There hasn't been good material for posts the last few days. Also, I'll be on the road for the next three days, and won't be posting...
Summer languor.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
They Might As Well Be Arguing About How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin
To use one of their asinine characterizations against them.
Two high-profile worshipers of scientism argue about just what is to be done about religion. One is the bellicose Sam Harris, while the other is Philip Ball, a longtime writer for Nature. Philip is the reasonable one in the exchange. The amusing thing is that their discussion is really about nothing, because they are both assuming that 'religion' is untrue, and unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever. As such, they are not debating anything but a phantasm of their own minds.
But, it is in the form of polite open letters between two otherwise intelligent men, so it is worth a look.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Well Perhaps Someday The Party Will Decide To Stop Acting Like A Bunch Of Lahoo Hezyers
Hugh Hewitt:
The latest from our favorite anonymous ad exec:
Hugh,
The first time I wrote you I was beside myself over the glaringly obvious fact that the GOP simply doesn't understand how to craft communications that connect emotionally and culturally to popular culture, or, well, most people. Not long after my very first letter to you, I read a post in Big Hollywood that echoed my sentiments. It's not enough to understand how the tools of new media work. Understanding the tools is a single step in the process. It's about crafting content that resonates. If you want to get technical, it's about concepting, ideas, copywriting, art direction, direction, editing, lighting, camera work, shot selection, typography, casting, and, well, a general expertise with the craft. It requires both skill and talent.
The reason the Democrats have a stranglehold on popular culture, and have had for most of my life, is the fact that they understand how to create popular culture. They know how to wave an emotional banner, and get people to follow. We respond with a white paper. It's maddening to a guy like me that the decision makers in our party are so good at crafting positioning, yet so miserable in translating that positioning into anything that's watchable. Substance is the foundation you can't live without. But execution is what makes the substance come to life, and spread. It's the reason two houses built with identical bricks can be completely different. When one is constructed in an uninspired, workmanlike fashion, and the other designed by an architect with a vision, which do you think will appeal to more people? One's a piece of art, the other is a pile of bricks. I'm writing today because, again, I'm beside myself over GOP brick piles.
It started yesterday with my issue of "The Weekly Trunk." The first two links are to GOP-produced videos on YouTube: "Lights Out," and "Everything Is On The Table." They both have salient points to make. They have the right positioning. And both are almost unwatchable. They are so horribly executed that neither gives any viewer any reason whatsoever to pass the link along to anyone who doesn't already completely agree with the points being made. There is no entertainment value at all. The sad attempt at entertainment in "Lights Out" suffers from horrendous concept, direction, casting, staging, and acting. And "Everything Is On The Table," in addition to suffering from amateurish motion graphics and typography, is just simply forgettable.
There will be a raft of justifications from anyone connected with either of these two, um....efforts. The first will be budget. I've heard it before from clients, and I can hear it now: "They were shot and edited on a shoestring, like all political speech -- there's no way they can hold up to consumer advertising." One word: Bull. More words: I have interns who could concept, craft and finish better work on the money in our petty cash box. Once again, the GOP has not sought out someone -- anyone -- who is truly skilled in the craft. They've translated white-paper talking points to a script, and hired the local A/V guy to turn it into something, in between his gigs shooting weddings and bar mitzvahs. You can't beat Hollywood and Madison Avenue with the local A/V guy.
The second justification: "It's YouTube. Production values can be lower, because of the nature and style of the medium." This one has some merit, but these pieces miss the mark again. The fact is, YouTube does have a DIY aesthetic. Videos made on a webcam have become global hits. On the flip side, Hulu has ushered in a new-found appreciation for production value, delivered in HD over broadband -- and people creating for YouTube are following suit. But these videos are neither roughshod DIY pieces nor high-end executions. They're in the middle. Which is always the most forgettable place to be. Content (acting, personality, art direction) is what takes you out of the middle. These don't have that.
Finally, I'm sure I'll hear: "This is serious subject matter -- entertainment value is secondary. " Ok, then. "Passion of the Christ." Next.
As if these two lame attempts weren't enough to make my head explode, today, the "Stop Obama-care!" spot broke. Is it possible for us to make something more forgettable? Once again, white-paper talking points, typewriter motion graphics, and generic stock imagery combine to turn what should be an engaging and impactful television commercial into a coma-inducing Power Point presentation. The talking points are good -- as talking points. As a commercial that stirs the soul to action on one of the most important policy points of my lifetime, though, this fails miserably. This is strong, I know -- but I think this spot is a disservice to the party, and to anyone who's smart enough to oppose socialized medicine. We deserve better. We can do better. And we have to. Tweet for Truth #obamercial, I predict, will deservedly have much more impact on the discussion.
