Slashdot Mirror

The key reason OpenSSL is so popular in US is because the project is on top of FIPS certifications. LibreSSL might cure cancer, but very few system integrators will use it unless it has certified module.

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps the system integrators who want to have a FIPS certified version of SSL that is also secure should do the legwork on getting the certification done, while Theo and his team work on the code. Decentralized do-ocracy FTW.

Here's a fairly complete list of current and past efforts at this sort of thing (and since it's a wiki, feel free to help make it more complete).

A man walks into a church, and starts saying things contrary to the church to everyone present.

He protests & complains, as members of the church show him to the door.

If you'd earnestly like to understand these things better, I recommend reading: Passages of Perspective and Selectively Open Minded. And if you read these, please drop me a line letting me know what you think; I eat these kinds of questions for breakfast.

A man walks into a church, and starts saying things contrary to the church to everyone present.

He protests & complains, as members of the church show him to the door.

If you'd earnestly like to understand these things better, I recommend reading: Passages of Perspective and Selectively Open Minded. And if you read these, please drop me a line letting me know what you think; I eat these kinds of questions for breakfast.

Well, first, I got called to work as a programmer, after 3 years of dot-com slumber crash. That made an enormous difference in my life. They already knew that I could code because they were sifting through my online questions and scripts and programs and so on. And they already knew that I was deeply committed to the Open Source ethic. They also knew that I was available. It was all out there. So they called me up and I was a software developer again.

But more importantly, I regularly get to meet very interesting people in my field of "work," (the things I deeply care about, and work on, for the public, but don't get paid for,) because they know who I am, what I work on and think about, and so on.

While I have been in plenty of "online fist-fights" and have said plenty of embarrassing things, it just doesn't seem to have mattered much.

If you look at this from an economic perspective: "You know what you're getting." Whereas if someone comes to me plain slate, I have to wonder, "What's this person's history? Why are they hiding?"

Religion has been misunderstood by both scientists and religious alike.

It's question is not "How does the world work?", but "What opens the heart?"

Albert Einstein wrote, "How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

See also: Spiritual Atheism, Evolutionary Spirituality, and maybe Happy Feet as well.

Actually, ...

When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.

So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten, Anodea Judith, Paul Hawken, Michael Dowd, and, ... ...well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.

I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.

Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.

Well, you may want to consider our research into LackOfReworking in wiki. See also: CategoryReworking.

That said, I've never seen a better medium for making sense of the world.

I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.

My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.

I'd like to invite you to share your idea or vision with us on CommunityWiki, because it sounds like something we may be able to do something with.

Actually, ...

When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.

So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten, Anodea Judith, Paul Hawken, Michael Dowd, and, ... ...well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.

I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.

Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.

Well, you may want to consider our research into LackOfReworking in wiki. See also: CategoryReworking.

That said, I've never seen a better medium for making sense of the world.

I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.

My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.

I'd like to invite you to share your idea or vision with us on CommunityWiki, because it sounds like something we may be able to do something with.

Actually, ...

When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.

So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten, Anodea Judith, Paul Hawken, Michael Dowd, and, ... ...well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.

I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.

Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.

Well, you may want to consider our research into LackOfReworking in wiki. See also: CategoryReworking.

That said, I've never seen a better medium for making sense of the world.

I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.

My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.

I'd like to invite you to share your idea or vision with us on CommunityWiki, because it sounds like something we may be able to do something with.

Actually, ...

When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.

So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten, Anodea Judith, Paul Hawken, Michael Dowd, and, ... ...well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.

I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.

Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.

Well, you may want to consider our research into LackOfReworking in wiki. See also: CategoryReworking.

That said, I've never seen a better medium for making sense of the world.

I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.

My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.

I'd like to invite you to share your idea or vision with us on CommunityWiki, because it sounds like something we may be able to do something with.

YouTube.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it and been mod up, but... ...this is all very neatly explained by Jeff Hawkin in his book, "On Intelligence," where he describes what he calls a "memory prediction framework."

Save one half of one chapter, it's a very easy read, and makes a lot of fundamental ideas very clear. While he doesn't give an algorithm for Intelligence, he does give a good (and somewhat original) definition of what Intelligence is, and then he describes some elements of what an intelligence probably requires: Time, (as a basic element- not a "training" part segregated away,) massive feedback from brain to "input," hierarchy, and some other things I don't remember at the moment.

He argued that the Neocortex is the same, basically all over. The neocortex is very much a blank slate. If you solve Intelligence for vision, it should also solve Intelligence for hearing. He backs this up with a bunch of pointers to other people's works and papers.

In his theory, an Intelligence builds names, labels, for identified patterns. So, if you were a programmer, you would watch the Intelligence process data, and then see what names it creates and sustains. You look at what lights up inside it whenever you point the sensor at a car, (or perhaps have someone in the scene point to a car!,) and then you have found / discovered the "car" node that it has emerged. Program away from there.

Please consider reading the book; It's really interesting. It totally changed the way I look at Artificial Intelligence. (Which he argues: Can only be Actual Intelligence. He wants to define Intelligence such that: There's only one such thing, "Intelligence." It's either there, or it's not.)

