08/02/2007 Those That Do Not Learn...

08/02/2007 Those That Do Not Learn...

From History are blah blah blah. But those who do are bound for the same destiny. Think about it; aren't we repeating history in Iraq? We tried this government-building in the 60s and 70s in Iran and Afghanistan; didn't work. It all depends, you see, on what you learn.

Let's take this to a personal level to de-politicize it. I once had a co-worker who told me that when she was younger she had a chance to go to Paris, but passed it up to be with her future husband. “If I knew then what I know now, I would have gone.” Months later, she announced that they were divorcing.

So let's take a look at this. This women felt that she had learned from her own history. But let's say things worked out differently. Let's say she had gone to Paris and left her husband behind. Would she always regret leaving behind the man that could have been the great love of her life? Would she forever blame any unhappiness on the selfish act of going to Paris and leaving love behind? If she had left this man behind, would she ever have learned that he wasn't really worth the sacrifice? In the realm of the unknown, anything is possible. To the romantic eye, that which comes from the unknown can only be perfect.

And in a pluralistic society, what is there to learn, when no truth is agreed upon? Neo-conservatives hail Bush's strength and moral certainty, liberals rail at his obliviousness, lack of knowledge. Democrats point to Vietnam, even as Republicans try to reinvent that war as a success. What do we learn? Russia has given up trying to make free enterprise and democracy work. Conservative economists wag fingers at Putin, why don't they learn from the United States? but Russia fires back; we have. They tried for over a decade to make democracy work, and it didn't. Putin is taking control of government? There was widespread corruption. What is the current President trying to do about corruption in this country? Trying to hide his own, and those of his cabinet. Putin is taking control of the press? Should he learn from us, where our press in slightly more costly than “free”? What are we learning from our obesity? From the crime rate, higher than most other rich countries? Tabbing oneself the world's role model is not much incentive to learn, is it?

In that context I would suggest that what is best for the country might be to re-elect the Republicans to power. Only if there is no one else to blame for a long time can we ever be expected to learn anything. Make no mistake, our President's policies are a repetition of the past. He is doing the same thing in Iraq that we tried to do in Iran. His economic policies are fashioned after Reagan. What did we feel that we had learned from “trickle down economics” when Clinton was elected? Here, we are cutting taxes again (though I find it unforgivable to raise taxes on the poor via the weakening of the earned income tax credit) and building up a debt. Isn't that what got his father sent home? If we are ever to learn our lesson about Reaganomics, we need to see this through. If the Democrats are in power after 2008, then the republicans will always claim that they would have made the necessary cuts to address the debt, blaming their problems on the democrats. Nothing will be learned. If the democrats pull out of Iraq and disaster ensues, as it almost certainly will, republicans will blame the democrats for the entire disaster. Nothing will be learned.

Two things have to happen in order for this country to learn from this time in history. First, it must be a republican who gives the order to pull out of Iraq. Second, it must be a republican who deals with the debt that the current president has created. As the debt continues to pile up, as the bills from the war on terror come in and the higher costs of health care push Medicaid and Medicare higher and higher, this is not going to be easy. The most important thing that could come out of the next election, which is approaching the Superbowl in entertainment value for the masses, is a solid idea of the direction we need to take in the country. It is imperative that the war on terror be sharply defined. What are we doing right, what are we doing wrong. What do we need more of, what effort can we save. With both sides finding their own new spin every day, it's hard; but events must not be allowed to be ambiguous.

07/28/2007 God As A Panel Of Celebrity Judges

07/28/2007 God As A Panel Of Celebrity Judges

Moving into the another Presidential campaign, the subjects of religion come, once again, to the forefront. As a mormon tries to win the nomination from the Christian party, and as they and we grapple over who most has the concepts of universal justice in mind, or whether or not our attempts to subvert racism are in line with our humanist values, the debate remains maddeningly superficial. With our outgoing President being one who fits staunchly into the category of “religious conservative” and our future seemingly wide open, thought must be given to our own values; where they do lead us, and whether or not we are being congruent with them.

I have heard many say, “If Jesus were on earth today, they'd put him in jail.” I rather believe he wouldn't be such a threat. After all, preaching today in the desert or on the street makes you just one of the many voices who no one listens to. Getting into the mainstream media costs money, and preaching that we “turn the other cheek” and that “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is not exactly what that is about. Today's prophets are propped up with corporate funding; and no one who preaches peace, or suffering poverty to get into heaven, or self denial as a way of getting in touch with God as the ancient Christians did, is making anyone any dollars.

