Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

376

The Polling Pit / Re: Free will?

« on: March 25, 2007, 02:27:09 AM »

If determinism is true, then it was predetermined that this debate would ensue. If this fact makes you want to give up debating, sorry, but it's been predetermined that you will continue to do so. Your in the Twilight Zone!

377

General / Re: teaching preschoolers about liberty--looking for ideas

« on: March 18, 2007, 11:47:18 PM »

Most posters on this thread seem to think that Brandon is looking for ways to indoctrinate his pupils in libertarian ideology. I think he would prefer to create an environment of "discipline through liberty" that encourages independence, creativity and the joy of freedom from direct experience, instead of lectures and propaganda.

From Montessori:

Musical Education

This must be carefully guided by method. In general, we see little children pass by the playing of some great musicians as an animal would pass. They do not perceive the delicate complexity of sounds. The street children gather about the organ grinder, crying out as if to hail with joy the noises which will come instead of sounds.

For the musical education we must create instruments as well as music. The scope of such an instrument in [Page 207]  addition to the discrimination of sounds, is to awaken a sense of rhythm, and, so to speak, to give the impulse toward calm and co-ordinate movements to those muscles already vibrating in the peace and tranquillity of immobility.

I believe that stringed instruments (perhaps some very much simplified harp) would be the most convenient. The stringed instruments together with the drum and the bells form the trio of the classic instruments of humanity. The harp is the instrument of "the intimate life of the individual." Legend places it in the hands of Orpheus, folk-lore puts it into fairy hands, and romance gives it to the princess who conquers the heart of a wicked prince.

The teacher who turns her back upon her scholars to play, (far too often badly), will never be the educator of their musical sense.

The child needs to be charmed in every way, by the glance as well as by the pose. The teacher who, bending toward them, gathering them about her, and leaving them free to stay or go, touches the chords, in a simple rhythm, puts herself in communication with them, in relation with their very souls. So much the better if this touch can be accompanied by her voice, and the children left free to follow her, no one being obliged to sing. In this way she can select as "adapted to education," those songs which were followed by all the children. So she may regulate the complexity of rhythm to various ages, for she will see now only the older children following the rhythm, now, also the little ones. At any rate, I believe that simple and primitive instruments are the ones best adapted to the awakening of music in the soul of the little child.

I have tried to have the Directress of the "Children's House" in Milan, who is a gifted musician, make a num- [Page 208]  ber of trials and experiments, with a view to finding out more about the muscular capacity of young children. She has made many trials with the pianoforte, observing how the children are not sensitive to the musical tone, but only to the rhythm. On a basis of rhythm she arranged simple little dances, with the intention of studying the influence of the rhythm itself upon the co-ordination of muscular movements. She was greatly surprised to discover the educational disciplinary effect of such music. Her children, who had been led with great wisdom and art through liberty to a spontaneous ordering of their acts and movements, had nevertheless lived in the streets and courts, and had an almost universal habit of jumping.

Being a faithful follower of the method of liberty, and not considering that jumping was a wrong act, she had never corrected them.

She now noticed that as she multiplied and repeated the rhythm exercises, the children little by little left off their ugly jumping, until finally it was a thing of the past. The directress one day asked for an explanation of this change of conduct. Several little ones looked at her without saying anything. The older children gave various replies, whose meaning was the same.

"It isn't nice to jump."

"Jumping is ugly."

"It's rude to jump."

This was certainly a beautiful triumph for our method!

This experience shows that it is possible to educate the child's muscular sense, and it shows how exquisite the refinement of this sense may be as it develops in relation to the muscular memory, and side by side with the other forms of sensory memory. [Page 209] 

378

General / Re: teaching preschoolers about liberty--looking for ideas

« on: March 18, 2007, 01:19:37 AM »

I am a preschool music teacher by day, teaching children up to 5 years old, and I've been thinking lately that this might be a unique opportunity for activism—I can structure the classroom in such a way as to pass my libertarian ideals on to them before they go on to government schools.

Do you have any suggestions that might help me do that?  How would you create and manage a liberty-based classroom of young children?  What would you do with children who are talking when the rest of the students are listening to music?  Do you think it would it be right to assume that each student has voluntarily entered into my class for the purpose of making music?

I only see each class for 15 minutes twice a week, but I still feel like I can make a difference in this small amount of time and teach them more than just music. 

Any ideas/thoughts?