I get a lot of mail at bearinthewoods84@gmail.com. Almost all of it is positive, but some of it challenges me to get off my duff and do something about the things I write about. The truth is, I'd love to, and have begun to look for ways to do it. The first question is: Is there a market on the Right for quality creative that can compete with what's produced by the left? I can only hope the recent work by the GOP isn't my answer.
The Ultimate Piggyback Ride
If you want to know what it's like to pilot a 747 with the space shuttle on top, here's your link. Nice first person account.
H/T Brutally Honest.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
It's Not For Me To Be Meddling Or Anything, But To The People Of Iran: You're Welcome!
'Privately, Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters.'
Remember how it was important to recognize that these protests in Iran were triggered by ordinary Iranians' response to the election, and it was important for the U.S. government to be quiet, soft-spoken, and understated in its response to evolving events? Remember when the most important thing was that the Iranians, and the world, conclude that this uprising was generated entirely by internal sources?
Yeah, apparently that's no longer the case:
Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach."
So, remember, it's very important that we not react to this uprising in an antagonistic way, and all of our efforts at re-engagement with Iran have to continue, even inviting their diplomats to July 4 parties at our embassies abroad. But when we do see popular uprisings against the regime, remember that the credit really goes to President Obama.
The Smart People All Agree
"The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition."
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
"The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble."
"Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important."
Make of it what you will.
-----
First quote is Jerry Coyne, as cited here.
Second quote is Bertrand Russell as cited on page 214 of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Third quote is Adolf Hitler as cited on page 214 of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Fourth quote is Christopher Hitchens as cited on page 214 of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Monday, June 22, 2009
If We'da Known Anyone Was Going To Be Critical Of Us, We Woulda Changed Our Story, Or Woulda Hid
Darwinists seem to think that speaking honestly and freely should only be done for friendlies. And that if documentary makers interview you they have to agree with you. Otherwise it's no fair!!
Besides, it is doubtful that the film makers even do disagree with the historians on the subject matter of the historical Darwin. If they disagree on the actual correctness of Darwinism as science, well, what does that have to do with the historians, anyway?
Link
Also, from a comment to the post:
It is complete nonsense to suggest that a journalist is required to tell people whom he interviews what the perspective of his documentary will be. If such a stupid code existed it would inhibit the ability of a journalist to gather basic facts.
Furthermore, it is ridiculous for someone who testifies in documentary to complain that they would have given different testimony had they known the documentary was going to be against Darwinism, as if there is one set of facts that one discloses when speaking with Darwinists and another set of facts when speaking with skeptics of Darwinism.
The very fact that witnesses are complaining that they would have testified differently had they known the perspective of the documentary demonstrates the very need of the journalist not to reveal his or her perspective in order to get unbiased testimony.
Giving Credit To The One Where Credit Is Due
Neoneocon:
The government’s transparent lies about the recent election results have merely acted as a tipping point, making it crystal clear to the people that they have no voice at all in the selection of their government, and destroying the pretense that Iran’s leaders (at least, the figureheads; not the mullahs themselves who pull their strings) were democratically elected.
That said, what of the influence of other countries? It’s commonplace to put down neocons these days, but if you look at the map you will see that Iran is situated between Iraq and Afghanistan, two nations that have achieved enhanced freedom (although differing in degree, both are freer than they were before) as a result of our interventions there. Those who think that Obama’s Cairo speech had more of an effect on Iran’s elections are dreaming; it’s much more likely that, just as the neocons said, freedom is contagious (even a little bit of it).
But I do think that Obama’s election may have played two small roles. First, it possibly emboldened the mullahs to become more flagrant in negating the will of the people in the election, knowing that Obama wouldn’t do much to protest. In this the mullahs may have underestimated the reaction of the Iranian people and their anger at what had transpired; time will tell whether theirs was a miscalculation or not.
But I do give Obama credit for the second thing: Bush has been a very polarizing figure around the world, and Obama is definitely a more charismatic and less strident one. His tone of conciliation and apology (which I believe also communicates weakness) does have the advantage in this situation of making it much harder for Ahmadinejad or the mullahs to successly demonize him and to blame the present uprising on the US and have it stick—although Khamenei’s been trying anyway.
