Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Stephen Hawking has recently suggested that the danger to the world of a rogue, all-power Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be mitigated if nations would go in for one-world government.  His comments appear in a recent article in the U.K. Independent:

[Hawking] suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job [of controlling malice and aggression and the danger of an AI’s response to them], but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.”

Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a lousy philosopher.  As a modern Humanist / Atheist he refuses to admit to the selfish nature of mankind and believes in the altruism of social planners.  But every attempt at Humanist utopias in the past 220 years has proven such projects not simply unworkable, but downright hellish and lethal.  The push among those on the Left for a one-world government is just another such attempt.

A better plan for mitigating mankind’s darker proclivities comes from James Madison in Federalist Paper #51:

….Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

Madison had formerly explained the reasons a one-world government could never work – it is impossible to give all people the same opinions, passions and interests.  Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

….There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….

Hawking doesn’t understand mankind’s selfish nature because he has been indoctrinated into the flawed utopic philosophy of the Left.  He doesn’t realize that any attempt at a one-world government could, even if only partially successful, be what winds up paving the way for something like an all-powerful AI. One which could – in the mold of the Marxist government it serves – unwittingly destroy humans in an attempt to make it’s own little utopia.

Recently I was accused on Facebook of being racist because I don’t believe people are actual separate races, rather I believe every person is simply a human being and that we all have different features including melanin, height, shoe size and iris color.  This view was deemed “racist” because my view apparently perpetuates racism and constitutes, in and of itself “white privilege”.  I penned the following response –

No, I believe racism exists. It is believing others are separate races, and treating people differently or as inferiors if they are believed to be a different race.

Most of America – light skinned, dark skinned, whatever – treats the community of those who happen to trace their forebears to Africa fairly. Or even deferentially. Ironically it is within the community itself that a number of people who are murdered every six months equal to the total number of racist lynchings ever recorded in U.S. history (about 3,500).

Now it may be racism that practically no one hears the names of the current victims of violence in the community – but if it is it would be a Leftist, anti-white racism involving 1) blaming many (most?) of the problems within the community on “white privilege” and past systemic racism which America largely overcame in the 60’s through 90’s, and 2) focusing on every shooting by police of a person who happens to have a lot of melanin and then spinning a false narrative that there is rampant police violence against people who happen to have a lot of melanin. The assertion is patently false and in most cases the shootings are outright ~lied about~ by those on the Left trying to create a narrative that it is indicative of “white” oppression / “white” privilege / “white” racism / “white” insensitivity / “white” passive racism / “white” cultural racism / “white” .

No one goes into any community and dictates to it’s members what they do with their free time, what they study, what they value, what families they form, what jobs they work towards being qualified for and apply for, what businesses they try to start, what homes they try to save money for a down payment towards, what their personal budget is, etc. Those are all things individuals are responsible for. Those are absolutely pivotal for financial success, and they are 100% dependent upon a community’s own values, desires, beliefs and actions.

More sad still is that a community’s culture also affects it’s tendency towards or against criminal behavior, and towards behaviors that result in poverty and criminal behavior. Right now 14% of the nation commits around 50% of the murders, and similarly high percentages of robbery and assault. That’s not because they happen to have melanin, it’s because of community culture. Race has nothing to do with it. And it’s not racist when the consequences of such choices are higher incarcerations rates within the community, again regardless of melanin or heritage.

When the civil rights movement happened in the 60’s driven by conservative Christians and Republicans the community’s out of wedlock birth rate was around 25%. That rate – and marriage is the number one indicator for financial success – has gotten steadily worse over the course of the past five decades and now stands at nearly 75% out of wedlock births. No community can be successful doing that. No one is forcing them to (although the Democrats have created welfare incentives for such behavior, primarily out of a view that the community is somehow inherently helpless). There has been a similar regression in business starts, savings rates, home ownership, etc., all related to the first issue of the breakdown of the family.

The telling factor is that there is no similar regression of choices or outcomes among first and second generation African immigrants, nor among Asian Indian immigrants and communities. If “white” racism were responsible for the plight of the African American community we would see a similar fate falling upon African immigrants and Asian Indians. Instead African immigrants fare much better than the community – on par with immigrants of any melanin type from any part of the world with similar economics – and Asian Indians actually fare better than average Americans in many cases (education, some job sectors like high tech, etc.)

So the Left’s narrative of “white privilege” and “white racism” is patently false, and it is the Left’s own policies and values which are causing devastation in places like Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Charlotte and Chicago. The Left needs to look at it’s own racism – both anti-“white” and low expectation towards African Americans – and it’s policies which are contributing to the breakdown of families and economic opportunities.

NPR’s new flag looks like they were trying to kowtow and condescend towards what they consider backwards, ridiculously patriotic conservatives. The problem is that it’s really progressivism which is backwards, and true patriotism is never campy or ridiculous.

