Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[binTravkin]

Talk about trying to hide the truth,
Bush has been having peaceful protesters arrested simply for being protesters.

Possibly someone from them said something that our very dear George idiot.. erm W. Bush didn't want to hear..

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by mmontgomery

[...]
The main idea is the notion of specified complexity, whereby we can measure the probability of something (from an ancient artifact to an electronic signal) being from an intelligent source verses being naturally occuring. An interesting example is one professor kicks off this topic by dividing his class in half, and having half of the room flip a coin 500 times and accurately record the results (1 for heads, 0 for tails), and the other half of the room just writes down 500 numbers, trying to achieve what seems to be a random sequence. Then the professor sorts the responses into two piles, random and human generated, with 100% accuracy, based on specified complexity. This stuff is real, and it works.
[...]

This demonstrates the inability of people to spontaneously generate random numbers, not an inherent difference between the natural and the manmade. The manmade "random" numbers are generated with a memory of the numbers previously generated, and with a desire to avoid runs of one outcome. Natural random numbers may exhibit patterns, but in the case of coin flipping, no memory exists, so the only possible discrepancy from true randomness is a lopsided mean.

On that note, biology exhibits a lot of odd phenomena that wouldn't arise if organisms were intelligently designed (or at least wouldn't if I designed them). Who would design an animal to die of fright, for example?

[mmontgomery]

Chaos Theory, you miss the professor's point. Even when humans TRY to seem random, most of the time, the intelligence shows through. Most intelligent actions are not disguised at being random, and we can clearly see when something is of intelligent origin or not. But some things may be affected by random factors (electronic noise, erosion of an artifact) so that the intelligence may be obscured, which is where specified complexity can help provide a meaningful measure.

As for dying of fright, I doubt that this was designed, but may result in situations where the designed response won't work. That is, predator sighted, adrenaline kicks in, tries to run, all reasonable design choices. But the way is blocked, all possible choices seem to lead to death. Perhaps the designer did not consider handling this case worth his while, or he forgot about it.

Just like computers, which often fail to handle various situations. Computers exhibit a lot of odd phenomenon, such as programs crashing the computer. Do you think the designer intended for the program to crash the computer? (Or perhaps the computer is too frightened at what the user/program is wanting to do to continue... )

I think we can only conclude that computers are not a result of intelligent design, but of random processes.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Chaos Theory, you miss the professor's point. Even when humans TRY to seem random, most of the time, the intelligence shows through. Most intelligent actions are not disguised at being random, and we can clearly see when something is of intelligent origin or not. But some things may be affected by random factors (electronic noise, erosion of an artifact) so that the intelligence may be obscured, which is where specified complexity can help provide a meaningful measure.

But can we not design random number generators? If we want to design something that truly appears random, we can do it, and it's not that hard. It's only if we try to be spontaneously random (for example, spout random numbers) that we fail miserably.

As for dying of fright, I doubt that this was designed, but may result in situations where the designed response won't work. That is, predator sighted, adrenaline kicks in, tries to run, all reasonable design choices. But the way is blocked, all possible choices seem to lead to death. Perhaps the designer did not consider handling this case worth his while, or he forgot about it.

Just like computers, which often fail to handle various situations. Computers exhibit a lot of odd phenomenon, such as programs crashing the computer. Do you think the designer intended for the program to crash the computer? (Or perhaps the computer is too frightened at what the user/program is wanting to do to continue... )

I think we can only conclude that computers are not a result of intelligent design, but of random processes.

Well, I could rant about how most computer programs aren't intelligently designed, but that would take a while. In short, most computer programs are very poorly designed. Much of the effort comes after the programs are written, in the form of debugging, which is basically trying to get a program to do what you had in mind for it to do, without designing it that way.

Even when programs are intelligently designed, random things creep in. You forget to use == and use = instead. You neglect a possible buffer overflow. And so on.

Other problems, such as hardware conflicts, are the result of multiple intelligent designs that are independently correct being wrong when taken together. This is a hard problem to solve, best done by minimizing the possible overlap, and thus the possible domain for conflicts. Therefore, computers are the result of both intelligent design and random processes.

Further consider that animals are very much more adaptable than computers. For a computer, failure is a regular occurance. Computers lock up all the time. Animals hardly ever do - dying of fright would be such an example, but that's not a common means of death.