But while conservatives try to push their religion on us and liberals ignore the benefits of religion, does anyone realize that we are already living the totalitarian dream of a national religion?

All Bow

The first amendment's conceit, “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion”, is gone. Bush has seen to that, though he isn't alone. The fact that so many of the people on the right see the constitution as the Bible's appendix lets us know exactly how much respect our Constitution really commands. What's actually written on it is the stuff of trivia now, as is the “Sermon On The Mount.” But the right is not without it's thought, creativity, or merit.

Family Values Expressed On A Spreadsheet

When religious conservatives tell us that America is losing the values that made it great, they generally mean “family.” So family is a good place to start. Now, the subject of family and what conservatives really mean when they say family values, is no narrow subject. But in the line of understanding our national religion, it becomes rather enlightening. The original Christian concept of the family was conceived as somewhat of a compromise, you see. Though it's hard to find anyone admitting it today, the ancient Christians were unabashedly asceticist. That is, weaken the body (through starvation, deprivation of pleasure, of sex, of everything), strengthen the spirit. That's almost unconscionable to us today, but would we have an obesity epidemic if we embraced asceticism? Of course, we wouldn't have 25% of the world's economy, either.

Animals Who Pray

But the asceticist church decided that the majority of people (most of whom were slaves at the time; illiterate) were too animalistic to live the holy life that God wanted for us: the celibate life. So as a compromise, the church asked the people to marry, and dedicate their sex life to one person, in the context of raising a family, and as a means of keeping one's desires under control. This thought predates the idea of romantic love by many centuries. You were, of course, meant to “love” your wife. But not romantic love. The kind of love that you have for anyone, even “thine enemies”.

So fast forward to the present. The church has compromised again, and not just with the humanists. The idea of romantic love is now commonly accepted as the main reason people marry. This seems innocent enough, but actually is the root of a lot of the trouble. You see, by abandoning the idea that marriage was a way to get closer to God by reigning in one's desires, and to control the uncontrollable human sex drive to make society a more peaceful, orderly place, the church abandoned the value behind marriage. By abandoning that value, the dogma of marriage became an empty practice. If marriage is about romantic love, then why not marry another man? Or your sister? If they are your soulmate, then why not? And those that argue against the idea of marrying for romantic love, what do they have to say to us today? If the church accepts the idea of romantic love, then how do we ever recover the values that made the dogma alive?

The Skeleton Church

And marriage and family is not the only place that the church has been forced to abandon it's values. Where would our economy be if we practiced self-denial? If we didn't have Christmas? If we turned the other cheek in Iraq? If we didn't allow divorce? What is the engine that drives capitalism if we accept our lot in life as a means of getting to heaven? If denial of our urges leads to a closer relationship to God, how do we justify those cellphone bills? Internet porn? Our obsession with Paris Hilton? Our addiction to iced lattes?

Values Of The New Church

Yet while the Christian right has lost the values that fuel it's dogma- the old, now empty, tenants remain. And for a reason. They are the now tenants of capitalism. Why, if Jesus said, “turn the other cheek”, would anyone try to call themselves Christian if they support the war in Iraq? Especially given how conservatives so often equate opposing the war with insanity? The answer is, first, that humanism has scored a huge, decisive victory over Christianity. Even Christians believe in humanist values over the church's. The second part is that Humanism itself has been subjugated by capitalism. Our values must be in line with our values. The latter referring, of course, to monetary value. Capitalism, for all it's romance about rewarding innovation, has yet to find it's own words. Instead, it uses the values of the past. Or, some of them, anyway. So “humanism” is a capitalist value, the same way Christians think that the constitution is a Christian value. And where humanism doesn't benefit capitalism, it is disposed of. Ditto Christianity.

The reason Christianity still exists is that it's hard to develop enough irrational fervor whilst adhering to a philosophy rather than a religion. So the Christians, who name themselves for allegiance to the man who, again, said to turn the other cheek, charge into Iraq with the passion of men whose fears have been spiked. The new Christs are the talk show hosts, politicians, bloggers, propped up by the contributions of billionaires who stand to gain more market cap by investing in this piece of the media. It's unlikely Bush or Rush would have gotten humanists to go into Iraq by telling them that Muslims are out to get them. So religion still exists; it is a powerful tool of control, and of profit.

Corruption Isn't Just For Breakfast

As the new prophets are bought and paid for, the humanist concept of objectivity is also lost. Our outgoing leaders are still on corporate payrolls; as corruption at the local levels are common and accepted.