"Support the opinion that the people want"...

People's wants are interesting things; People are multi-layered creatures.

Most people know that descriptions of wants at surface detail are not adequate. This goes beyond just desire for money and sex, and goes far deeper. Similarly, I think people recognize that they have fears and passions that can oversway them, and when you're looking for a leader, you're often looking for something more stable than yourself in many situations.

Consider the Causal Layered Analysis understanding of human media, for example, and then ask, "What do people want?"

It's a very complicated question. Answering what only the Litany wants, (by the CLA,) isn't such a good idea. And if you see someone answering mainly to Litany, to the panics and fears of the day, it can be cause for pause.

If you're arguing with someone, it's presumably because you're trying to alter how they are thinking: Whether you want to call it convincing, persuading, or converting, is largely a question of semantics, for our purposes here.

Religion depends on both reason and logic (a tool in the use of reason.) The church does have beliefs that feed into logical systems that they hold. They do not hide them; They have an entire encyclopedia online that you can peruse through. Choices of hiding reasons and explanations have always existed for strategic purposes, this is universe to almost all big positions, at some time or another. Buddhists have almost certainly concealed their beliefs, rationals, and logical chains for strategic purposes at one time or another.

The fundies will think you're a fool for both declaring that they are anti-logical, because they know that they exercise logic (which is true, otherwise there could be no sequiters in their reasoning -- "God demands worship from all men, you are a man, ergo God demands worship from you." -- An utterly logical line of thinking, if you accept the premises.), and they'll think you are a fool for not on your knees and prostrating yourself, or following what they believe to be true, and common sense.

Religion, actually, is obviously and entirely reasonable. Self-consistent logic still requires faith, because logic always has base premises. 5-axiom geometry only comes to life if we find reason to accept those base axioms.

Reason involves the use of logic, but logic is not the main tool of reason. Imagination, perception, comparison, desire, remembrance, simulation, and several other tools are crucial in the practice of reason. Reason is, in no way, shape, or form, a forward chaining or reverse chaining reasoner, ..!

It would be nice if we could just wave a wand and say, "Be reasonable, enemies of reason!" But the problem is that they are reasoning, and they're reasoning within a harmful complete system of thought that, like all systems of thought that survive, have developed a tough armor that answers questions and deflects questions behind a veil of knowingness.

Similar to how you are doing, right now, avoiding the idea that there is no one logical way of reasoning! That is, you are using a cartoon model, in which there is "logical" reasoning, and there is "illogical thinking," which isn't reason. But if you study this for a while, you find that reason is vastly more complicated than the cartoon model. But because the cartoon model provides answers to your questions, you are uncomfortable stepping out of it. It might awaken questions that you don't know how to answer, such as, "Well, if they are being reasonable, how can I condemn their thinking?" You can, it's just going to take time to work out your thoughts.

The first thing to do, though, is get a proper picture of logic: Logic is just like a network of pipes. If you accept that the water goes in a certain way, and if your fasteners between the pipes are tight, than you accept the way the water goes out. All logic is, is a network of pipes. Mathematics "works" because it doesn't have any faiths, except that others have correctly laid out and tested their pipe networks. (In case the link dies: When you're reading the second half of a proof, having checked the first half, you trust that your check was "good," and that your memory is true.) Mathematics is just a gigantic network of pipes. It makes no claims, whether the axioms are true or not. But for anything connected to the material world, there are all sorts of trick things: "Are the inputs correct?" Usually the inputs are described in words, which are tricky little beasties, even in themselves. Do we understand the idea worlds where pipes meet,

Well, there are those situations where society is wrong, and needs to be called on it.

Will society be responsive? That's the question.

If society is not responsive when society is wrong, then this is horrific and terrible and should be opposed.

If society is responsive, then we should welcome our new neighborly overlords.

Example: "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote." Suppose we had this high technology, and it's early 1900's. You and your subversive friend are having a discussion, and whisper that you think women should be able to vote. Obviously, you are trying to create a subversive cell movement; And unfortunately for you, someone with a microphone and a camera caught it, and posted it online. You are visibly and painfully ostracized from society. Anyone who thought at least some bit of sympathy for your way of thinking either changes their mind (against you,) or decides to stay quiet. Because a critical mass of people are able to express their opinion, society is incapable of changing, and the passages of perspective are blocked.

Will society be responsive in our future environment? We do not know. It seems reasonable to believe that the future may resemble a panopticon, but that piece of evidence alone doesn't tell us enough; We don't know what balancing forces may exist.

But, anyways: There's an example of how the system you described might be flawed.

Religion doesn't teach logic, it teaches anti-logic, and these well-indoctrinated fools are thus unable to follow the above arguments.

It's unfortunate that the situation is complex.

Reason is not logic, and religion does not teach anti-logic, because it so often depends on logic.

That you disagree with the inputs (and therefor outputs) of their logical constructions is your problem with it.

The indoctrinated have not had conversations, or have shied away from conversations, that contradict their primary theses. Your challenge is to figure out how to convert them, and their challenge is to figure out how to convert you; That's the way the passages of perspective work.

Telling them that they're not logical is going to do absolutely nothing, because from their vantage point, you've just proven yourself for a fool.