Other oddities about natural things:
Chronic pain, such as an abcessed tooth.
Maternal mortality - death while giving birth. Kind of defeats the point.
Atrophy of helpful, but not obligatory, traits. For example, the synthesis of proteins and vitamins is guided by genes. Many creatures, though they once had some of these genes, lost the ability when they could obtain these substances by eating.
etc

[livid imp]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Actually, quite the opposite. The bible is largely banned from schools, including genesis. A gross misreading of the 1st amendment is responsible for this.

Exactly how is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" a gross misreading? That means no religion in government venues, period. Not only should we not have Creationism taught in public schools, but it is unconstitutional to have "in god we trust" on our money, or prayer to open congress, or "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Pray all you want at home, at church, or even pray to yourself when you get to school in the morning. No one is trying to stop your religious beliefs. All the we ask is that you not push it on others like a cheap narcotic.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Meanwhile, Darwin is taught uncritically, as though it were a proven fact, instead of a theory with rather shaky support (from fossils and biology).

How exactly does one prove, beyond all doubt, a non-mathematical theory? Fossils and biology sound about as good as you can get when you are talking about billions of years in the past.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
I am not in favor of genesis being taught as science, but I think kids should be familiar with the account. (I mean if we learn myths about the earth being suspended on Atlas's shoulders, an educated person should know of the genesis account as well.)

We learn about Greek and Roman religions because they are dead religions. When Christianity dies off in a few decades, then it can be taught in public schools as the silly myth it is. Until then, if you want to explore living religions, take a course down at your local college. Why is it necessary to push it on school kids? Get 'em hooked while they are young? No wonder the right wingers support the tobacco industry.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
An alternative theory that is gaining support is intelligent design.

Intelligent design = Darwinism + Creationism = Apologetics

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Some people say this is just repackaged creationism,

'nuff said.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
but it is not. It is a branch of information theory, and applies to more than just origins. The main idea is the notion of specified complexity, whereby we can measure the probability of something (from an ancient artifact to an electronic signal) being from an intelligent source verses being naturally occurring. An interesting example is one professor kicks off this topic by dividing his class in half, and having half of the room flip a coin 500 times and accurately record the results (1 for heads, 0 for tails), and the other half of the room just writes down 500 numbers, trying to achieve what seems to be a random sequence. Then the professor sorts the responses into two piles, random and human generated, with 100% accuracy, based on specified complexity. This stuff is real, and it works.

Because of the growing influence of intelligent design, many Darwin apologists have written books about why features that seem to be design, in fact could have come about by random mutation and selection. Frankly, some of the explanations seem rather farfetched, and would take a lot of "faith in evolution" to believe.

This is all just a way to market Theism to technological folks. Making Theism look more like a system, and less like a tyrannical, hypocritical, super being.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
My view is that we don't have nearly enough evidence to understand how life came about, but that evolution certainly has not been established as a fact.

Of course the Theory of Evolution is not a fact.....that is why they call it a theory. That is one of the beauties of science over religion. Science is willing to accept that we don't, and indeed may never, know the all the answers. All that is important is that we put forth our best estimation. Science doesn't even bother to rule out the existence of a super being (the cosmic muffin, if you will ) Science is in pure pursuit of knowledge, with no hang ups. People frequently have commit mass murder in the name of religion, when was the last time you heard of two scientists slugging it out over a theory?

Originally posted by mmontgomery
(I speak of macro evolution, or evolution of species here. Micro-evolution, or genetics, is certainly well established, but this only explains variations within a species, not how all species could evolve from a single species.)

There is no such difference. The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time. Otherwise it is the same process.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Few serious scientists still believe in Darwin's version evolution, but as scientific evidence punches holes in the theory, new theories of evolution arise to try to account for the new evidence.

Ok, now you are just making stuff up. Where is your evidence for "Few serious scientists still believe in Darwin's version evolution"?

What I really don't understand is why theists have any problems with Darwin in the first place. The Theory of Evolution is 100% compatible with religion. There is no reason not to believe that GodTM didn't set things in motion through evolutionary processes. The only thing the theory tramples on is the 'God made everything in seven days' mantra, which basic geology, and astronomy already conclude must be wrong.