~Brandon

The answers you're looking for are all here:

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html

379

General / Re: Constitutionalists Get Torn A New Asshole!

« on: March 15, 2007, 12:31:59 AM »

A few sleepy random points:

Contrary to what my fellow well-intentioned Darwinist Carl Sagan might have told you, "Human Extinction" is not just one nuclear winter away.  Yes, nukes can do awful things to cities, and if all of them really do exist as advertised (I'm a conspiracy theorist, remember?) and will be launched at once a huge fraction of humanity will be destroyed.  But extinction?  Far from it.  There'll be thousands of inhabited islands, hopefully including New Zealand, who won't feel a thing.  And the window of time in which such destruction can take place isn't unlimited - in a couple hundred years, there'll be independent human colonies in space, where centralized madness cannot reach.  That's not to trivialize the irresponsible violence that governments are capable of, but it's nice to know that if we FUBAR our civilization others will rise in its place, and thanks to modern technology they'll probably inherit most of our knowledge, and learn from our mistakes.  Humanity will once and for all discard Nationalism and Socialism, like it did its fur and tail.

As for "Environmental Statism", once again, it'll never penetrate world-wide, and the Invisible Hand of Evolution will punish its adapters, clearing the way for their competitors...  Russia, China, and India will only go along with things like the Kyoto treaty while they either are exempt or benefit from it.  And the "one child policy", as stupid as it is, isn't entirely self-destructive.  It averages out to more like 1.8, still far higher than in most industrialized countries, and they're loosening it gradually as the economy becomes more stable.  The only countries falling for it are the ones already committing to demographic suicide and wishing to glorify it: Europe, mainly, and Japan.

While most things repeat in history, some of humanity's recent blunders are pretty original.  I'd like to think that good, well-intentioned people screwed things up, and now, a few generations later, their mistakes are getting ever harder for reasonable people to ignore.

I sometimes get pessimistic. It's good your here to give me a little pep talk. Thanks +1.

380

General / Re: Constitutionalists Get Torn A New Asshole!

« on: March 14, 2007, 11:13:36 PM »

I see natural rights as a creation not of a God but of evolutionary necessity - societies that infringe on those rights are a lot more likely to suffer from apathy, corruption, and stagnation, and thus either collapse or fall to external conquest.

Let those people establish their own isolated socialist societies if they want to.  Some societies will triumph over others (not necessarily in a violent way), and my bet, based on a choice made by my mental faculties in my self-interest, is on the society that provides the greatest opportunity for evolutionary mechanisms to function - that is absolute individual self-ownership, with the Self existing in three properties: biological (sustaining life in the present), rational (liberty of thought and action to control one's future), and tangible / territorial (acquisition of property through past accomplishment).  Those and only those properties are essential for self-perpetuating life on any scale!

Human beings, like the cells in their bodies on the smaller scale and societies they form on the larger scale, and like animals and species elsewhere in nature, came to exist -- and will continue to exist, generation after generation -- only on the basis of Natural Selection!

It's nice to see some optimism around here, for a change. The only fly in the ointment is that increasing liberty of a society on a partial basis can lead to massive creation of wealth and technology that can be grabbed by the criminals who control the coercive sector, leading to the real possibility of human extinction. The worship of destruction and death is the underlying value of statist morality. Until recently it was disguised as concern for the public good, but has recently come out of the closet in the form of environmental statism, which barely even bothers to conceal its agenda of wiping out most of humanity.

Tell me. How can your optimistic Darwinism posit a way out of this dilemma?

381

General / Re: Laser Graffiti

« on: March 14, 2007, 10:47:54 PM »

Laser graffiti is harmless and fun. I think it would be a very effective tool to promote liberty. Just don't do it Boston or they may shut down the city. If anyone has info on how to obtain the hardware please post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFWcAkxzkv4

It's a wonderful technology. I wonder what it would cost to get permission from building owners to use it. Of course the state will attempt to heavily regulate it, or ban it outright.

382

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: March 13, 2007, 09:23:31 PM »

This thread is this thread.  Those who feel it's too long merely need to not read it or post in it.  The owners of this bbs have seen fit to make this forum a "free speach" forum and as such, none of you have any power to censor what is posted here.  Lord knows there's plenty of garbage here that I find "offensive" and ignorant.  I could spend my time posting to those threads about how offensive or stupid they are, but that would be a waste of my time and certainly not my business since the bbs "gods" have deemed that all posts are valid.  It would be nice (although I know better than to expect) that those who find this thread offensive would just leave it alone, but I know that will not happen.

