And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

If it cannot survive, it is obviously a false system.

Non sequitur.

Didn't we just go over this with the cogito ergo sum thing?

[CKay]

[Islam] is still currently stuck in the middle ages, and it is therefore necessary to be wary of it.

Yep, I agree.

And I would extend the same wariness to fundamental Christianity too - plenty of religious nutters in your own good country praying for the end of days.

Being wary is one thing - blowing a threat out of all proportion is another. And much of what I've read about the imminent Islamification of Europe is just hysterical nonsense with little basis in reality and which almost certainly has its origins in extreme rightwing propaganda.

Anders Breveik - probably a hero to some here (what could be more masculine than slaughtering a bunch of pinko liberal kids?) - was inspired by exactly this kind of guff.

-

[CKay]

If it cannot survive, it is obviously a false system.

Non sequitur.

Didn't we just go over this with the cogito ergo sum thing?

Nope.

There is no objective proof of the rightness or wrongness of any moral system.

If you happen to believe that the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its tendency to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it, that's fine. But it is only your belief - an unprovable assertion (and one that will surely lead to all sorts of strange conclusions).

It's certainly not a belief that I would accept as self evident or a priori knowledge. Far from it...

[ladajo]

I would suggest that they don't have to be sharia. The Islamic meme is very powerful because it has little tolerance for deviation within it's system of influence. It is like a virus that copies itself well, and makes every effort to insure the accuracy of it's copy onto the next generation.

I can't wait to see them dealing with the militant atheists! I suspect they will be highly successful at imparting a fear of God into people who don't believe in one.

Your idea seems posited in Islam being united. It is far from, and never will be.

I also beg to differ about accuracy of copy. Each generation takes its own spin, and the spin can be more or less "rigid". I would also say that the hard over varieties are suffering from the modern world. There has been a dichonomy created between rigid fundamentalism and modern technology and communications. The root issue seems to be that folks are self discovering better things to do. .

Good point. MSimon (and others, including myself) have jokingly suggested that porn and Western culture would be the undoing of Islam. Sure, why not? If it can ruin us, it will probably do just as good of a job at ruining them.

The growth areas for hard over types is centered in the "disaffected". Those who lack something better to do if you will. This is the same phenomena that brought forth "ghettoism" and inner city gangs. Ironically, the social model is also very similar to that of prison populations. In this it becomes a self licking ice-cream cone. Affiliation to anti-establishment promotes entry into the correctional system which further nutures the anti-establishment behaviors, and so on around the circle. The only self limiting feature about the cycle seems to be eventually the ice-cream licks itself out of existence. But, each ice-cream is one unto itself...

I have previously said that one of the major problems facing the Islamic world is the fact that wealth is stratified into two major groups. The very rich, and the very poor. The middle class is relatively weak in many Islamic societies, and the poor turn to religion because it offers them comfort in a world lacking opportunity for advancement.

I have also said that the Bush Invasion of Iraq, (if it is not preempted by stupidity) may result in the successful creation of a large middle class in Iraq, and thereby stabilize the society enough to make it more able to rebuff the efforts of those who would keep it in chaos. (or move it towards theocracy.)

If people can see an opportunity for advancement, they are more likely to focus their energies on advancing themselves than on attacking others, and if enough people are happy with the way things are going, they are more likely to be intolerant of those who would disrupt their opportunities.

Anyway, what you are talking about is a vicious circle, and I see it being played out in exactly that manner in the Ghettos of America. The incentives are all wrong. Indulging in reckless behavior (Promiscuity, drugs, etc.) results in bad consequences down the road. Not just for those who engage in it, but for those of us who have to put up with them as well.

The Government needs to stop incentivizing foolish behavior.

Yup.

I would also offer that evidence of this is in plain view where many hard over type "lairs" and behaviours have produced physical evidence of pornography, alcohol, etc. Why even the 9/11 hijackers had their Vegas Fling before seeking virgins. Can you say Hypocracy?
I would also offer that Islam as an aggregate is adaptive and modernistic. I know plenty of folks that are not hard over in any sense, and live very practical and normal "western style" modern lives. No wthat said, there does seem to be an uptrend in the lower income 'disaffected' types towards the hard sides. And that I attribute to seeking some sense of unity and co-misery as in seen an many other diverse social groups.
What is the real difference in behavior and attitudes between a South Central LA gang member latino and an Egyptian ghetto fundamentalist? And what is the difference between the small minority power seekers that use an affected and more or less fake affilliation to those persons from the LA Drug Lord to the Corrupt Egyptian Power and Wealth monger?