The new test of truth is exploit-ability. We go to school now to gain skills, not knowledge. The Greek's belief that knowledge should be free to all so that we can fulfill all human potential is considered nakedly illegal if not immoral (just watch the beginning of any DVD). Karl Marx may have been wrong when he said that all history has been about class struggle, but he was right when he said that the bourgeoisie “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous `cash payment'”.

With our national religion turned into just a name we rally around, the crucifix just another flag, it is now safe for business to support. Here, nationalism, then, can sleep soundly next to Christianity, and even have a mutually beneficial and gleefully incestuous relationship. Stripped of it's values, Christianity becomes something to be exploited, and thus can enter the realm of modern truth along with pornography, HDTVs, software, Ipods, antidepressants, celebutants, blogs, Reality TV, fast food, and gourmet coffee. The fine art of Bread And Circuses, finally perfected to a point where it encompasses all we see, including our own deception.

Morality As A Commodity

And with our morals now baseless conclusions founded more on feeling than the rational thought of the humanists, morals also become exploitables. All over the place is judgment. Talk radio presents it's host's paid for judgments of the news of the day. Dumb criminals, celebrity politics, liberals, get skewered. Reality TV gives us a panel of judges, telling the participants how to be a better supermodel. Happily, it's never us being judged. But at least we have some sort of authority telling us what is right. Don't we?

And as our immoral neighboring countries who don't care about freedom crack down on government and media corruption, our own government reveals it's own corruption both by being discovered and blatantly hiding that which hasn't been. As the circus plays on, as the government and the businesses that own them conceive of new ways to extract more money out of a nation in debt to it's eyeballs, can we ever begin to think again about the concept of universal justice outside of using the concept to inspire fear and racial hatred? Or the idea of fulfilling human potential outside of maximizing value and efficiency? Or just plain being freaking happy? Is this the world God intended? Did God really create the world to obscure himself?

A “Christian nation”, where the weak are left behind?

07/23/2007 Dogs And Dawgs

07/23/2007 Dogs And Dawgs

Listening to the radio on the way to work on Friday, the announcers were running down the list of accusations leveled at popular athlete Michael Vick. They are reading from a 19 page document innocently released by the police detailing the charges against Vick.

The charges are gruesome and don't need to be recounted in full here. But I would point out that one of the announcers stupidly said that Vick would have been better off if he were accused of Human Fighting. When I remind all of you that a couple of the charges included having a “rape stand” for breeding the animals and killing the ones that don't measure up in the ring by slamming them to the pavement, I know you'll understand that if he were doing this to humans then it would be a historic disaster on the level of the Holocaust. Further, the announcers were incredulous when callers began to point out the similarities between this case and the recent case involving the Duke University Lacrosse players, who were accused of rape and promptly convicted in the media, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence. None of the grotesque stories they read off indicate any special evidence that Vick was guilty.

Then at work, as I'm running machines, I'm reading an article in Newsweek about the other side of the world. In the article, “Where Radicals Call The Shots” in the July 16^th issue of US News And World Report, Philip Smucker writes:

“In town, you will not find Hollywood or Bollywood thrillers for sale, but vendors hawk DVDs, mostly al Qaeda productions, showing the beheadings of traitors.”

Isn't that nice, to know the two sides of the world are so alike? In the west, we present spectacle in the form of words, justified by moral judgement. In the Middle East, it's to present the consequences of betraying an organization that fights the perceived oppression of the West. In both cases, people crave spectacle. And in both cases, the spectacle has to be presented in a way that is congruent with the values of the culture. Mr. Smucker does not tell us what is in the adults section of these vendor's operations (one must think that Paris Hilton is alive and well there), so one begins to wonder why al Qaeda decided to upgrade to DVD from VHS in the first place. But the whole thing is a good demonstration of my comparison between saying you're right and the other guy is wrong and saying you don't have an accent.

Here in the West, we do like to use words to present the worst of our images. In order to Jive with our values, we must either use words or present the spectacle as fiction. Also, we often bring up these words in the context of making a moral judgement. In the Middle East, it is enough to hamper the quest for freedom against the west. But in both cases, the need for spectacle persists. It just takes different forms. Perhaps that's how we can forgive our dim friends in front of the mics. We will never stop craving spectacle; if they don't give it to us, we'll find someone who will. They really couldn't be expected to learn from the past, they are prisoners of the present needs of the audience. What moral dilemmas exist in Pakistan I cannot say, but I hope that there are some who object to gaining pleasure from the brutal murders of others, as well as some idea that this is not what God, or Allah, ever wanted for us.