So find your rational bases and your compelling points, and argue from those.

Religion doesn't teach logic, it teaches anti-logic, and these well-indoctrinated fools are thus unable to follow the above arguments.

It's unfortunate that the situation is complex.

Reason is not logic, and religion does not teach anti-logic, because it so often depends on logic.

That you disagree with the inputs (and therefor outputs) of their logical constructions is your problem with it.

The indoctrinated have not had conversations, or have shied away from conversations, that contradict their primary theses. Your challenge is to figure out how to convert them, and their challenge is to figure out how to convert you; That's the way the passages of perspective work.

Telling them that they're not logical is going to do absolutely nothing, because from their vantage point, you've just proven yourself for a fool.

So find your rational bases and your compelling points, and argue from those.

Your first paragraph's argument I find interesting.

I disagree that violence is the only result when you fervently believe in something: Many times, children are the result (parents believing in one another's love,) sacrifice can be a result (the followers of Ghandi,) some times a company or a new product are a result (belief that the company can make it,) or the discovery of a new country ("there's something over there.")

You are concerned that evangelizing science, thoughtful skepticism, appreciation for the Universe, the common humanity of all people, and the Enlightenment will lead to violence, but that indoctrinating religious people's children will not. I remain unconvinced.

As for a baseline literacy and knowledge; I'm not so sure that it really works. Perhaps we're stealing away the minds of some fundamentalist Christians children, and perhaps it's the school system that does it, but I remain unconvinced. I think that, when children picked up science in schools, it's because their parents were open to it already, and encouraging their children: "Study this. Learn what we have not." And how did that happen? I think that people looked around, at the scientific discoveries, and talked with scientists they knew, or read a book, or read an argument in a newspaper, and talked about it with people, and made up their own mind. I don't think it was the school. I think the school battle is near irrelevant, really. You can teach kids things, but if their parents oppose it, especially in an organized way, I'm not convinced you get traction; I think you just annoy people.

As for just the concept of schooling, as necessary to teach the basics and so on; This is the most radical thing you'll hear me say here (and feel free to dismiss it,) but I don't believe in it at all. I say that because I visited a Sudbury school, after reading an article on Boing Boing that Cory Doctorow wrote. I interviewed several of the kids there, and checked out what they were reading, and what they were doing. I was impressed: Kids actually do teach themselves how to read, and more than that, I was impressed with how articulate, thoughtful, confident, good natured, responsible, and adult they were. They were still kids, and they weren't geniuses, but there was an unmistakable clarity, thoughtfulness, and deliberateness there, and it was there with all of them (teenagers mostly) that I talked with. If you bring an argument to them, and say, "What do you think about this?" ...they'll give you a thoughtful reply, from many angles.

What I'm saying is: I'm not convinced that "schooling" is one tenth as necessary as our society believes that it is. Yes, many of these kids (I don't know the figures)

I've put my money where my mouth is, incidentally; I've enrolled my almost-6-years-old daughter in the school, and I'm, personally, very impressed.

I doubt I've convinced you of anything particular, but, please carry this with you, and if you ever get a chance, perhaps look into this a little.

Actually, I just find your arguments totally unpersuasive, and your projections about what my arguments are, what they mean, and what my motivations are, unwarranted and unreasonable.

So I'm not sure how you get the conclusion that this is a "material limit" on intelligence.

Well, look here:

Put a hard legal limit on the processing power any person is allowed to possess. Measured in gigaflops or some other metric.

Those are your words, and there is your material limit.

I don't think I'll be conversing with you much longer; I think if your method of argument continues like it is here, there's not much benefit, for either of us. You seem to be trying to point out gaps in logic, in your opponents position, implying that your own thinking does not hold similar gaps. (If you did recognize the ubiquity of gaps, you wouldn't be criticizing on the basis of their existence.) I do not find your undercuts persuasive; I hear them, but I think you have still missed more important things. Sadly, your battery of trivial undercuts are so numerous, I feel no motivation to respond to them: You will find only other little unimportant things to undercut, which are always present, in all thinking, always, and make up more ridiculous extrapolations about what I mean, and so on.

So, farewell, for now. Maybe again, some other time.

Actually, I just find your arguments totally unpersuasive, and your projections about what my arguments are, what they mean, and what my motivations are, unwarranted and unreasonable.

So I'm not sure how you get the conclusion that this is a "material limit" on intelligence.

Well, look here:

Put a hard legal limit on the processing power any person is allowed to possess. Measured in gigaflops or some other metric.

Those are your words, and there is your material limit.

I don't think I'll be conversing with you much longer; I think if your method of argument continues like it is here, there's not much benefit, for either of us. You seem to be trying to point out gaps in logic, in your opponents position, implying that your own thinking does not hold similar gaps. (If you did recognize the ubiquity of gaps, you wouldn't be criticizing on the basis of their existence.) I do not find your undercuts persuasive; I hear them, but I think you have still missed more important things. Sadly, your battery of trivial undercuts are so numerous, I feel no motivation to respond to them: You will find only other little unimportant things to undercut, which are always present, in all thinking, always, and make up more ridiculous extrapolations about what I mean, and so on.