Which only goes to show that God has a well-developed sense of irony.
Quip Of The Day
Leftists take note:
Americans need to face up to the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is. — J. Kirkpatrick
Seen here.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Worship Of Incompetence
Media self-parody:
Steely Temporizing [Rich Lowry]
Jim Hoagland has this inadvertently amusing passage today:
But the president and his advisers still have not adjusted policies and tactics being overtaken by events. This is clear both from the initial "caught in the headlights" reaction by Obama as he temporized — albeit with steely skill — and from accounts of diplomatic and other official sources here.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Events In Iraq Should Convince Even Liberals That We Need A Second Amendment
Let it never become the case in America that a completely unarmed populace must battle a tyrannical government.
The One's Litany Of Shame
The Weekly Standard:
The events of the past week in Iran, following the June 12 presidential election there, have been remarkable and hopeful. It's been a moment when one would like a president of the United States--who has, in such moments, a supporting but not an inconsequential role--to rise to the occasion. Barack Obama hasn't. We are therefore put in the position of hoping that the words of an American president are being mostly ignored, that his weakness won't matter, and that the forces of reform or revolution will be able to prevail--as they may--with the support of many in America, if not the president.
The day after the election, as hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in the streets to protest election fraud, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration was "monitoring" the situation. The next day, Sunday, as the extent of the fraud became clear to anyone willing to see it, Vice President Joe Biden said that while there were "doubts" about the outcome, "I don't think we're in a position to say" that the election wasn't free and fair. Obama played golf.
On Monday, Obama finally had something to say: "I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days." He said he was "deeply troubled" by the violence but noted, "We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran." Eight people were killed that day.
On Tuesday, Obama acknowledged the "amazing ferment" inside Iran. But, as the forces of change rallied behind Mir-Hussein Mousavi, and as Mousavi, heretofore a cautious apparatchik, was carried along Yeltsin-like to a position of virtual opposition to the regime, Obama seemed to try to take the steam out of the protest, declaring, "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." Meanwhile Gibbs said that while Obama "deplored the violence"--disembodied violence, whose perpetrators went unnamed--he was nonetheless encouraged by the "vigorous debate inside of Iran by Iranians."
On Wednesday, Gibbs repeated those words verbatim and reported that the president would continue to "ensure that we're not meddling." And on Thursday, Gibbs once again said the president "deplored unnecessary killing." Senator John Kerry, defending Obama, said, "We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran--not America."
All week, the Obama administration bent over backwards to avoid questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. In this, Obama became a de facto ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Although Obama finally spoke about the protesters--"the whole world is watching," he said--he never expressed real support for them [well maybe he kinda sorta did; there wasn't a whole lot of real passion in the wording of his statement today-ed].
Obama supporters defended his silence. Anything he said to endorse the protests, they argued, would taint the protesters' message and damage their cause.
The protesters, many of whom held signs written in English, seemed to disagree. "On several occasions, I've had supporters of Mousavi say we need President Obama," reported CNN's Reza Sayah, from Tehran. When Wolf Blitzer asked Sayah directly whether the protesters want Obama to speak out in support of their cause, Sayah responded: "I think they do, but they're realistic."
"Realistic" about the weakness, about the foolish and counterproductive "realism," of an American president. How sad.
Two weeks earlier, Obama had promised in Cairo, in his address to the Muslim world, a "new beginning" in U.S.-Muslim relations. He spoke of his belief in democracy and of his "unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose."
Those are not just American ideas, he said, but universal human rights. "And that is why we will support them everywhere."
Except not in Iran. And not when it matters.
Trenchant Economic Analysis
Okay, this might not appeal to everybody, but tears were rolling down my face, I was laughing so hard. Also, I inhaled my gum. Language warning.
I'll let American Digest introduce it.
A Simple Question For Internet Atheists
What kind of a tool does furious battle under the banner "Nothing ultimately matters!"?
Yeah, What This Guy Said
Let's hope.
Also, from this post, which contains a grizzly graphic that is sure to become a symbol for the world of the complete illegitimacy of of the despotism ruling Iran:
Has it occurred to you that all the unbelievable imagery of the protests is, pixel by pixel, etching itself in the memory of the world and of course now or later back through the satellite dishes and Internet connections into the brains of all Iranians, as an indelible revolutionary iconography that will, over time, supplant the revolutionary mythology of the Republic's founding, on which so much of the regime's legitimacy depends? The way I see it, that truly horrific footage of the conservatively dressed woman bleeding out will do more damage to Ahmadi and Khamenei than any military strike ever could. I think the old Revolutionary era is ending.
