonality between traditional spiritualism and postmodernism is the willingness of both to reject the idea of philosophical naturalism, i.e. both reject Occam's Razor when it comes to explanations of the natural world and human behavior.

The problem with Occam's Razor is that, while most people agree that it's a good razor, there's alot of disagreement on how to shave.

What one person finds to be the "simplest explanation" another may find to be a load of hogwash.

It could be argued that postmodernism is what happens when you take the limit of f(x)=Occam's Razor as x goes to infinity. What could be simpler than "It's all a dream. Believe what you want"?

In their approach to truth, that commonality defines a spectrum -- one side of the "Iron Triangle" of opposition to Enlightenment thought I posit -- in that traditional spiritualism accepts at most only a dualistic foundation of reality, while postmodernism embraces an essentially unbounded reality defined only by subjective experience and, ultimately power relationships (and thus the latter revealing its own origins in traditional Marxist analysis).

I'm not sure I'd say traditional spiritualism takes a dualistic view of realtity. I can only speak for Christianity, of course, but I don't think I'd say that the spiritual is part of a different reality than the physical any more than I'd say that neutrinos are part of a different set of physical laws than normal matter is.

Postmodernism, OTOH, takes subjectivism and multiplicity of reality as its central tenet.

I would offer as evidence that this is indeed a real spectrum in the fact that figures representing points along the extreme reaches of that spectrum in both directions do seem to agree on their antipathy to technology and their rejection of the notion of augmentation of the human animal. (The latter having been the narrow focus to which I was trying to bring that speech.)

Which just means that neither places a high value on the augmentation of the human animal. There are reasons they might do so that have nothing to do with spirituality.

 

[GregBurch]

I'm not sure I'd say traditional spiritualism takes a dualistic view of realtity. I can only speak for Christianity, of course, but I don't think I'd say that the spiritual is part of a different reality than the physical any more than I'd say that neutrinos are part of a different set of physical laws than normal matter is.

I'm sure you don't mean you're willing to speak for all of Christianity:lol:

But I assume you would say that the matter in your vicinity is subject to natural laws, but that God can break those laws at any time. Sounds like two very different kinds of things -- the stuff that's subject to natural law (everything except God) and the stuff that's not (God) -- as opposed one kind of thing (everything, all of which is subject to natural laws).

Which just means that neither places a high value on the augmentation of the human animal. There are reasons they might do so that have nothing to do with spirituality.

In my experience, the opposition of most religious people to human augmentation is rooted in religious belief or sentiment -- "This is how God made us, this is how we're supposed to be." I have encountered a very few religious people who will say that the capacity to transcend the current state of human nature is within the scope of the endowment supplied by God, therefore, it's OK. But the fact is that most religious authority figures and scholars firmly oppose human augmentation.

 

[Linguofreak]

But I assume you would say that the matter in your vicinity is subject to natural laws, but that God can break those laws at any time. Sounds like two very different kinds of things -- the stuff that's subject to natural law (everything except God) and the stuff that's not (God) -- as opposed one kind of thing (everything, all of which is subject to natural laws).

But even in nature there are things that certain laws don't apply to. There are particles that the electromagnetic force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect. Particles that the strong force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect.

Or, to use an analogy to Orbiter, the laws of physics that apply within the sim do not apply outside of it (very nearly, but Newtonian Physics is only an approximation, and even if Orbiter did simulate the laws of physics perfectly, it would not be Orbiter code that made the real Moon orbit the real Earth.) The laws of physics outside of Orbiter do not apply within the sim. They *do* however, determine how the computer the sim is being run on can be built, and how the hardware is built puts constraints on how the software must be put together. Reality inside the sim is not separate from reality outside the sim, it is a subset of reality outside the sim. And while certain laws of physics determine *for the most part* how things happen in the sim, there are "backdoor laws of physics" that determine how the sim interacts with the outside, the spacecraft control interface is one, the scenario editor is another.