So, farewell, for now. Maybe again, some other time.

Actually, I just find your arguments totally unpersuasive, and your projections about what my arguments are, what they mean, and what my motivations are, unwarranted and unreasonable.

So I'm not sure how you get the conclusion that this is a "material limit" on intelligence.

Well, look here:

Put a hard legal limit on the processing power any person is allowed to possess. Measured in gigaflops or some other metric.

Those are your words, and there is your material limit.

I don't think I'll be conversing with you much longer; I think if your method of argument continues like it is here, there's not much benefit, for either of us. You seem to be trying to point out gaps in logic, in your opponents position, implying that your own thinking does not hold similar gaps. (If you did recognize the ubiquity of gaps, you wouldn't be criticizing on the basis of their existence.) I do not find your undercuts persuasive; I hear them, but I think you have still missed more important things. Sadly, your battery of trivial undercuts are so numerous, I feel no motivation to respond to them: You will find only other little unimportant things to undercut, which are always present, in all thinking, always, and make up more ridiculous extrapolations about what I mean, and so on.

So, farewell, for now. Maybe again, some other time.

Actually, I just find your arguments totally unpersuasive, and your projections about what my arguments are, what they mean, and what my motivations are, unwarranted and unreasonable.

So I'm not sure how you get the conclusion that this is a "material limit" on intelligence.

Well, look here:

Put a hard legal limit on the processing power any person is allowed to possess. Measured in gigaflops or some other metric.

Those are your words, and there is your material limit.

I don't think I'll be conversing with you much longer; I think if your method of argument continues like it is here, there's not much benefit, for either of us. You seem to be trying to point out gaps in logic, in your opponents position, implying that your own thinking does not hold similar gaps. (If you did recognize the ubiquity of gaps, you wouldn't be criticizing on the basis of their existence.) I do not find your undercuts persuasive; I hear them, but I think you have still missed more important things. Sadly, your battery of trivial undercuts are so numerous, I feel no motivation to respond to them: You will find only other little unimportant things to undercut, which are always present, in all thinking, always, and make up more ridiculous extrapolations about what I mean, and so on.

So, farewell, for now. Maybe again, some other time.

The Secure Hardware Environment. ;)

Inevitable, in my book.

• I want to be able to declare my phone and VoIP conversations "public access."
• I want anyone in the world to be able to overhear my public conversations.
• I want to be able to apply group tags to the conversation, to limit access to participants within groups.
• I want a "door knocking" mechanism, so people can ask to gain speaking priviledges on the channel.
• I want more people to know "voice protocols," methods of directing group conversations in voice-only less-than-flawless channels.
• I want conversations to be indexed in real-time, so that we can find conversations around the globe where certain words, phrases, or ideas are being invoked publicly.

It's hard to know, when you're dealing with something like this, to guage the effects.

But I have a hunch (based in my own experience) that SimEarth "worked," and I have a hunch that Spore will work, as well.

I've been exploring a model of the "mass mind" called "Causal Layered Analysis." It makes sense to me. Spore would rest somewhere between "Worldview / Discourse Analysis," and "Myth / Metaphore Analysis," since it largely works unconsciously.

Looking further down the line: I'd like to be so visible, it's almost impossible to steal my identity.

What I mean by that, is the ability to say: "Look, here's all these sensors and automated systems that say: This guy is the guy in front of you, talking with you, etc.,."

I'd like to be notified within 20 seconds of my credit card being used for anything. I'd like to be notified within seconds of a credit check is performed. (And so on, and so forth.)

I think Internet Bonding will solve many of the problems we face today.

These examples illustrate the importance of observation and appeals to evidence in defeasible reasoning. The idea of defeasible reasoning may not sound very good -- after all, defeasible is a synonym for "fallible" -- until we realize that scientific reasoning is always defeasible, and we know the power of scientific reasoning from our everyday life. It is a commonplace of basic scientific method that experimental evidence is never quite conclusive -- it is always a logical possibility that the next experiments will go differently. Indeed, philosopher John Pollack developed the idea of defeasible reasoning largely (as I understand it) to give a stronger basis for the philosophy of science.

-- the page on Defeasible Reasoning

Now, we've come across this word "fact."

You've invoked it in a scientific sense, in the sense of "an empirically observed truth." But we are having an epistemological conversation: We can speak of mathematical truths as facts, even though we cannot empirically determine them- not in a justifiable way, at least: We cannnot know if the universe is playing tricks on us, after all. But if our reasoning in our minds is not interfered with, we can reach justifiable mathematical truth, without any reference to the universe at all. And in the language of philosophers, we would call these discoveries "facts."

Let's look at the Wikipedia page on "Reason." Somebody wrote a line there, "No philosopher of any note has ever argued that logic is the same as reason." Quite accurate.

Do you believe it? Is the Wikipedia article wrong here? We know that Wikipedia is wrong in many places; Is this one of those places?

Maybe there is a notable philosopher, somewhere, who said that logic is the same as reason. Can you find this philosopher?

Let me tell you my theory. You can disagree with it, but let me communicate it to you. My belief is that, in say, 4 years, in the quiet of your own thoughts, you may come to value this theory.