The Theory of Evolution should be taught in public schools because it is the best guess we have and, more importantly, it is not a religion! There will be no collection plate coming around so that we can go push the Theory of Evolution on poor folks in 3rd world nations. It wont define morality. It wont provide a ticket to heaven. You can't complain why The Theory of Evolution is taught in public schools and Creationism is not because they apples and oranges. You can't bundle them together, you can't pit them against one another.

I'm sorry to be so nasty and incendiary in this post, but I am just tried of pu$$y liberals not sticking up for themselves (I actually consider myself 'left of center' as they say, as I am conservative on certain issues). While I know this wave of conservatism sweeping the country is wrong, but I am willing to admit that the liberals are getting the sh!t kicked outta them in the public opinion arena because they have no backbone. They just aren't willing to jump in the mud, and start slugging it out. Well I am, bring it on.

[barukkhazad]

Got me thinking, S.E. choices are down to priorities, some pretty obvious, others open to argument:

Police State: obedience (using force)
Democracy: the majority
Fundamentalism: scripture
Free market: the market
Planned: the people
Green: the planet
Power: military strength
Knowledge: technological strength
Wealth: financial strength
Cybernetic: self-improvement (mechanical)
Eudaimonia: self-improvement (realising potential)
Thought-control: obedience (using technology)

[livid imp]

Good going, now we are back on-topic.

Originally posted by barukkhazad
Police State: obedience (using force)
.....
Fundamentalism: scripture

I actually see Police State the same way I see a Monarchy, so more of a rule by the super-minority.

And Fundamentalism doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature. I see Nationalism as a form of Fundamentalism. Any sort of fanaticism is Fundamentalism in a governmental form.

The fanatical way the US has pursued terrorism to a point of denying civil liberties to its citizens is Fundamentalism in its most basic form. The irony.....

[Flubber]

Personally I would be torn between wanting wealth and knowledge

[smacksim]

livid, while I generally agree with your opinions, this one...

quote:
Originally posted by mmontgomery
(I speak of macro evolution, or evolution of species here. Micro-evolution, or genetics, is certainly well established, but this only explains variations within a species, not how all species could evolve from a single species.)

Originally posted by livid imp
There is no such difference. The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time. Otherwise it is the same process.

I would have to disagree with. Genetics and Natural Selection are very different. There is a lot more to Natural Selection (caps because it's an accepted theory. Accepted in the mathematical sense of not being un-provable, and quite useful) than adding time to genetics. There are reproductive isolating mechanisms (the 7 RIMS), sexual selection, competition, and a bazillion other details....

As to the sparking question: Yes there is a backlash against teaching religion in school, but the more powerful backlash is against not teaching Creationism or it's sneaky relatives alongside Evolution by Natural Selection (as opposed to Lamark or others) in public science classrooms . I have no problem discussing the cultural phenomenon of adherance to Creationism in the Social Studies classroom, but it does not belong in the science classroom at all.

The religious right goes absolutely bannanas every time someone requests that they not hang the 10 commandments in the school lobby, or refuse to go to a class where the pledge of (religious) allegiance is spoken daily. The science teachers quit their jobs because they cannot teach science without the meddling of the PTA who want there to be a really large helping of Creationism in everything. It's really bizzarre that this is still going on, 40 years after the trials r/e teaching evolution.

So, the European perception that Americans are religious nuts is somewhat accurate. We are, on average, more religious, compared to the anti-religiousness in Europe right now. Granted, the beliefs amongst the intellectuals are strongly aligned with Europe, but the bulk/hulk/sulk of the US is conservative on this issue.

I'm too sleep deprived to give a response to mmontgomery's post. I will say that reading Genesis is fun. It isn't really that hot a story for providing a psychologically meaningful modern myth, but its not horrible. It's only 30 pages or so I think. The best re-interpretation from a crazy (but good) liberal and modern point of view is to be found in one of the Ishmael books, a book I avoided for some years but have grown to like...maybe the second in the series? I'll see if I can find a better link than this

chopped up summary to be found here in the Eden section and Cain and Abel

[barukkhazad]

Originally posted by livid imp

I actually see Police State the same way I see a Monarchy, so more of a rule by the super-minority.

And Fundamentalism doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature. I see Nationalism as a form of Fundamentalism. Any sort of fanaticism is Fundamentalism in a governmental form.