Besides the obvious message of the flag that it’s the Left – Democrat blue! – and the Right all coming together (which is ridiculous because the Left’s version of coming together is, “here’s your flag, you have to use it”), the other problem with the flag is that it looks like Mary Lou Retton’s leotard from the 1984 Olympics.

NPR’s new “southern flag”

is Mary Lou Retton’s leotard from 1984:

Recently I was in a discussion about morality in which someone suggested that morality can indeed be scientific. I reminded the person of Hume’s Guillotine, which eviscerates the idea of secular ethics. Hume’s Guillotine basically states that a person cannot derive values from facts alone, only other facts. To derive values, one must first arbitrarily adopt an over-arching moral framework, and then evaluate the facts in light of the framework.

Still, the person persisted and linked to a commentary by someone claiming that systems of morality can be rationally evaluated using Game Theory, such as the famous test Prisoner’s Dilemma. In Prisoner’s Dilemma a situation is introduced where two prisoners are taken together in relation to the same crime. Both have to decide whether to testify against the other. If A testifies against B, and vice versa, both get two years. If neither A nor B testifies against each other, both only get one year. But if A testifies against B and B stays silent, A goes free and B gets three years. Interesting to think about.

Prisoner’s dilemma itself is an amoral, arbitrary test. It can be used to observe and quantify a set of results but does not clarify morality, nor make predictive results for a previously untested population, especially when a new version of the dilemma is rolled out with different trade-offs.

The article they linked to was posted at Scientific American, at the url:  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/game-theory-and-the-golden-punishment-rule/

Here is why the article’s conclusions are non sequitur logic fallacies:

Testing a given moral framework would necessitate adjusting the dilemma itself to be in line with that framework. What’s good and bad would be different so the system of justice and types of payoffs involved would be different.

Even if the system of justice & payoffs remained situationally the same across the different moral frameworks being evaluated, the moral interpretation of whatever result was produced – what would be considered a good outcome and what would be considered a bad outcome – would also need to be changed to be evaluated according to the given moral framework being considered.

For example, if a moral framework valued telling the truth and punishing criminal behavior, then two people covering up the wrongdoing and therefore serving minimal time would be considered a ~negative~ outcome.

But if someone had Humanist values – the ideas that truth is secondary to manipulating outcomes and that crimes should only be punished if the perpetrator gets caught – then covering up the wrongdoing and serving minimal time for it would be considered a ~positive~ outcome.

Because of these differences it’s impossible to dispassionately ~morally~ evaluate the outcomes of disparate moral frameworks. They will always be evaluated according to whatever happens to be the moral framework of the person doing the evaluating.

This exposes the main non sequitur logic fallacy with rationalism itself. Rationalism pretends to be scientific and objective, but it ~assumes~ it’s own subjective morality as much as any other arbitrary moral framework. And because the scientific method is limited to the realm of facts, the moral conclusions reached are ~not~ scientific at all but purely philosophical.

Yet rationalists try to sell their moral conclusions as somehow being scientific, just like the article we’re discussing is trying to do.

Rationalists pretend all morality is relative, yet what they value is whatever leads to their own empowerment over others and personal enrichment. So their morality is that it’s moral to subjugate others and live off the efforts of others. Their morality boils down to: themselves as gods.

This is why every attempt to “scientifically” create a utopia by rationally manipulating people – such as in game theory – has wound up empowering and enriching the endeavor’s leaders while subjugating and impoverishing everyone else involved.

It’s sad but not surprising that such a commentary would be posted by Scientific American.   Much of the scientific establishment in the West is guilty of confusing arbitrary secular ethics with science, and for the same reasons- They are trying to help usher in that utopia they think we’re always on the verge of but which, sadly, we will never realize because of mankind’s selfish nature.  Hopefully one day they will become scientific enough to actually see that morality and science are separate entities.

In the meantime, when it comes to applied Prisoner’s Dilemma, the test subject is always the prisoner.

Religious neutrality in politics is a myth the humanists try to impose on Christians, while they themselves are never neutral.” Tim Price

Some of my own thoughts on the recent SCOTUS declaration of marriage redefinition-

There is no such thing as Secularism unless you define Secularism as Universalism (acceptance of all religions) because even Humanists effectively worship humanity and Metaphysical Naturalists effectively worship the cosmos. And Universalism itself is not religiously neutral.  It blesses those religions which are Universal and condemns those which claim exclusivity.

In legislating fundamental marriage redefinition & dilution from the bench, SCOTUS was establishing a government religious standard grounded in Humanism which all must follow or be prosecuted under law, just as private (non-government) businesses like Arlene’s Flowers and Sweet Cakes By Melissa have been prosecuted within the last couple years.