So I continue to ignore anyone who posts just to be offensive or abusive and respond whenever and however I feel. 

Peace ya'all...

You're 100% right on this.

383

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: March 11, 2007, 01:47:40 AM »

No, I'm merely admitting that a superior alien race that had the ability to engineer us would be a similar speculation as to our existance.  An alien race differs in that someone would have had to engineer them.  The idea of a God/Creator who is eternal eliminates that problem but then creates a new problem in trying to understand what "eternal" means...

Why does an intelligent entity require a creator and why can't it evolve?

If it does, then why doesn't God require the same thing?

Is eternal existence the only difference then, between God and sentient life ?

If your argument rests on the premise that evolution is impossible and that since life is mortal and therefore if sentient beings are not eternal, the only way they could have come into existence is to be created, then what of the idea that there was no first sentient being, that generations mortal sentient beings go back through eternity past? Then they wouldn't need to be created in the same way that an eternal God wouldn't need to be created. Sentient life would then be, in effect, mortal gods.

384

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: March 10, 2007, 11:36:43 PM »

One again, I'm not talking about MY God.  I'm talking of any real Creator that may be out there.  His existance is not dependant on my perception of Him however imperfect that may be.  He (if He exists) cannot be called a "concept" as He either is or He is not.  My belief, however, is that He has X Y or Z attributes.  My belief is not going to be perfect, but I try to understand how He would be based on my perceptions of what has happened, what is happening, and what my instincts tell me. 

Of course, if there is a God, then he would, by definition, exist. My point is that, given certain descriptions of God, it can be logically proven that he is a concept that does not, in reality, exist. If you believe in a kind of God that is logically plausible, I still have seen no evidence to believe that he  exists. I also don't see how speculation about the existence of a plausible God differs fundamentally from the speculation that a superior alien being engineered the human race.

Descriptions of God are imperfect and of course cannot be proven to be either true or false.  The only "hard evidence" I can find of His existance is the creation itself.  I marvel at the perfection and complication.  It screams for an intelligent designer. 

There is a very close resemblence to a God or a superior alien race designing us.  That only leads to speculation of who created them and we are back to square one...

Are you saying that God is essentially a superior alien that operates within the realm of what is logically possible and does not perform actual miracles?

385

General / Re: The Possibility of A Libertarian News Network

« on: February 17, 2007, 01:06:11 AM »

Here's a message that I posted on the Support Boards for Proboards regarding the creation of my own TV channel...

I would create a Libertarian news network called Freedom Live, which would be funded by the International Libertarian Broadcasting Corporation

Network Slogan: "Many Voices, One Goal: Acknowledge and Applaud Freedom Abroad"

The Voice of Reason
(Televised Radio Talk-Show Supplement)

Women's International News
Slogan: "How Can You Lose With WIN?
(A program showcasing the best and brightest women around the globe and honoring them for their achievements)

Living Libertarian
Slogan: "Life, Libertarianism, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Showcasing viewer submitted suggestions on living a happy and fulfilling life as a member within the Libertarian Party

Freedom News Daily
(An official segment produced by the International Society for Individual Liberty, showcasing and exposing governmental cover-ups against individual liberties)

Sky's the Limit
(An open-ended and open-minded program fueled by suggestions via official online message boards)

Creature of the Night-Life
(An entertainment program showcasing the various hot-spots around major and minor cities within the United States)

One Shot
(A program instructing proper firearm safety and news on the latest equipment)

Liberty Creativity
(A program showcasing and discussing artistic submissions sent in by viewers. The submissions would include categories ranging from fine-arts and fashion, to music and the culinary arts)

These are just concepts that would undoubtedly evolve if the channel was created... However, this still opens up an interesting question: what would you want to see on a Libertarian television channel?

Don't forget financial news.

386

General / Re: The Possibility of A Libertarian News Network

« on: February 17, 2007, 12:59:33 AM »

Yeah, porn's always a hit.  I'd just stick with porn.

But it would have to be libertarian porn, featuring libertarian performers.

387

The Polling Pit / Re: A test of what you really believe about the nature of consciousness:

« on: February 16, 2007, 10:22:13 AM »

That's the scary part.  I figure someone else can do the beta testing and buy v1.0.  I'll wait for SP2 to come pre-installed!