I'm going to suggest that the reasoning of all people is supported by a "thinking goo." It's not a rational thing, though it's not totally irrational, either. There is a quirky logic to it (the laws of physics, the emergence of human desires and interests and needs and so on,) but it's certainly not spock, no matter how much the person is revered for their skills at logic, no matter how they hold their glasses tip in their mouth, no matter how many puffs of the pipe they take, before speaking something penetrating and wise.

We can isolate pieces of logic in our thinking, but they are just little islands of logical constistency. To be entirely logical and reasonable is utterly impossible; It's simply too costly for any system. Even Ray Kurzweil's most ideal computer will still have these problems. (And I speak as a bona fida TransHumanist, and Artificial Intelligence enthusiast, not as a critic of the intellectual capabilities of computers.) One argument (that I'll present briefly) is that thinking is a evolutionary process; For thinking to work at all, it must include irrational components. Something that works consistently in the same way is a dead somethin

These examples illustrate the importance of observation and appeals to evidence in defeasible reasoning. The idea of defeasible reasoning may not sound very good -- after all, defeasible is a synonym for "fallible" -- until we realize that scientific reasoning is always defeasible, and we know the power of scientific reasoning from our everyday life. It is a commonplace of basic scientific method that experimental evidence is never quite conclusive -- it is always a logical possibility that the next experiments will go differently. Indeed, philosopher John Pollack developed the idea of defeasible reasoning largely (as I understand it) to give a stronger basis for the philosophy of science.

-- the page on Defeasible Reasoning

Now, we've come across this word "fact."

You've invoked it in a scientific sense, in the sense of "an empirically observed truth." But we are having an epistemological conversation: We can speak of mathematical truths as facts, even though we cannot empirically determine them- not in a justifiable way, at least: We cannnot know if the universe is playing tricks on us, after all. But if our reasoning in our minds is not interfered with, we can reach justifiable mathematical truth, without any reference to the universe at all. And in the language of philosophers, we would call these discoveries "facts."

Let's look at the Wikipedia page on "Reason." Somebody wrote a line there, "No philosopher of any note has ever argued that logic is the same as reason." Quite accurate.

Do you believe it? Is the Wikipedia article wrong here? We know that Wikipedia is wrong in many places; Is this one of those places?

Maybe there is a notable philosopher, somewhere, who said that logic is the same as reason. Can you find this philosopher?

Let me tell you my theory. You can disagree with it, but let me communicate it to you. My belief is that, in say, 4 years, in the quiet of your own thoughts, you may come to value this theory.

I'm going to suggest that the reasoning of all people is supported by a "thinking goo." It's not a rational thing, though it's not totally irrational, either. There is a quirky logic to it (the laws of physics, the emergence of human desires and interests and needs and so on,) but it's certainly not spock, no matter how much the person is revered for their skills at logic, no matter how they hold their glasses tip in their mouth, no matter how many puffs of the pipe they take, before speaking something penetrating and wise.

We can isolate pieces of logic in our thinking, but they are just little islands of logical constistency. To be entirely logical and reasonable is utterly impossible; It's simply too costly for any system. Even Ray Kurzweil's most ideal computer will still have these problems. (And I speak as a bona fida TransHumanist, and Artificial Intelligence enthusiast, not as a critic of the intellectual capabilities of computers.) One argument (that I'll present briefly) is that thinking is a evolutionary process; For thinking to work at all, it must include irrational components. Something that works consistently in the same way is a dead somethin

These examples illustrate the importance of observation and appeals to evidence in defeasible reasoning. The idea of defeasible reasoning may not sound very good -- after all, defeasible is a synonym for "fallible" -- until we realize that scientific reasoning is always defeasible, and we know the power of scientific reasoning from our everyday life. It is a commonplace of basic scientific method that experimental evidence is never quite conclusive -- it is always a logical possibility that the next experiments will go differently. Indeed, philosopher John Pollack developed the idea of defeasible reasoning largely (as I understand it) to give a stronger basis for the philosophy of science.

-- the page on Defeasible Reasoning

Now, we've come across this word "fact."

You've invoked it in a scientific sense, in the sense of "an empirically observed truth." But we are having an epistemological conversation: We can speak of mathematical truths as facts, even though we cannot empirically determine them- not in a justifiable way, at least: We cannnot know if the universe is playing tricks on us, after all. But if our reasoning in our minds is not interfered with, we can reach justifiable mathematical truth, without any reference to the universe at all. And in the language of philosophers, we would call these discoveries "facts."

Let's look at the Wikipedia page on "Reason." Somebody wrote a line there, "No philosopher of any note has ever argued that logic is the same as reason." Quite accurate.

Do you believe it? Is the Wikipedia article wrong here? We know that Wikipedia is wrong in many places; Is this one of those places?

Maybe there is a notable philosopher, somewhere, who said that logic is the same as reason. Can you find this philosopher?

Let me tell you my theory. You can disagree with it, but let me communicate it to you. My belief is that, in say, 4 years, in the quiet of your own thoughts, you may come to value this theory.