Likewise, physical reality is not separate from "the supernatural," but rather a subset of it. And while the laws of physics determine *for the most part* what happens in physical reality, there are backdoor laws. To go back to the computer analogy, God can be considered a user of physical reality with admin priveleges. We can be considered users who each have direct control over one object in the sim.

In my experience, the opposition of most religious people to human augmentation is rooted in religious belief or sentiment -- "This is how God made us, this is how we're supposed to be."

Many religious people will object to various technologies by saying that pursuing those technologies is "playing God." I generally answer that sentiment with this scripture: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." (Proverbs 25:2, NIV).

Nevertheless, I do have some objections to human augmentation. With certain things it's more of a "Good luck" thing (ie, you can try human level AI and uploading if you want, but I don't think you'll manage it), but with other things it's more of a human rights thing. For instance, I don't think that germline genetic engineering of human beings is wrong in itself, but I do think that it runs into serious issues with things like experimenting on a subject that cannot give consent. If germline engineering is ever carried out on humans, I think it's likely that within a generation you'll get lawsuits from engineered individuals born with debilitating birth defects from botched engineering. Once it's actually carried out, I think a big portion of objection to such engineering will come from engineered individuals themselves. But in a perfect world, I don't think germline engineering of humans would be a bad or ungodly thing. The process just runs into problems with the fact that this isn't a perfect world, and that while progress is good, we can't run roughshod over other obligations to accomplish it.

I have encountered a very few religious people who will say that the capacity to transcend the current state of human nature is within the scope of the endowment supplied by God,therefore, it's OK.

Actually, a big part of the Christian worldview is that Adam and Eve sold all of our souls to the devil and got us into the current state of human nature, and that what Jesus did for us was to buy back our souls (or at least the souls of those willing to have their souls bought back) and make it possible to transcend our current state (our current state being less than what God intended). Of course, this is talking from the spiritual and not the physical perspective, but from the physical perspective technology and (if possible) transcendence are double edged swords: They make good people able to do more good and bad people able to do more evil.

But the fact is that most religious authority figures and scholars firmly oppose human augmentation.

To at least some degree, yes. I think you'll find that more than you think think like me (but probably not all). I have my doubts about the possibility of certain types of augmentation and I think other types can go horribly wrong, but insofar as things are possible and you can avoid abuses, I'm all for it, as long as you don't start thinking that it will create any more of a utopia than any other technology, or that augmenting yourself somehow makes you God.

 

[Andy44]

But even in nature there are things that certain laws don't apply to. There are particles that the electromagnetic force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect. Particles that the strong force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect.

The laws do apply; it's just that your definition of these laws is not completely defined yet, or that your models are incomplete.

 

[tblaxland]

But even in nature there are things that certain laws don't apply to. There are particles that the electromagnetic force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect. Particles that the strong force applies to, and particles that it doesn't affect.

EM force will always affect charged particles and never uncharged particles. Similarly, the strong force will affect any quarks in range of the gluons. The laws apply, it is just that they have no effect. Most importantly, the application of the laws does not change. Your "God as super-user" scenario would allow the application to change based on His will.

 

[dougkeenan]

In my experience, the opposition of most religious people to human augmentation is rooted in religious belief or sentiment -- "This is how God made us, this is how we're supposed to be." I have encountered a very few religious people who will say that the capacity to transcend the current state of human nature is within the scope of the endowment supplied by God, therefore, it's OK. But the fact is that most religious authority figures and scholars firmly oppose human augmentation.

Is that "fact" backed up by any polling you know about, transhumanist or otherwise? I'd like to see how that opposition breaks down by faith/denomination.

 

[Linguofreak]

EM force will always affect charged particles and never uncharged particles. Similarly, the strong force will affect any quarks in range of the gluons. The laws apply, it is just that they have no effect. Most importantly, the application of the laws does not change. Your "God as super-user" scenario would allow the application to change based on His will.