Finally
Credit where it is due, The One finally steps up:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
Of course it might have been kinda nice for the freedom fighters to have been sent this message before the melee, not in the middle of it. Quote seen at this roundup post at Hot Air.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Dialog Concerning Free Will
I was in an interesting exchange at Uncommon Descent a couple of days ago:
The reason I’m a Christian instead of a Deist is because I believe human beings have free will.
If that’s the only true reason you’re a Christian, then that’s a silly reason for you to be one.
Free will is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?
The idea that we have wants? Yes, people want things. But for your will to be “free” instead of merely a deterministic cause-and-effect process? What does it mean for your will to be “free”? That you don’t follow your will sometimes? I suppose if you wanted to frustrate yourself. But then again you’d only make that decision because you wanted to frustrate yourself, and because the desire to do so was stronger than some other desire that might have taken precedence.
As individual organisms we react to the environment. As the environment changes, so does the individual’s concept of the “right thing”. The environment is dictating your input - perception is the key and it can be manipulated. It is a combination of pressures, some internal and some external, that collectively dictate our pathway through life.
That’s why free will is bunk. Our personality - our will, or essence - is not free. If anything, it’s steady and solid. Humans are creatures of habit; it’s patterns in behavior that make us who we are, not some sort of quasi-religious entity called a “soul” hanging off in some other dimension.
----- RDK
RDK says:
Free will is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?
Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions. If I am constrained to have to observe the mere outworking of physics and causal histories, it is preferable to me to watch the rustling of the leaves outside my window, rather than the rustlings of the text following your assertion. Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen’s and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours.
But then I am absolutely constrained to do so, lacking free will and all. I just can’t help it. Others here might find resonance between their neural rustlings and your textual rustlings, but not me. Perhaps if the Big Bang had occurred a few Planck durations sooner or later, it might be an entirely different story. But, you know, all we can do is work with what we’ve been given.
----- Matteo
Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions.
So the brain’s ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense.
Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen’s and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours.
Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains.
Mr. Hayden. Do you believe chimps have free will? What about dogs?
----- RDK
“Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains.”
Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.
----- Matteo
Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.
Glad we understand each other! ;)
----- RDK
“So the brain’s ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense.”
Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to “reason” and “conclude”, then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all? No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain? If a “floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” can’t really add a damned thing to any outcome, then why aren’t we merely unconscious meat robots? Why hasn’t Occam swung his magic razor in this case?
Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such “”floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all.
Feel free to give me your best answer.
----- Matteo
Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to “reason” and “conclude”, then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all?
You’re conflating free will with consciousness. Consciousness is a result of our ability to perceive ourselves, much like what some dogs (and chimps) can do; a “loop” if you will. Again - what part of consciousness makes our will “free”? I’ve asked the question a handful of times and nobody’s risked an answer to it.
No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain?
Really now? So you’re purporting that the laptop or desktop you’re using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input?
But even that’s beside the case. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently sophisticated perception systems; it’s not an add-on feature. You wouldn’t say mosquitoes, or any other lower life form, are conscious, would you?
What about dogs? Chimps?
Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such “”floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all.
Read my answer to your question above. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complicated, sophisticated brain systems. Although I have to say I’m not catching the gist of this particular question. You’re asking me to explain the cause and effect of something that A) doesn’t partake in cause and effect, and B) doesn’t exist.
Anyone care to answer my questions about free will? It’s very telling for the creationist side when my questions are met with more questions.
----- RDK
“Consciousness is an emergent property…”
In other words, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can’t *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride?
And I thought materialists didn’t believe in magic.
“Really now? So you’re purporting that the laptop or desktop you’re using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input?”
Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a “floating quasi-religious entity”. So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not?
Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don’t they?
Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don’t think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating.
It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of “emergence” as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That’s the choice I made. But it’s up to you!
----- Matteo
“You’re conflating free will with consciousness.”
Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.
----- Matteo
In other words, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can’t *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride?
And I thought materialists didn’t believe in magic.
Once again; consciousness is not free will. Free will may suppose consciousness, but I’m not arguing for free will, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to. All I’m asking is to imagine a world without the notion of “free” will - a world very much like our own.
Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a “floating quasi-religious entity”. So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not?
Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don’t they?
The human brain is not like a desktop computer. Not even close.
Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don’t think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating.
It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of “emergence” as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That’s the choice I made. But it’s up to you!
Thank you for the suggestion; I’ll have to pick up Philosophy of the Mind, but I’m afraid I’ve already read most of C.S. Lewis’s works, and I’m not much of a Lewis fan to say the least. Most of my mind studies background comes from Dennett and Hofstadter.
Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.
The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain’s ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do.
----- RDK
“The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain’s ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do.”
Again, magic.
Look, I can certainly believe that the loopback and “self perception” is important to how the unconscious physical computational system operates, perhaps allowing it to do what it couldn’t do before, but there is still a radical disconnect. What am I doing in the middle of such a looped back physical computational system, what are you doing in the middle of one, what is anyone doing in the middle of one? Feedback can do some neat stuff, but last I checked, when you aim a video camera at its own monitor screen, no elves pop into existence. And I can certainly turn up my guitar amp to give me infinite sustain due to feedback, but I never saw Jimi Hendrix pop into existence via such a process.
Feedback may well be necessary to give a mindless robot some higher level functional behavior, but if you’re asserting that it can put a genie into an empty bottle, well, I think you’re going to have to show your work on that one.
----- Matteo
“Free will may suppose consciousness, but I’m not arguing for free will, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to.”
I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you’d need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I’m just trying to make it easier on you. You don’t even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion.
So far, what we seem to have is:
(1) Feedback loops in a physical computation system.
(2) ?
(3) Voila!
----- Matteo
Hi Matteo,
I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you’d need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I’m just trying to make it easier on you. You don’t even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion.
What exactly is self-evident about it? Is it self-evident in the same way that the sun revolving around the earth was self-evident to the church hundreds of years ago?
In reality, free will is simply a way of speaking that we have adopted because it is useful for us to do so. It doesn’t follow that we actually have some sort of “free” will (which as of yet still requires a coherent defintion). Rather, it seems that we are pre-disposed to certain types of habits and behaviours that emerge from the interaction of the environment in which we live. Organism + Experience = predisposition to act. A prime example is personality types. No doubt you can guess how certain friends of yours are going to act before the actual event, knowingly saying to others: “Oh, that’s just Phil,” or “Well, that’s Bob for you!”
Obviously my explanation isn’t good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn’t exist (whether or not it is “self-evident” to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of “free will” is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we’re using, and I’d really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn’t physical. Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.
In any case, your position is unclear.
----- RDK
“Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.”
Yeah. It’s non-physical and it can’t be tested. So what? It’s that thing we use to choose to do scientific testing with in the first place. It’s that thing that is a basic part of our makeup that allows us to freely theorize scientifically. It does not need to justify itself via scientific argument because it is the basis of scientific argument.
Your supposition that everything important needs to have a physical explanation is something that you have chosen freely. The fact that you have gotten yourself into a philosophical/methodological thicket over the issue is not relevant to whether or not free will is data.
I mean come on, are you engaging in this conversation because you want to, or because you are robotically compelled to? Do you have some burning need to demote your own freedom in such a way?
I have no idea whether you are in this category, but it’s the strangest thing: on the one hand, atheists want to defeat the idea of God or spirit (I mean where else could our free will come from) so they can be free to do whatever they want without worrying about divine judgment, but then they turn around and assert that they don’t believe in free will anyway. They want to be free, while asserting that there is no such thing as free.
Again, surpassing strange.
----- Matteo
Just to preempt a fairly obvious retort that I’m trying to stop science with a “God’s the explanation” statement. It’s much simpler than that: if a sound philosophical argument can be made that explaining mind or the “illusion” of free will via the functioning of special arrangements of matter wholly determined by physical causation just cannot get you from A to B, well then them’s the breaks. That’s just the way it is. Science is thereby freed not to waste its time on the impossible, just as its freed from searching for perpetual motion, or just how the sun goes around the earth, or what is the right way to turn lead into gold via common household chemicals. It’s not a loss for science, it’s a gain.
----- Matteo
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t going to reply with the “science stopper” argument because there’s no point in arguing about a deity, Judeo-Christian Yahweh or othewise, until you overcome the hurdle of free will. And just like clockwork, there you go again, completely ignoring the bulk of my post. What a wonderful real-life analogy for my “humans are creatures of habit” rant! Let’s try again.