07/18/2007 Is God An Addiction?

07/18/2007 Is God An Addiction?

Think of a person, any person. Your mother. Your best friend. Your dog. The true love of your life. When you thought of these people, what image flashed through your mind?

In the past, I have taken vows of non-masturbation. At other times, I'm glad I'm able to do it. When I do, I often search the internet for pictures of beautiful women that I can fantasize about.

One day I was looking at a picture of Martina Hingis, the tennis player. I have always thought that she had the such a pretty face. When I had enough pictures of her, I just signed off the internet and had my viewing program display a slideshow. I had pictures of her face, of her rear end, of her playing tennis and lots modeling. But at the end, I stopped on a picture of her face.

What made this day different than most others is that during the orgasm I kept my eyes open. As the pleasure built, my vision heightened. I stared at her face as ecstasy began to overtake me. As I was looking into her face, it became more than a face to me. All of me disappeared, and Martina was looking back at me from a divine plane; with a beauty that I was not otherwise able to perceive. Her beauty was a great presence that I could only begin to see, but I could feel it throughout my entire body. As the pleasure overtook me, I reached out my hand to touch the screen in reverence, more concerned with it than the pleasure I was giving myself. I have never been so gracefully lost.

My point here is, we think of each other as faces. When you think of someone, you think of them as their face. The face is the identity. If someone shows you a picture of your mother's hand, and asks you what is that, you'll say, “my mother's hand.” But if someone shows you her face, you'll say, “That's my mother.”

though masturbation, I guess, should be though of as one hand clapping (or perhaps one hand “slapping”), we have to understand it not as a lower urge but a higher one. It is a deeper form of prayer, and indeed a subset of meditation. At no time does one see the divinity of the real world so clearly as during orgasm. During that marriage of the male and female halves of the world, the reflection in the divine mirror shows us nothing superficial. This act does not deserve the derision of Christians, nor does the saying, “beauty's only skin deep” signify anything but a lack of soul. The beauty of those we mate with is central to our spiritual life, no less so for the pain those of us feel who do not possess it.

07/13/2007 On Race

07/13/2007 On Race

The other day I am watching a democratic debate where the subjects are being asked about race relations. As the democrats fall all over themselves to pander to the growing minority voting block, I was alarmed to note that I had no opinion on the matter myself. So I thought about it.

First, let's not mince words. Racism still exists, and still plays a central role in the way we live our lives. Even many conservatives agree with this. It's true that racism in itself does not justify action anymore in the sense that Lincoln felt justified in trying to send all the slaves back to Africa. But there is a lot of racist action in our society that is not justified but rationalized. Radio stations, for example, play songs by artists who are the race and gender, if not the age, of their target audience; this robs artists of other races of opportunity. Police routinely profile by race, and we select mates often based on race, gender and age. Our political system features two parties: one designed for the sole purpose of channeling money and power towards one race, gender and age group (republican) and one that serves only the purpose of opposing the first (democrat). With the republicans operating for the benefit of one race above all others, our political system is therefore a racist battle. With America still trying to live down it's past, the party of the white male has expanded to include radio stations and cable channels that attempt, and often succeed, in setting the rhetoric for the public discourse. Meanwhile, racial minorities who are angered by their treatment of the past point out that no one has ever paid for being a slave owner or putting Japanese into camps during WWII.

And all of that, is, of course, illusion. Like the “Turn” in magic, we are not really looking to see past this act. While Gore was kept from the White House after being elected in 2000, Americans proved they would rather go back to their cell phones and video games than have to fight their government for their freedom. Excess leads to passivity and we are there, my friends. The current public circus is designed to make the citizens feel satisfied to listen to their political pundit tell them they're right and (maybe) vote, paying no attention to the consequences other than to insist that the country is better off for their having voted.

But tell me, what did 8 years of Clinton do to promote “racial equality” in America? Poet Maya Angelou called him an “honorary Black Man.” How were black people better off for Clinton? His main accomplishments were NAFTA, GATT, getting people off welfare, reducing the budget deficit. How does that help black people? The “V” chip? And for that matter, how has George W Bush helped white people? Granted, he didn't do much for black people during Katrina. But that's pretty thin. Are we saying that we have to elect a democrat because if one of the greatest disasters in history happens then a republican will let people die? Katrina was a blunder that most presidents wouldn't have allowed to happen on either side of the aisle. But after 8 years of “W”, aren't white conservatives more convinced than ever that the forces of political correctness are stacking the deck against them? Meanwhile, the Republican congress set a record for pork barrel spending and have brought a $128 Billion Dollar Surplus into Trillions worth of debt. After that crap blaming the Dems for raising taxes is like saying I-flicked-the-switch-but-I-am-not-responsible-for-the-light-going-on.