Sure, and the laws of physics in Orbiter can and do change based on Martin's will when he changes the code. How they change for a given change to the code is based ultimately on the laws of physics and mathematics in the real world. So just because the laws of physics change within the reality of Orbiter doesn't mean that anything strange has happened in the real world. Neither does any miracle or change in the laws of physics in this world mean anything strange or unnatural has been done in the context of the supernatural world.

 

[dougkeenan]

Why assume something if it's not necessary? In other words, what can't be explained by "the laws of physics in this world" that requires a "supernatural world" to make sense? (Then there could be another supernatural world behind that one, and another, and another...)

This seems somewhat related to topic: what crimes were not covered by existing law, that their omission required the Patriot Act?

 

[Andy44]

Since we are getting off-topic, let me ask the question, what does the beliefs of magicalists, naturists, guardianists, or any other -ists have to do with the legitimacy of the PATRIOT act?

I finally found the time to sit down and read Greg's speech today, and I found it fascinating. I even agree with most of it. I understand and agree with Greg that the Enlightenment is important and must be defended for the future of human freedom and civilization. What I do not understand is why you (Greg or anyone else) thinks the PATRIOT act is an effective tool for that defense.

The analogy of the cancer patient and chemotherapy is a limited, and like all analogies, not quite accurate one. For starters, chemo can actually save you from cancer in many cases, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that suppressing freedom and unmoaring the government from constitutional limits protects freedom. That is like fighting cancer by introducing a different strain of cancer.

My method of protecting the enlightenment's values is to teach them and spread them, to use freedom itself as the best defense against threats to liberty. Treating your own population as a pool of potential enemies cannot lead to a happy outcome.

Basically, I agree with you on what needs to be protected, Greg, but not on the best method for protecting it.

 

[GregBurch]

Since we are getting off-topic, let me ask the question, what does the beliefs of magicalists, naturists, guardianists, or any other -ists have to do with the legitimacy of the PATRIOT act?

I finally found the time to sit down and read Greg's speech today, and I found it fascinating. I even agree with most of it. I understand and agree with Greg that the Enlightenment is important and must be defended for the future of human freedom and civilization. What I do not understand is why you (Greg or anyone else) thinks the PATRIOT act is an effective tool for that defense.

The analogy of the cancer patient and chemotherapy is a limited, and like all analogies, not quite accurate one. For starters, chemo can actually save you from cancer in many cases, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that suppressing freedom and unmoaring the government from constitutional limits protects freedom. That is like fighting cancer by introducing a different strain of cancer.

My method of protecting the enlightenment's values is to teach them and spread them, to use freedom itself as the best defense against threats to liberty. Treating your own population as a pool of potential enemies cannot lead to a happy outcome.

Basically, I agree with you on what need to be protected, Greg, but not on the best method for protecting it.

I'm about to unplug to go watch Palin get destroyed by that great statesman, Joe "Plugs" Biden. I only posted a link to the piece that started that discussion because my "Enlightenment bona fides were being question. When the topic veered off as a result, I started another thread about those things.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm about to unplug to go watch Palin get destroyed by that great statesman, Joe "Plugs" Biden.

As far as I can tell here, over the small lake, he was nice to her. After watching the show, I wondered why he didn't gave her flowers for the beginning. Ah, I remember, the language of flowers could also be used for turning it into sexist insults.

Still, to get back on topic: Which freedom do the USA protect with the Patriot Act? They only destroy more freedoms with it as all terrorists inside the USA ever managed to destroy. The US PATRIOT act is not really fitting to the analogy of cancer and chemical therapy.

It is more like that: Imagine, you are the avatar of the whole USA. You got your leg bruised in a fight with a group of terrorists. But you are still alive, you can still walk over the world, though not as easy as before. Now the solution presented by your doctor is: Take off your leg. For protecting your leg from further damage, it should be taken off and put on cold storage for indefinite time.

I don't think, any western country should make laws, that give the terrorists, what they finally want. They should make laws, which enrage the terrorists even more. We should shine.

 

[dougkeenan]

For a medical analogy, bloodletting also comes to mind.