Obviously my explanation isn’t good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn’t exist (whether or not it is “self-evident” to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of “free will” is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we’re using, and I’d really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn’t physical. Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.
In any case, your position is unclear.
I’d really like to know your position before I go about “attacking” it. All I’m really asking for is a coherent definition of “free will”, because I have the suspicion that in reality we essentially have similar views (minus the Yahweh thing), and semantics are getting in the way.
----- RDK
“I’d really like to know your position before I go about “attacking” it. All I’m really asking for is a coherent definition of “free will”, because I have the suspicion that in reality we essentially have similar views (minus the Yahweh thing), and semantics are getting in the way.”
Perhaps so, but what I really don’t understand is why I should need to provide a coherent definition of free will, any more than I should be able to provide an exact description of, say, the color yellow to a blind person. Free will is free will. Yellow is yellow. Can you defend the position that “free will” is a thing that requires analysis?
It’s as bloody obvious to me that I have it as that the color yellow looks like yellow. It’s that thing I use when I decide something is worth analysing, that thing I use to judge and make distinctions with, that thing that commands the various faculties of my intellect to assist me in figuring things out. In short, it’s the thing doin’ the analysin’, not the thing to be analysed.
This is all classical metaphysical stuff.
Again, you seem to have gotten yourself into some sort of scientistic thicket. You have willfully boxed yourself with reason into such a position that you don’t even believe in the thing that commands your reason. You have somehow gotten yourself into a situation of self-refutation. This is a sure sign that you need to retrace your steps.
Science is supposed to explain the basic things of experience, not explain them away. There are some things it can handle, and some it can’t. But for science to claim that that which it is not competent to explain, simply doesn’t exist, is an indication that it’s gotten a little too big for its britches. Now, why do you want to be such close friends with such a “pompous blowhard” as “science” beyond the competence of real science? True science is groovy, true philosophy is groovy, true theology is groovy. Don’t you want to make some other friends, you know, for some intellectual variety? Can you prove scientifically that science is the complete route to all true knowledge? I mean, heck, Godel proved that no finite mathematical system is the route to all true mathematical knowledge. Why not branch out a little?
RDK, with all fancy scientistic wrappings put aside, are you a man, or are you a robot? Or just a man who has willfully convinced himself that he is a robot?
----- Matteo
I Don't See The Problem, Really. After All, Didn't FDR Refer To Hitler As 'Der Fuerher?'
Charles Krauthammer:
Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.
Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.
Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.
Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.
This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.
This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.
The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.
In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.
Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.
All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.
...
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Some Historical Perspective
Acutally, current goings-on are not unprecedented:
Obama throughout History [Rich Lowry]
On the Sack of Rome: "Any time a major urban area is plundered so quickly, it is concerning to us. We are sure the Gauls and Chieftain Brennus understand Roman worries about the utter devastation of their city."
On the Blitz: "Any time a city is bombed for 57 straight nights, we take notice. That is something that interests us. We hope all national air forces involved in this dismaying conflict behave responsibly."
On the creation of the Berlin Wall: "Any time a barrier divides people we get worried, and perhaps even chagrined. We hope all Germans can work this out amicably, and agree on construction standards and building materials going forward. We, as Americans, stand ready to observe closely."
On the boat-people exodus from Vietnam: "Any time people resort to watercraft in such numbers that is certainly notable. I'm sure the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam will work with its duly constituted maritime authorities to resolve this matter in a manner satisfactory to all parties.”
What Hath Union/Democrat Rule Wrought?
End game:
Retailers Head for Exits in Detroit
by Andrew Grossman
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Shopping Becomes a Challenge as Auto-Industry Collapse Adds to City's Woes
DETROIT -- They call this the Motor City, but you have to leave town to buy a Chrysler or a Jeep.
Borders Inc. was founded 40 miles away, but the only one of the chain's bookstores here closed this month. And Starbucks Corp., famous for saturating U.S. cities with its storefronts, has only four left in this city of 900,000 after closures last summer.
There was a time early in the decade when downtown Detroit was sprouting new cafes and shops, and residents began to nurture hopes of a rebound. But lately, they are finding it increasingly tough to buy groceries or get a cup of fresh-roast coffee as the 11th largest U.S. city struggles with the recession and the auto-industry crisis.
No national grocery chain operates a store here. A lack of outlets that sell fresh produce and meat has led the United Food and Commercial Workers union and a community group to think about building a grocery store of its own.