This topic was not forced on America by conservatives or conservatism but by progressives. If they throw religious issues into the limelight – and they seem bent on doing so – it is their moralizing which necessitates addressing how we as conservatives arrive at a response.  We’re not the ones dragging religion into the public sphere, they are. Perhaps we should be messaging that, instead of agreeing with the non sequitur logic fallacy that somehow when conservatives speak regarding values it is religious, but when Humanists do it is not.

If you push them for the source of their ideology they’ll eventually wind up at Marx, Engels, Nietzsche and Hegel. If we conservatives are pushed we wind up at Locke, De Montesquieu, Aquinas and Moses. Both sets of philosophers – theirs and ours – are working from inherently religious world views. Modern Humanism is based in the faith of Metaphysical Naturalism – blind faith in a random, self-generating universe, and in random, self-aggregating, self-improving life. Such faith informs the holder’s beliefs regarding origins, their daily decision making and their thoughts on morality.  That is the very essence of a religion.  What they worship is what they believe to be the highest known cause and the highest known life form.  Therefore it’s non sequitur to call our faith religious and theirs non-religious, for their world view effectively does worship mankind and nature.

If we play along and try to accept their religious suppositions in discourse then, what we’re in effect saying is that their religious viewpoint is acceptable for public discussion (deemed “secular”) and ours is not, and so they automatically win any discussion by default before it begins.

That’s why trying to say we should be “secular” in politics is a misnomer, it just declares their religious viewpoint to be supreme.

Tragically we’ve been thoroughly conditioned to keep thinking in terms of secularism by our experiences in law and political discourse, and by our education in public schools – because education as well is an inherently religious exercise.

In a recent headline scientists are now hopeful that a new experiment happening at a large collider may give them a glimpse into a parallel universe. The story is at: http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/large-hadron-collider-scientists-hope-make-contact-parallel-universe

Multidimensional theories of self-generating universes (and theories of self-generating life) are at this point not science but philosophy attached to science.  For example, the theoretical work of Hawking is entirely philosophical, not scientific, in so far as it proposes things beyond science and beyond detection or proof.  Hawking’s work is also philosophical in that it arbitrarily projects a single religious world view – blind-faith Metaphysical Naturalism – onto evidence and facts which could equally (and arguably better) be considered support for Design.  It is also philosophical because it deals with singularities – events which only occur once and can therefore only be directly (scientifically) understood in terms of evidential proof and historical proof. We have only ever observed a single universe, appearing to be governed by principles of relativity and finely tuned to support the existence of stars, galaxies and life.

What scientists are doing in making a prediction of observing parallel universes would be directly analogous to proposing in 1977 that if Pluto had a moon it would be proof of the existence of green unicorns, and then when Charon was proven to exist in 1978 saying, “Hah, we were right! Green unicorns do exist!”

There’s definitely more we need to understand about the quantum world of physics but I tend to reject the basic Copenhagen “spooky” view of matter because that view still has it’s roots in belief about measuring equipment and not about matter itself. Obviously particles interact at a distance but the mechanism is entirely unknown at this point.  And string theory up to this point has really just amounted to a bunch of conflicting hearsay, as any honest quantum physicist will tell you.

The bottom line is that part of the reason many modern quantum physicists want to have blind faith in alternate universes is because they desperately want the findings in their field to match their Socialist, Metaphysical Naturalist intellectual ideology.

And the findings simply don’t.

The UK site Independent has run a story about lab produced “three-parent babies”.  The babies are are spliced together using the same technique used in cloning Dolly The Sheep.  In this case the purpose of the procedure is to allow two people of the same sex to claim that they’ve parented a child together.  That’s not really what’s happening.

Every one of us has our own DNA, originally spun when a sperm from our father came together with an egg from our mother and the two sequences began to combine.  Within your mother’s egg itself were the “engines” of cells, called organelles.  Every cell has them and one of the quirks of genetics is that your organelles which convert food to energy – called mitochondria – do not have the same DNA as you do.  Rather they have the same DNA as your mother, who got her mitochondrial DNA from her mother, and so forth.  Men, your mitochondrial DNA came from your mom.  You don’t get to pass it along.

When technicians undergo a procedure to produce a “three-parent baby”, the child does not really use the DNA of three people.  The child simply uses the mitochondrial DNA of a third individual.  The way that technicians get the mitochondria and other organelles from that third individual is to murder them.  They take a newly conceived human individual, cut out their nucleus and discard it, killing them.  Then the technicians cut another individual out of their own cell – also someone who is newly conceived – and transplant them into the cell of the individual who’s just been killed.  

This act of murder is done so that a third person, usually a gay spouse, can claim that their DNA is also in the child.  But all that the third person has done is murder their own child and donate that child’s mitochondria.  The technicians haven’t produced a “three parent baby”.  They killed one baby and effectively gave the other baby an organelle transplant.

How can a couple claim to be loving parents when their “parenthood” is based on killing one of the two’s children?