This only evades my questions, which in essence, are about how to interpret the results of the tests.

388

The Polling Pit / Re: A test of what you really believe about the nature of consciousness:

« on: February 16, 2007, 01:59:03 AM »

Yes.  I didn't explain that well.  I'm talking about a complete copy that parallels for long enough to ensure the computer is stable where I would be aware and able to "homestead" in the computer.  Then, without un-paralleling, my brain is killed, leaving only the computer.  In this way, there are never two separate "me" consciousnesses.

Interesting, but how will you know for sure that after this "transmigration" into the computer that you will really experience an authentic state of consciousness and not just a simulation of it, or possibly it just becomes an authentic copy, but not really you?

Even if you "transmigrate" back and forth between the two brains, to make sure it works, you won't know if that was the real you experiencing life in a computer, if it's just a memory of another mind or a simulation, that was uploaded back.

If the brain and the computer are parallel copies of you, sufficiently independent, so that killing one does not kill the other, then how do you know they are both really you? Can you be two people and yet be one?

389

The Polling Pit / Re: Of Man and Machine...

« on: February 16, 2007, 01:24:57 AM »

Yet that's not how it works. Person applies now to possible AI just as it now applies to female humans today due to rationality being the defining property of the definition of person. In fact, you could call rationality the 'return type' of person if you think of person as a function in programming terms.

Why is it "not how it works?" Why does the word "person" include future knowledge, currently unknown "knowledge?" Once we discovered/encountered an intelligent alien, you're saying that we'd look at the current definition of "person" (which is "rational human being") and change it to accommodate our new knowledge ("rational being")? Why would we do this, since we already have knowledge/definitions that encompass this (while we don't know about intelligent aliens, we can theorize, as we're doing now): We have the words "rational," "human," and "alien" - and we have "person" ("a rational human"), so why wouldn't we create "alientelligent" ("a rational alien") and "neopeep" ("rational beings")? Actually, I may be questioning myself onto your side of the argument. Does it really make a difference which word we redefine to fit our new knowledge? We could redefine "person" to include aliens and humans, or we could create a new word "neopeep" to encompass both entities. Hmmm...

Yet Rand never contended that non-human rational agents were not persons. In fact I believe even Peikoff acknowledges that if hypothetically space aliens were to come down to Earth he would call them persons as well because for any race to learn how to integrate knowledge to the level of traveling across spacetime automatically gets inducted. The same would follow for AI.

Rand may not have contended that rational agents were not "persons," but I don't think she contended that all rational agents would be called "persons." I'd love to read about this if you can reference it. I vaguely remember a reference to intelligent aliens, but I don't remember Peikoff saying they'd be called humans. I want to find that. I'll go search my Objectivist Research CD, but it doesn't have every writing of course.

- Mike

The dictionary may have different definitions for different common usages for a word, but to be intelligible, we must use a definition that is appropriate to the discussion at hand. In a natural rights oriented political forum on aliens and AI, the relevant and most useful definition of the word person, is not found in the dictionary yet. I believe it should be a blend of the philosophical definition-

4.   Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

and part of the legal definition-

11.   Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

which we can coin right here-

person- A sentient being, who has natural rights by grace of its potential ability and willingness to both comprehend and respect the equal natural rights of all other persons.

I admit that this is holding person-hood to a higher moral standard than what would normally be considered useful, but I think it works well for our purposes here.

390

The Polling Pit / Re: A test of what you really believe about the nature of consciousness:

« on: February 15, 2007, 09:38:29 PM »

When you use this argument you can argue that consciousness can be transferred if and only if the effective nature of the consciousness remains intact. Meaning while a person is dying as their consciousness is being moved to a new substrate, that person actually feels connected to the new substrate or body, thus proving that their awareness if following where you put it, but if this does not occur, all you have done was clone the person, which is not bad per se, but it's not real immortality.

-- Bridget

For lack of a better term, I've envisioned a similar thing, but parallel instead of series.  IOW, if you hooked a computer to my brain and allowed both to run in parallel, where the entire consciousness was running both in my brain and the computer in tandem, then killing me wouldn't have any effect.  The consciousness would survive intact and have no difference to me.

Just cloning my consciousness, however, and allowing it to run its course does my consciousness no good.   

Interesting idea, but if the portion of your consciousness running in the computer could survive independently of your brain, then weren't there always two separate persons to begin with?