I do not see much difference at all other than the where and what they wear.

[ladajo]

UH. You have information on that that you are keeping from us?

The cost of solar has reached grid parity in many countries now and is certainly cheaper than the diesel generators that are commonly used for electrical power. But change "will" to "would" if you want. It doesn't anyway affect the point I was making - new energy techs could potentially make islamic countries less vulnerable to external forces.

I am keeping my eye on this.


http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/wave-d ... times.html

Me too. But they have been fairly quiet since they got the ARPA-E funding.
I think he really may be on to something, but it bothers me that the prototype, to my knowledge, has not seen any open testing or report releases yet.

[Diogenes]

[Islam] is still currently stuck in the middle ages, and it is therefore necessary to be wary of it.

Yep, I agree.

And I would extend the same wariness to fundamental Christianity too - plenty of religious nutters in your own good country praying for the end of days. -

I don't know anyone praying for it, but I know a lot of people who think it is going to happen.

Being wary is one thing - blowing a threat out of all proportion is another. And much of what I've read about the imminent Islamification of Europe is just hysterical nonsense with little basis in reality and which almost certainly has its origins in extreme rightwing propaganda.

If that is the case, it's because the Leftwing who completely control all mainstream sources of information are refusing to report on it or discuss it. Look at rapes in Sweden for example.

Anders Breveik - probably a hero to some here (what could be more masculine than slaughtering a bunch of pinko liberal kids?) - was inspired by exactly this kind of guff.

-

Now that's a little unfair. Nobody is advocating the killing of innocents, even if they are leftist twits. There may come a time when shooting leftists is the right thing to do, but we haven't reached a state of actual war yet.

Breveik was a loon, and if he was a right-wing loon, well he has plenty of company from the left. Bill Ayers comes to mind among others. The guy who shot up the Holocaust museum, and the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office in Texas were also both left wing loons, as was Ted Kaczynski .

I will point out, that the right wing loons seem to be a great deal more dangerous and effective than do the left wing loons.

[Diogenes]

Non sequitur.

Didn't we just go over this with the cogito ergo sum thing?

Nope.

There is no objective proof of the rightness or wrongness of any moral system.

One that cannot exist cannot exert any influence. It is effectively a Zero.
A system which exists is superior to a system that doesn't exist because IT has an ability to assert influence.

Existence vs. NonExistence is a pretty objective standard in my opinion.

If you happen to believe that the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its tendency to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it, that's fine. But it is only your belief - an unprovable assertion (and one that will surely lead to all sorts of strange conclusions).

It's certainly not a belief that I would accept as self evident or a priori knowledge. Far from it...

It's not a function of it's tendency to promote itself, it's a function of it's ABILITY to promote itself. Even creatures with genetic deformities want to reproduce.

Evolution allows that which is successful to remain in existence, and that which is not to die off. The same thing happens to memes. Not many "Isis and Horus" worshipers about nowadays. (Actually there are, but they have evolved into a form unrecognizable as such.)

A Characteristic of evolution and changing conditions is that a form which may be very suitable for one environment is not necessarily suitable for an environment which has changed.

Christianity may have been the best form to raise us up from primitive conditions, and perhaps something else will be necessary to deal with the technology and social changes we now face.

[Diogenes]

I do not see much difference at all other than the where and what they wear.

They are more or less motivated by the same social forces.

[Diogenes]

The cost of solar has reached grid parity in many countries now and is certainly cheaper than the diesel generators that are commonly used for electrical power. But change "will" to "would" if you want. It doesn't anyway affect the point I was making - new energy techs could potentially make islamic countries less vulnerable to external forces.

I am keeping my eye on this.


http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/wave-d ... times.html

Me too. But they have been fairly quiet since they got the ARPA-E funding.
I think he really may be on to something, but it bothers me that the prototype, to my knowledge, has not seen any open testing or report releases yet.

Yes, I am greatly annoyed as well. I stopped working on my own motor design because this one seemed to be far simpler to construct and yet achieved the same results I was looking for.

I am at a loss to understand why this thing hasn't taken off like wildfire if the claims are true.