Police State could perhaps be the counterpart to Despotism in the Civ games. The only priority is to stay in power, whatever the cost..

Fundamentalism can be political or idealogical, I agree. The concept of sticking to your guns, no matter what. The priority would be: dogma.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by smacksim
I would have to disagree with. Genetics and Natural Selection are very different. .... than adding time to genetics. There are reproductive isolating mechanisms (the 7 RIMS), sexual selection, competition, and a bazillion other details....

You are right. I over-simplfied the issue. I really hate it when people do that, so I retract my statement.

Originally posted by smacksim
I have no problem discussing the cultural phenomenon of adherance to Creationism in the Social Studies classroom, but it does not belong in the science classroom at all.

Bingo! My sentiments exactly. I have no problem with religious studies or social studies involving religious cultures. I do have a problem with those who wish to evangelize with my tax dollars. There is no reason to get into details of a religion in a public school, other than indoctrination. That is what churches are for.

Originally posted by smacksim
The religious right goes absolutely bannanas every time someone requests that they not hang the 10 commandments in the school lobby, or refuse to go to a class where the pledge of (religious) allegiance is spoken daily.

What cracks me up the most about this insistance for religious iconography is that has to be Christian. These same people would be dead set against posting passages from the Quor'an in a courthouse. Some of the more nutty Christians (redundant, I know ) have insisted that schools remove halloween decorations because halloween it's "Satans holiday".

Originally posted by smacksim
So, the European perception that Americans are religious nuts is somewhat accurate.

The number of truely crazed religious folk (The Morale Majority, or Religious Right as they are called now) is not terribly large, but 50%-60% of Americans sympathize with, or are brow-beat by, this fundamentalist minority to such an extent that America appears much more manical than it is.

Originally posted by smacksim
We are, on average, more religious, compared to the anti-religiousness in Europe right now. Granted, the beliefs amongst the intellectuals are strongly aligned with Europe, but the bulk/hulk/sulk of the US is conservative on this issue.

I wouldn't use the term "anti-religiousness". That implies that Europe is against religion, which I don't think they are. Europeans have simply matured as a culture and as such have abondoned the need for divine explaination of their lives. In short, they no longer feel the need to sling sh!t everytime the ground shakes under them.

[Quezacotl06]

THis seems liek a good place to put it so I'm going to. I've been looking at the alphax file, and I sort of came of up with my own se settings. It's very preliminary, but I'd like some opinions.

Controls (How u control your people)
Mixed--none
Militaristic-- +3Police, -1Econ -1Effic
Altruistic-- +3Effic, -1Moral -1Police
Propaganda-- +3Probe, -1Ind -1Res

Infrastructure (How your resources are mobilized)
Nessesity--none
Commercial-- +2Effic, +1 Econ, -2Supt
Industrial-- +2Supt +1Ind, -2Effic
Expansion-- +4Growth, -2 Planet

Values (Needs no explaination)
Survival--none
Meritocracy-- +1Econ +2Res, -Supt
Social Welfare-- +2Growth +1Ind -Econ
Environmental-- +2Moral +1Planet, -2Growth

Culture (Needs no explaination)
Organic-none
Neo-Aquarian-- +3Res +2Planet +2Probe, -3Growth
Trans-National-- +2Econ +2Effic +2Growth, -3Supt
Xenophobic-- +3Supt +2Moral +2Ind, -3Effic

Any comments/crits?

[girlfight_club]

Originally posted by livid imp
Like him or not, it is good to have a dissenting view point....nothing could be more American than a rebellious spirit. I agree with smacksim, if someone is trying to cover up some literature or movie, the better the chance it has something relevant and insightful to say. There is no reason to cover up outright lies, they'll be discovered eventually. People try to cover up ugly truths.

 
Now I think I read something like this in a history book somewhere...

Oh yeah--
 

Originally posted by Commissioner Pravin Lal
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

 
GFC
 

[#endgame]

Post in AC-Creation, I don't think anyone noticed. There we will be happy to help.

I like the categories, but are we talking Xeno as in Xenofungus and fear of the native life or as in fear of other human factions? If it's the former, it should probably have a planet penalty.

[ArcLight]

Having just read all six pages, i felt i must make a contribution......
Hopefully some of you will take it heart.