One of the few remaining bookstores is the massive used-book outlet John K. King has operated out of an abandoned glove factory since 1983. But Mr. King is considering moving his operations to the suburbs.
Last week, Lochmoor Chrysler Jeep on Detroit's East Side stopped selling Chrysler products, one of the 789 franchises Chrysler Group LLC is dropping from its retail network. It was Detroit's last Chrysler Jeep store.
"The lack of retail is one of the biggest challenges the city faces," said James Bieri, president of Bieri Co., a Detroit-based real-estate brokerage. "Trying to understand how to get it to come back will be one of the most important keys to its resurgence -- if it ever has one."
Detroit's woes are largely rooted in the collapse of the auto industry. General Motors Corp., one of downtown's largest employers and the last of the Big Three auto makers with its headquarters here, has drastically cut white-collar workers and been offered incentives to move to the suburbs. Other local businesses that serviced the auto maker, from ad agencies and accounting firms to newsstands and shoe-shine outlets, also have been hurt.
The city's 22.8% unemployment rate is among the highest in the U.S.; 30% of residents are on food stamps.
"As the city loses so much, the tax base shrinks and the city has to cut back services," said Margaret Dewar, a professor of urban planning at the University of Michigan. That causes such hassles for retailers as longer police-response times, as well as less-frequent snow plowing and trash pickup.
While all of southeast Michigan is hurting because of the auto-industry's troubles, Detroit's problems are compounded by decades of flight to the suburbs.
Hundreds of buildings were left vacant by the nearly one million residents who have left. Thousands of businesses have closed since the city's population peaked six decades ago.
Navigating zoning rules and other red tape to develop land for big-box stores that might cater to a low-income clientele is daunting.
The lack of grocery stores is especially problematic. The last two mainstream chain groceries closed in 2007, when The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. sold most of the southeast Michigan stores in its Farmer Jack chain to Kroger Corp., which declined to purchase the chain's two Detroit locations, causing them to close.
A 2007 study found that more than half of Detroit residents had to travel twice as far to reach a grocery store than a fast-food outlet or convenience store.
...
The article ends with some uplifting talk of green shoots.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A Conservative Is A Liberal Who's Just Been Mugged
Some more good stuff from Robin of Berkeley.
It begins:
I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"
So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life. No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery.
But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west.
And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head. Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King.
Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?) When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."
(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)
So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)
I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me:
"Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."
And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants. A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here.
I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged...
Succinct
Mike Shedlock:
Inflation is roaring back. Employment is soaring. Businesses are expanding, wage pressures are mounting, and pricing power is so great that British Airways asks staff to work for free.
The Era Of The Carrot Is Ending, The Era Of The Stick Is Beginning
Charles Hugh Smith:
It is stupendously politically incorrect to note that humans respond to both incentives/praise and disincentives/negative consequences.
There is a great divide in the U.S. economy which will only be bridged by the coming insolvency of the Federal and state governments: those who can be fired/laid off and those who still feel entitled to their job regardless of their output.
One of my carpentry masters was an African-American gent from New Orleans. Back in the early 1970s when I first began working for him and his partner (a Caucasian gent), he told me that how he'd found work in tough times was to approach the foreman of a construction project, point to a worker on the site and say that he could do more work than that guy.
The foreman would give him a once-over and put him to work. The next day, the other guy would be gone and my boss would have his job.
That's called getting and holding a job based on output and nothing else.
Now we have a culture and economy based on Spoiled Brat Syndrome: only incentives and praise are allowed as motivators...
Read the rest to see how that's gonna change.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Not That Complicated
About as clear as it gets:
It is no more practical to have "health insurance" to pay for prescription drugs and routine doctor visits than it is to expect your auto insurance to pay for your oil changes and tire rotations.
But we do.
Consider: if a health insurance type system existed for auto insurance, it would certainly result in those quick lube oil changes costing about 95 dollars instead of something like 29. It would require an army of public and private sector bureaucrats to shuffle mounds of paper with hundreds of mouse clicks to make sure you were eligible for your lube job, that you paid your 10 dollar "lube co-pay" and that the remaining 85 bucks was eventually approved by a Chevy lube specialist underwriter.
We won't even mention the fact that your wait in the quick change waiting room would likely resemble the long wait in a doctor's office, as every other customer transaction would become the paperwork root canal yours is.
(And of course, those who do not have "lube insurance" or the 95 dollars in cash to pay for the lube, will go to the emergency engine shop where they will gum up the works for real emergencies and their lube can be done at no charge to them. This is also known as a different kind of lube job to those of us who pay our own way, who will get hit with a 1200 dollar tax tab for their "free" job.)