[ladajo]

When it first came out, there was some hype, but the reality was it was just an idea at that point. Some folks thought he had actually built a test device. All he had at the time was a theory based mock up.
Mueller was seeking funding to be able to build a test device. Well he got ARPA-E signed up, and then went dark. It makes me wonder about the time it took him to buil dhis test articale, as well as what it is showing him.

My gut predicts another round of funding, then a possible fail. I can not explain why I lean this way. That said, my brain remains open, and we shall see what he has got. Maybe all the Rossiworld silliness is clouding my ability to be neutrally critical in this lane.
Either way, I do think Mueller has much better ground to stand on with what he is doing, where he is doing it, and how he has proceeded. Maybe somebody here with a buddy in ME at UoM can pull a string.

[CKay]

One that cannot exist cannot exert any influence. It is effectively a Zero.
A system which exists is superior to a system that doesn't exist because IT has an ability to assert influence.

Existence vs. NonExistence is a pretty objective standard in my opinion.

Existence doesn't make something morally right (or wrong).

Furthermore, that the notion of morality may be conceived by human intellect does not mean that morality has an existence that is independent of the realm of human thought, ie, that is not subjective, any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God.

[CKay]

If you happen to believe that the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its tendency to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it, that's fine. But it is only your belief - an unprovable assertion (and one that will surely lead to all sorts of strange conclusions).

It's certainly not a belief that I would accept as self evident or a priori knowledge. Far from it...

It's not a function of it's tendency to promote itself, it's a function of it's ABILITY to promote itself.

Okay, you are of course free to assert that: the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its ability to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it. But realise that it is an unprovable assertion (one that few if any moral philosophers would agree with).

[tomclarke]

If you happen to believe that the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its tendency to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it, that's fine. But it is only your belief - an unprovable assertion (and one that will surely lead to all sorts of strange conclusions).

It's certainly not a belief that I would accept as self evident or a priori knowledge. Far from it...

It's not a function of it's tendency to promote itself, it's a function of it's ABILITY to promote itself.

Okay, you are of course free to assert that: the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its ability to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it. But realise that it is an unprovable assertion (one that few if any moral philosophers would agree with).

It is an assumption we have some evidence against. Consider, most human societies through most of hstory have been (by our standards of morality) highly immoral. By definition moral systems obeying diogenes's rule will tend to predominate.

Of course diogenes may have different standards, and reckon slavery is moral, etc. So perhaps he is consistent?

[tomclarke]

A system which exists is superior to a system that doesn't exist because IT has an ability to assert influence.

Existence vs. NonExistence is a pretty objective standard in my opinion.

So: a federal government which exists is preferable to no government?

I would agree, just surprised to find you morally extolling the virtues of the current US Federal government.

[williatw]

It's not a function of it's tendency to promote itself, it's a function of it's ABILITY to promote itself.

Okay, you are of course free to assert that: the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its ability to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it. But realise that it is an unprovable assertion (one that few if any moral philosophers would agree with).

It is an assumption we have some evidence against. Consider, most human societies through most of hstory have been (by our standards of morality) highly immoral. By definition moral systems obeying diogenes's rule will tend to predominate.

Of course diogenes may have different standards, and reckon slavery is moral, etc. So perhaps he is consistent?

I think what Diogenes(an others) is saying that the ability of a given set of practices/beliefs to propagate themselves successfully at the expense of others is a more important measure of success than any abstract "proof" of superiority which is probably unobtainable anyway. If the Nazi had won WWII, exterminated the Jews (and all non-whites probably eventually including my ancestors) they have won the argument by any practical definition. I would be dead my family dead etc...whatever argument I would make from the great beyond not withstanding I have lost by any practical definition. The fact that I acknowledge that in no measure is a reflection of my desire to be exterminated, in fact I assure you I have no such desire. If a 100 or so years from now your great grandaughter has to wear a Burka in public in Britain and profess(at least publically) muslim beliefs to avoid being assaulted/raped (women without burkas are whores almost by definition). If various/numerous other indignities like muslim judges who take the word of a muslim over non-muslims being 2nd class citizens in your own country etc. If that comes to past and I very much hope it does not (for reasons practical and emotional) then you have lost the argument about whose belief system is better in a practical if not neccessarily morale/theoretical sense.