Bush's plan to help defray the cost of health insurance was sure to draw the ire of the insurance industry, had anyone taken it seriously. And after years of deregulation, the Bush administration had to come down hard on Enron, tying companies up in millions of dollars of Red Tape just to make an IPO in this country. When we really look behind the rhetoric to action, who really stands for anything at all? No one.

So what, then, of racial relations in America? An afterthought. A misdirection. As so many black people feel that Bush and the government is plotting to exterminate them, the white people are equally convinced that Hollywood and the politically correct Democrats are doing the same to them.

What is the answer, then? How to achieve equal opportunity in this atmosphere? The answer is not a simple one. When one group of people do wrong to another, the former never choose to hold themselves responsible. It is on black people to hold white people responsible for the past; that's not right, but it's reality. But that's unlikely to happen, because the anger they hold is based as much on fear as the past. The proof of this is that whenever that anger comes out, it usually is aimed at someone of the same race. With no one to hold white people responsible, there is no one to keep them from being exploited by opportunists who tell them that their lives are hard, not because their values or outlook need changing, but because they aren't being given a fair deal.

So with this quagmire firmly established, can America ever accommodate racial equality? And if we ever have it, will we know it? The answer to the latter question is certainly not. The masses will be exploited by someone stoking their anger by preying on their self-interest and justifying their fears and desires. Our pundits need only adhere to the minimal requirements of social proof and collect their checks. That's why so many of those in public life are dullards.

But then, how do we move towards racial equality? Do we really want to? While conservatives tout capitalism and free enterprise as rewarding innovation and hard work, social networking remains an essential skill in increasing income. Furthermore, most people are content to live the “normal” life, that of having a family and raising children. Most people play it safe, going for a good job and trying to keep it. Few of us take chances and use our full creativity in founding new sources of income. This tendency means that equal effort, or lack thereof, on the part of both races will not move us closer to equality but rather exaggerate whatever advantage already exists.

The humanist's ideal is that the person who can best do the job should be given the job. But isn't part of a job getting along with your employees? If you are perceived differently because of your race, and you are, then doesn't that basically mean that race plays a role in determining how well you do your job, regardless of how many widgets you produce?

So a government in America then faces the challenge of pursuing a goal that is ethical but defined differently according to race, class and political affiliation, and may not have anything in our “shared reality” that can be used to unite the warring ideas. Government has no choice but to pursue this goal because it is ethical, yet the only course of action is to “rob Peter to pay Paul”, always serving one and alienating others.

Since all of this is just a function of imagination, the only progress towards our goal as a nation can be to tear down much of the mental framework surrounding it. That doesn't mean trying to prevent people from believing and acting in their own best interest; that is natural and overall even healthy. No, what that means, first and foremost, is the myth of education.

It seems that in all quarters, people think that education will solve our troubles. That is despite the fact that we are more educated than ever and our troubles are as bad as they have been in decades, especially in matters of race. Education will not uplift us out of poverty, and may in fact make the situation worse. Higher education today is largely a function of racism in itself. While the concept of education being central to the humanist's belief in knowledge being available to the masses and necessary for a functional democracy, today's education only thinly justifies itself in those terms. No, today's education is primarily a way of shifting responsibility for job training off of corporations and employers in general and onto the individual. A degree generally entails plenty of time and effort aimed at classes and activities that have nothing to do with the job being offered. One who attends a trade school may have put in more time and gathered more knowledge and experience towards the job, yet he will see fewer options and command less pay. There is no question as to why that is: the performance is not what is important but the social status that the degree indicates. Most graduates come from higher income families. The higher the degree, the more likely you are to sift out people on the basis of income and race. Putting more emphasis on trade schools will bring job skills to more people, which is counter to the point. And the rising costs of tuition helps this process along nicely.

No, racism is not ignorance. Our blood may all be the same, but the color of our skin is not the only factor determined by race. Racial differences extend to other factors such as facial features, hormone levels, susceptibility to certain diseases. And try as they may, behaviorists consistently find a racial hierarchy in educational achievement no matter how they try to adjust for racism. Perhaps racism cannot be measured. But as the tenants of behaviorism begin to fall and as we become more and more aware that people tend to cling to that knowledge which supports preexisting ideas, and we realize that education is no cure-all for race troubles in America. It's precisely the opposite.