Thus, our healthcare dollars get eaten up by processing claims and indigent care.
Bottom line? The confusion between "health care" and "health insurance" as public policy issues -- along with the near universal misunderstanding of what health insurance is (or should be) -- is making what should be a rather simple financial planning market solution a national nightmare.
Moreover, the nuanced difference in the language used has turned the issue much more emotional and much less rational, politically. We say we must reform the system to prevent families from going bankrupt over medical bills, then turn around and debate systems that micro-manage the costs of pills and routine check ups. Well, which do we really want to do? Those are entirely different issues...
Many good points in the rest of the piece.
It's So Refreshing Not To Have An Inarticulate Cowboy In Charge
Inspiring:
We are excited, uh, to see, uh, what appears to be a ro-robust debate taking place in Iran.
And obviously after the speech that I, uh, made in Cairo we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change, uhhh, aaaand -- ehhh, yuh-- oh -- Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide, uh, but, uh, just a-as has been true in Lebanon, what's, uh -- can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities. And, uh, whoever, uh, ends up winning, uh, the election in Iran, uh, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help, uh, advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
Well Said
Wretchard, in a blog comment:
Marcos was a nothing; not to be spoken of in the same league as Ahmadinejad. But returning to the subject of engagement, it’s useful to note that most of the hard work involved in overthrowing a dictator will be done by the locals. Only on occasion will the ‘international community’ arrive deus ex machina. But for those on the inside it’s important to know that someone is on your side. Even if you never see or hear a thing, the idea that somewhere there are people on your side counts for much.
For me at least, the difference in atmospherics between the conservative movement and the Left in the last twenty years can be summed up in their attitudes toward what they say. Conservatives are often far less sophisticated in their argumentation and more simple-minded in their thinking than the Left. This has made many conservatives child-like in their sincerity, something which people in the arts never cease to parody. No subtlety, they say; people living in a world of black and white. The kind of people who say grace at a Burger King. But sometimes that kind of clarity is necessary. After decades of listening to the Left I have yet to hear them say the word “freedom” with sincerity. It has always been spelled P-O-W-E-R. Consequently their servings of freedom come in the form of huge, eyeless institutional bureaucracies; a vast list of do’s and don’ts; and the proliferation of a commissariate. I know it isn’t ‘cool’ to listen to people who believe things because the Bible told them so; but for my part that’s infinitely cooler than listening to people so practiced in sophistry that their Bible tells them so and not so at one and the same time.
And in the particular case of Iran, my own emotional curiosity is drawn toward one question alone. Does the current President in his most private moments truly and sincerely wish for the downfall of the regime in Teheran? Because even if he were only to wish it, without acting on it; without initiating a single program to overthrow the Ayatollahs, I believe the message would shine through.
Over at Ann Althouse’s there’s a poll on who is the bigger partisan hack: Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan. Last I looked Sullivan was winning the hack race by 94 % to 6%. And the reason apparently, is largely Sullivan’s credulity of Obama’s position on gay marriage and his contorted attempts to reconcile his belief in President Obama in despite of the plain facts. Sullivan’s problem was that he was listening to Obama’s words. Other people were clever enough to listen in on the second channel — the one that sends signals about who he is. Clever enough to deduce the truth from coded signals because in certain circles, engagement always means being able to say all things to all men. People learn to read the tea leaves eventually. I think that some Iranians actually know how to listen in on the second channel and they are. They want to know if the current administration is “on their side”. Maybe that’s all the help they want; all the help they need. But are they going to get it?
Neoneocon has this to add in a post of her own:
And it’s one of the reasons that Obama’s tepid words on Iran fall so flat. Listening in on the second channel, we sense absolutely no conviction behind them and no commitment to anything other than keeping the options open for negotiating with Ahmadinejad.
And, looking at the domestic picture, it is at least part of the explanation of why some of us have distrusted Obama from the start, while others are (and remain) starry-eyed.
Neoneocon highlights another excellent comment here.
Finally, A Green Movement I Can Get Behind
For the time being, in solidarity with the citizens of Iran, I think I'll head my posts with a green strip. It's about time that color stood for something useful, so I'll use it while it still does.
Feel free to use its link code in your own posts:
<a href='http://img196.imageshack.us/i/greenn.jpg/'><img src='http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2532/greenn.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)