I'm going to suggest that the reasoning of all people is supported by a "thinking goo." It's not a rational thing, though it's not totally irrational, either. There is a quirky logic to it (the laws of physics, the emergence of human desires and interests and needs and so on,) but it's certainly not spock, no matter how much the person is revered for their skills at logic, no matter how they hold their glasses tip in their mouth, no matter how many puffs of the pipe they take, before speaking something penetrating and wise.

We can isolate pieces of logic in our thinking, but they are just little islands of logical constistency. To be entirely logical and reasonable is utterly impossible; It's simply too costly for any system. Even Ray Kurzweil's most ideal computer will still have these problems. (And I speak as a bona fida TransHumanist, and Artificial Intelligence enthusiast, not as a critic of the intellectual capabilities of computers.) One argument (that I'll present briefly) is that thinking is a evolutionary process; For thinking to work at all, it must include irrational components. Something that works consistently in the same way is a dead somethin

If it is just, then why can't they use persuasion instead of intimidation? Maybe it isn't as persuasive as they think?

Oh, I'll bet they're thinking on lines like:

"Animals need to be defended, because they have no voice for themselves. I could try to convince people that animals need rights, but only a handful are going to listen. If they do listen, those that do won't be persuaded."

"Therefore, I must become not only the voice of the animals, but I must also become their hand. There is urgency to their requests, and it is not being met. The issue needs to be escalated, and force is now necessary."

(Proceed from there.)

It's not that they think it is "so persuasive" -- they think, exactly, that it is not persuasive, and thus, they are upping their ante.

Obviously, they themselves think that their perspective is true.

"Persuasive" tends to imply: "Can I sing a pied piper tune, and get you to come with me." It's important to recognize that, here.

I certainly haven't seen any examples of "real reasoning"; quite the opposite, in fact.

This is because you aren't listening.

They actually have some pretty intense volumes of literature, mounted up through the ages, that explain their reasoning, their whole line of thought. Philosophy papers, essays, serious books, art projects, childrens books, the whole gambit; it's all there.

Just google for "Animal Rights," and you've got a place to start.

See? "Real Reasoning." It's all over the place, just as real as all other reasoning. You, like me, likely disagree with them in several points. But reasoning isn't about reaching the same conclusions as you.

So you are faced, then, with an arduous task: You must have conversations with people you disagree with, and so on, and so forth.

If it gets to be sufficiently laborous, and if there is a pacing to expectations and so on, you can see how people might even prefer violence. In the initial stages, playing war is fun, exciting, and attractive.

Hm. It just occurs to me, that perhaps we should retitle war "Hand-to-hand philosophy." It's what it is, isn't it?

-- One final thing --

A movement, any movement, cannot be judged by the thoughts and reasons of the majority of it's adherents.

It's because they're stupid about their movement. It's a necessary situation, actually, part of specialization and the distribution of intelligence.

You can't just criticize the Republicans, because of what Aunt Tuni says about taxes or whatever.

You can't just criticize the Democrats, because of what Bob Marleson down the street said.

Not if you're interested in making progress on the arguments, at any rate, and really solve problems.

Instead, what you have to do, is talk with the really smart folk, who are working in each of these domains. You have to really get down to it, and understand the structures, and then seek out the smartest people in the particular territories, and challenge what they think.

And I think that, what you'll find, if you do that, is that there's good thinking going on everywhere, and that there are honest to God solid psychological tensions at play everywhere in the world, where there is intense reasoning at play from all sides.

So, if you want to criticize animal rights people, and you're saying, "I'm not hearing reason here," it's because you're talking about some college kid you saw holding up a sign.

What you really need to do, is find the books that that college kid read, and you need to argue with the points being made in those books.

That college kid with the sign: That college kid is really just your introduction

That "violence is a tool" for solving social problems is utterly undeniable.

"Jumping into rash conclusions based on emotional responses to incomplete pieces of information" refers to the totality of all actions humanity has ever commit.

There is no such thing as "adopting reason" in place of those things; Only "greater commitment to thought, over action," a rebalancing of commitment to thought, communication, and action. There is a perpetual dynamic tension there, and not one of the three can claim supremacy over the others. Attend enough democratic meetings, and you'll know this for sure: people will bounce back and forth between advocating the different parts ("we're not doing enough thinking," no, "we're not talking enough," no, "we're not DOING anything!")

People can not sit around and wait patiently forever. There is a pacing to all things, and that pacing must be respected, met, and occasionally changed. But it cannot be abolished, or wished away.

To abolish the idea of violence in your mind, is to handicap your thinking. Until you understand the mechanics of the decisions to commit violence, you cannot do anything to lesson it. To oppose violence on the face of it, or to say "it's just ignorance," and then be unwilling to reason any further, is to be utterly uneffective in advancing thinking on reducing violence.

We talked about this a while ago on CommunityWiki; you may want to see it: DigitalMaoism.

General take on things: (1) Nice sentiment, yes: don't surrender the individual to the group. (2) But no, this isn't a major danger here. (3) The title is inappropriate.

We actually have quite a bit of thinking about the HiveMind. ;)

We talked about this a while ago on CommunityWiki; you may want to see it: DigitalMaoism.

General take on things: (1) Nice sentiment, yes: don't surrender the individual to the group. (2) But no, this isn't a major danger here. (3) The title is inappropriate.