While the conservatives view of race involves the dominant race being so despite the obstacle of racism is so wrong as to be cartoonish, they are correct in thinking that hopelessness is largely responsible for poverty. Many who blame their social status on their race, even in part, are being exploited by liberals who base a large part of their agendas on racial rhetoric, only to do nothing once in office. And much of that rhetoric centers on education as I have previously addressed.

Only by realizing that the largest part of overcoming racial prejudice in America is the ability to network with successful can we begin the process. Not with government do we see justice in this country. With more government involvement, the stakes are raised in the public rhetoric regarding both public policy and morals. In other words, if government intervention remains the sole instrument of balancing the racial scales, then people will have incentive to cloud the waters in politics in order to achieve positions of power and fan the flames of racism. In other words, the country is too “united” to allow a change of ethics from that which we are being dictated by those with professional agendas, national exposure, and ability to exploit our fears.

I would add that Newt Gingrich's idea that we send the National Guard into the inner cities to carry people out and place them elsewhere is a good idea. It seems cruel to us, but the attachment that a lot of people feel to neighborhoods and cities in which one's friends are dying by the day has to be compared somewhat to Stockholm Syndrome. It seems cruel and many would say it places the blame where it doesn't belong. But it's likely the only way things will ever change.

But with our federal government being more concerned with money and power than justice, we can never really have order. And the truth is that we miss the brutal justice dispensed by the tyrants of old. For the real problem here is moral, not financial. Those that are wronged by people who are more powerful than themselves often simply have to live with it. That is the tension between reality and the expectation of universal justice that originates with the advent of monotheism. It seems like ever since the hebrews invented God, we have been dealing with his absence. To those of you who believe in a compassionate God, and feel that his presence pervades our world, I ask: look around. Does the feeling of his presence really compare to the overwhelming pervasion of his absence?

07/14/2007 The Turing Apocolypse

07/14/2007 The Turing Apocolypse

I have come to the conclusion that you can't judge someone for their politics. That's not just some sort of liberal-pansyist plea for tolerance, but rather a hard won bit of knowledge that comes from realizing my own failings. To make a long story short, we all learn our politics when we are young, then spend the rest of our lives gathering evidence in our own favor. That's just a fact. We are all pleasure seekers. We all seek the pleasure of being told we are right. And we all seek the safety of our own expectations. So we all live within our own set of assumptions. True self-knowledge of this kind is strictly given on a need-to-know basis.

But it still makes me mad to read about Alan Turing. Turing lived not too long ago, 1912-1954. They at least allowed him to live to be 41. Alan Turing was a great mathematician who played an integral role in inventing the computer.

At 14 he was so determined to get to school that he once biked over 60 miles to get to his class. At 14, I wouldn't even have driven to the next town. The only reason I ever showed up for class was that I was afraid to get caught skipping.

But Turing was a Homosexual and that's a no-no, isn't it? Bad boy. He was injected with hormones to reduce his sex-drive and grew breasts. He lost his job with the navy and killed himself. Fun bit of unjust justice for all the homophobes out there.

Turing was one of the first advocates for the possibility that there could be an artificial intelligence that could think just like a human being. This doesn't seem as far-fetched today as in the past, when only God could build a tree.

Now, imagine it. Artificial intelligence; the ability to create a consciousness from the ground up. That's the same, I would say, as creating the world from the ground up. Imagine if you could see the world without the encumbrance of instinct, of personal needs or desires. To see the world as the Buddhists want to see it. But let me put it another way...

What if you could see God for who he really is? What if you could hear God tell you he doesn't exist? Would you open your eyes? When you look around you at the world God created, does it seem to indicate that God is as compassionate as you want him to be? Will God appear to you as a kindly old man like Ronald Reagan? What if God is not what you expect him to be; what you need him to be?

Suppose we could see the world as it really is. Suppose we build an intelligence that can see the world without our paradigms. What would this thing do without a goal? What would it see? If you could take every belief you have and pinpoint a memory that leads to it, and erase it, what would you be? Then, if you could see the world that way, what would you take from it? Would any idea of the world automatically lead to mathematics? Would artificial intelligence use logic to defeat itself and declare it irrelevant? Would it become a pleasure seeker? Would it believe in God? In love? What would it say about humans?

If justice was a natural part of the universe and not a human invention, then what would artificial intelligence, or God, say we owe for Alan Turing?