We actually have quite a bit of thinking about the HiveMind. ;)

We talked about this a while ago on CommunityWiki; you may want to see it: DigitalMaoism.

General take on things: (1) Nice sentiment, yes: don't surrender the individual to the group. (2) But no, this isn't a major danger here. (3) The title is inappropriate.

We actually have quite a bit of thinking about the HiveMind. ;)

You guys know exactly where we're headed, right?

I hope you've been reading your Vinge. This is equivalent to homework, if you're a technologist (programmers, that means you.)

Our destination is the Secure Hardware Environment (SHE).

That is, every computing device will have to have a section for the government built in, and the government will require access to just a small part of network traffic.

Further: All manufacturing will be observed. (see: Don't Try This at Home, and Remote Biology Labs -- how could it be allowed to work out any other way?) The US government (not sure which parts) is already rejecting chips for computers where the manufacturing process is unknown or unwatched (link lost; sorry.)

This will be done for your safety.

See also: Big Brother Takes a Controlling Interest in Chips. Rainbows End.

• (A) tolerates deviance from popular opinion
• (B) forgives past deviance from popular opinion

• (A) become hyper-sensitive
• (B) enforce extreme conformity rules on all people in (global) reach
• (C) exercise retroactive surveillance technology from the future, to find witches to burn

Fascinating!

I appreciate your analysis of the presently conventional understanding of maturity. :)

Hey, not to pull you into something, but you might want to check out: LiteracyOfHumanNature, (a page of a couple of us yacking on CommunityWiki,) and these moving answers to the question: "What is a mature human being?"

I resist statements of just what is and is not a mature human being; But I find value in these stories.

Hm,..

Would it make any difference if you could see the person's last 5 years of activity online, as well as place of residence and information about where they work, can see all the forums they post too, know that you can hound them on said forums, and have given them a lengthy legal contract to sign?

Would that make a difference?

I think you are basically right, (that this is discriminatory, that regulators attention will be caught,) but I think there's nothing that can be done about it.

It's like the requirement that alternative currencies be pegged to the US dollar: "Good luck." Just imagine World of Warcraft struggling to peg Gold to the dollar. And every other virtual world, every other virtual currency. (Is World of Warcraft Gold taxable income? Are Lindens?)

Or it's like trying to tax trades on Warcraft.

It'll attract the attention of regulators, but... ... where will the regulators go, from there?

Personally, I see Organized Culture as our likely destination.

• Relevance (*) -- The games are talking about the world I live in, and the things that are happening in it. So in that sense, they're relevant to me.
• Insight -- I've learned a lot from these games that have kept me up at night, thinking. Mei Ling rocks my world.
• Authenticity -- The games strike me as authentic, somehow.
• Humor -- ...and they're fun. :)

Hmm...

Speaking as someone who is committing money to a community bank with roughly $2,000 in it, I think the thing is that people trust their own culture, and are more willing to accept risks and lend money within their own culture. People tell each other things amongst themselves, that they do not necessarily tell the banks.

If you lose, it was "for the cause," anyways. If you win, you've aided the cause.

The bank might not even be willing to talk with you.

I know a girl, she's going to college. She needs $50,000 for 4 years of loans. The banks aren't talking with her, and her parents are opposed to her going to college out-of-state. (Read: The parents want to keep her near, to better control her.)

If my culture were just a wee bit more organized, I'm sure we'd have her in her preferred college. (UCSD, I believe.) As it is, we only have $2,000 amongst ourselves.

If only she were going to college in 4 years...

You may also want to check out the concept of Internet Bonding. Basically, if you can look at all the things a person does online, says online, follow the ups & downs in their life, and so on: You can do interesting things with that. You can better evaluate risk. So, if you're operating within your culture, things get a lot easier on you.

In the case of this girl, she has an easy time explaining to us who she is, where she's coming from, and so on: You can see her last few years of work online. "Trustworthy!" we say, "Get that woman her CS degree!"

Hmm...

Speaking as someone who is committing money to a community bank with roughly $2,000 in it, I think the thing is that people trust their own culture, and are more willing to accept risks and lend money within their own culture. People tell each other things amongst themselves, that they do not necessarily tell the banks.

If you lose, it was "for the cause," anyways. If you win, you've aided the cause.

The bank might not even be willing to talk with you.

I know a girl, she's going to college. She needs $50,000 for 4 years of loans. The banks aren't talking with her, and her parents are opposed to her going to college out-of-state. (Read: The parents want to keep her near, to better control her.)

If my culture were just a wee bit more organized, I'm sure we'd have her in her preferred college. (UCSD, I believe.) As it is, we only have $2,000 amongst ourselves.

If only she were going to college in 4 years...

You may also want to check out the concept of Internet Bonding. Basically, if you can look at all the things a person does online, says online, follow the ups & downs in their life, and so on: You can do interesting things with that. You can better evaluate risk. So, if you're operating within your culture, things get a lot easier on you.

In the case of this girl, she has an easy time explaining to us who she is, where she's coming from, and so on: You can see her last few years of work online. "Trustworthy!" we say, "Get that woman her CS degree!"

Hmm...

Speaking as someone who is committing money to a community bank with roughly $2,000 in it, I think the thing is that people trust their own culture, and are more willing to accept risks and lend money within their own culture. People tell each other things amongst themselves, that they do not necessarily tell the banks.

If you lose, it was "for the cause," anyways. If you win, you've aided the cause.

The bank might not even be willing to talk with you.

I know a girl, she's going to college. She needs $50,000 for 4 years of loans. The banks aren't talking with her, and her parents are opposed to her going to college out-of-state. (Read: The parents want to keep her near, to better control her.)

If my culture were just a wee bit more organized, I'm sure we'd have her in her preferred college. (UCSD, I believe.) As it is, we only have $2,000 amongst ourselves.

If only she were going to college in 4 years...

You may also want to check out the concept of Internet Bonding. Basically, if you can look at all the things a person does online, says online, follow the ups & downs in their life, and so on: You can do interesting things with that. You can better evaluate risk. So, if you're operating within your culture, things get a lot easier on you.

In the case of this girl, she has an easy time explaining to us who she is, where she's coming from, and so on: You can see her last few years of work online. "Trustworthy!" we say, "Get that woman her CS degree!"

• Japanese schools closing because there aren't enough kids?
• ...or environmentalists taking the strategy of mythologizing "Mother Earth?"

30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation.

You are either playing ignorant to get your point in the door, or you are seriously out of touch with the environmentalist community. Or, you are in touch with the environmentalist community, but are seeking to wash it's past out, or claim it's name in service of your ideals, and make it more acceptable to the general public.

Regardless, I find the method of communication irritating right now.

And regardless, I will answer your question: Many environmentalists are against technology because it very regularly leads to unsustainable development practices (such as reliance on oil) and environmental catastrophy (Global Warming, nuclear fallout, clearcutting, soil depletion...) Many environmentalists also oppose it, because they find the technology alienating. Very few people define themselves as just environmentalists; There are usually a collection of concerns that group themselves together.

I have pro-technology environmentalist friends, I also have anti-technology or pro-split technology environmentalist friends. (Separate the "bad" technology from the "appropriate" technology.) I spend time at communes, visit ecovillages, and do all sorts of different trippy things with weird people. Have you? The key word (or banner,) (which you repeated yourself,) is "sustainable," and a bunch of these environmentalists just plain don't believe in technology. They don't see the infrastructure behind manufacturing chips as a sustainable process. Some do. Regardless, most believe in, or at least support, the mythologizing of nature. (I do myself! But for different reasons. I believe in mythologizing everything.)

Here's an experiment to try:

Go visit your local eco village. Start talking about technology, start talking about genetic manipulation, start talking about virtual reality, start talking about pervasive computing, and start talking about the technological singularity. See how far you can get, before people start getting worried or strained looks on their faces. Report back on your experiment here.

I agree with the kind of reasoning you are giving.

I, too, am working to engage this sort of reasoning.

I see that you have a wiki; Let me suggest using it to economize on your propagation.

Tangentially related, you may be interested in SelectivelyOpenMinded, and PassagesOfPerspective. They can clarify a lot of mis-thinking. ("Open mindedness, carte blanc, is a virtue. I can criticize you for not being open minded, like me.") ("No, people must hold fast to their ideas, or else, what do they stand for?")

Arguments about how we should argue, how we should play our thoughts out, are important, and interesting, and deserve wider propagation.

I agree with the kind of reasoning you are giving.

I, too, am working to engage this sort of reasoning.

I see that you have a wiki; Let me suggest using it to economize on your propagation.

Tangentially related, you may be interested in SelectivelyOpenMinded, and PassagesOfPerspective. They can clarify a lot of mis-thinking. ("Open mindedness, carte blanc, is a virtue. I can criticize you for not being open minded, like me.") ("No, people must hold fast to their ideas, or else, what do they stand for?")

Arguments about how we should argue, how we should play our thoughts out, are important, and interesting, and deserve wider propagation.

I agree with the kind of reasoning you are giving.

I, too, am working to engage this sort of reasoning.

I see that you have a wiki; Let me suggest using it to economize on your propagation.

Tangentially related, you may be interested in SelectivelyOpenMinded, and PassagesOfPerspective. They can clarify a lot of mis-thinking. ("Open mindedness, carte blanc, is a virtue. I can criticize you for not being open minded, like me.") ("No, people must hold fast to their ideas, or else, what do they stand for?")

Arguments about how we should argue, how we should play our thoughts out, are important, and interesting, and deserve wider propagation.

Sesshomaru, I can't find your email address, so I'll just leave this here: You may be interested in a page I wrote on CommunityWiki, called "SuperFreudianism."

I, too, am a card-carrying Free/Liber/OpenSource Software fanatic, and I feel I should attest: I have many times modded up people talking about the very real limitations of the GIMP for professional photo manipulators.

The clearer the limitations are, the better we fit people with the right product, and the clearer what needs to be worked on is.

There is a small contingent of newbies in the FLOSS society. As in most societies, there is a group of people at the entry gates who rave wild madness about whatever it is that they have discovered. It is just part of the passage of perspectives.