Jim

I want to live in a country where people are free to burn the flag.

We've debated the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program in other threads. I am more than satisfied that there is a good faith basis in the administration's legal position. What simple checks and balances are you talking about? Bush's position is that he was elected president and as commander of chief he is entitled in a time of war (declared or not) to take certain actions. For example, he is entitled to hold enemy combatants and monitor their communications into the country. You are assuming this issue is iron clad which it is not. I've not researched this issue; however, this is a tension envisioned, indeed relied upon, by the framers of the Constitution. If Congress doesn't like it they can go to the Courts. I have to laugh when I read about all of the Constitutional crises Bush is supposed to have generated as if this kind of conflict between the executive and legislative branches isn't exactly what the framers intended. Why is it, however, that no one gets upset if Congress exceeds its constitutional mandate? This happens all the time, btw, as evidenced by innumerable laws which are expressly found by the supreme court to be unconstitutional. I've not researched the issue of signing statements but I suspect they have to be analyzed 1 by 1.

Very well said. This is like saying that you shouldn't defend rights of due process in criminal procedure because you are not committing any crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that the government should not be able to conduct random fishing expeditions. Thankfully, that is not occurring. Your point, I assume, is that the "I've nothing to fear" argument would justify such intrusion. We part company here. My understanding from a link I previously provided is that there is a supreme court case stating that this type of information is not protected. I can't recall the case or find it quickly but we'd have to research that caselaw to understand the constitutional issues. Moreover, the current program does not review all international money transfers. As I understand it, the government can only make an inquiry into what runs through SWIFT after an analyst determines that one of the parties to the transaction is a suspected terrorist. SWIFT can review this inquiry in real time and has an appeal procedure. I do not think there is much dispute about the lawfulness of the program. Again, it's about striking the correct balance. We shouldn't be so afraid of terrorists that we become a dictatorship and we shouldn't be so afraid of government that we forego sensible precautions.

I'm gathering that to present an "anthropic" argument is something of a faux pas in some circles. The word "pinnacle" invokes images of geography and shape. It's hard to fit the trait of consciousness as having relevance to the shape of the universe. It is true that consciousness is not physically on "top" of anything and, even if it was, we'd not know why being on top has importance. This is all conjecture anyway because we do not know what is outside of the universe. We could say that all consciousness started at the center with the big bang. Of course, so did everything else. Whether a particular form of consciousness was ever the center of the universe was always a red herring. A trait might be important for some purpose or plan. This begs the questions of whose purpose and plan? If you believe in God, the answer is easy. Consciousness is important to God's purpose. If you are an atheist, the question is nonsensical. There is no whom to which human consciousness is important. (I'm still trying to figure out why an atheist shouldn't be a nihilist.) If you are agnostic, like me, you are really confused. However, at least there is enough uncertainty to accept as an axiom that consciousness is important.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You are saying some things that I've been unsuccessfully struggling to articulate. I'll look forward to your post. I was really referring to the possibility of SETI one day providing some data. I know of no evidence to support the proposition but am not certain that no such property is possible. I am unclear as to what property we are discussing. What does it mean for the universe to be conscious?

I'd meant to include a link but was pressed for time. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAB/is_6_113/ai_n8693890 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0867211970/sr=8-2/qid=1151425120/ref=sr_1_2/102-5147824-0328955?ie=UTF8

NP. There is a fundamental difference between brainstorming among a discreet number of people and tapping the potential of the internet. My son and I were kidding around one day and came up with the idea for a web page called PETSA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Stuffed Animals).We went online and there already was a PETSA and a PNETSA. Moral of the story: A group of a few people brainstorming, even fairly bright people, is no match for the power of the net.

Heh, actually, I was being lazy and didn't look back through the thread. However, see posts 10, 20 & 49. I wouldn't say it is entirely easy. However, five guys with automatic weapons could clean out the structures I'm talking about. 9/11 showed the power of imagination coupled with allowing terrorists to hide behind nation states boundaries and cook up plots. There are many factors that go into preventing another 9/11 such as denying monetary resources, taking the fight to their sanctuaries, disrupting or monitoring Internet communications, working with allies to secure the border, changes in mindsets so that our public is more vigilant, etc, etc etc. Most of these factors have been discussed and none are trivial. However, the beginning point of any good endeavor is a good idea and it is irresponsible for Scheier to canvas the net to encourage brainstorming about plots against this country. Terrorists are not omniscient and I dont' see how you can say that this process could not give "any" serious terrorists "any" new ideas.

Sorry, not to be obtuse but you're going to have to tell me what you mean.

I don't think anyone would say that a 9/11 type-attack would be "easy." What I have said in various threads is that a low-level attack (say 10 guys occupying a small rural court house or mid sized mid-America bank building) would be incredibly easy given the porosity of our borders. If you equip such terrorists with CBWs, it becomes all the easier to cause mass havoc. I also think it is simplistic to say that good terrorist ideas are a dime-a-dozen. The truly horrific ideas will combine terror with ease of execution. I also frankly think it was irresponsible for Scheier to run this contest.

The United States does defend its strategically important allies when they are invaded. That is why we came to Kuwait's defense in Gulf War I. Gulf War II was precipitated by Saddam's almost suicidal non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire of Gulf War I. Zarqawi's existence did not frustrate the essential purpose of the war - to remove Saddam and change the calculus for those who would act against US interests; therefore, Zarqawi's death does not produce tangible benefits to me as a US citizen. His death does help in achieving the secondary goals of establishing a democracy in place of Saddam.

That's okay. We are just two tiny bits of the universe trying to come to an understanding. I completely agree. This is why I didn't see the distinction between parts of the universe being conscious (e.g. us) and the entire universe being conscious. I also didn't see as meaningful the point that the universe is built to produce black holes. The vast majority of the functions of my body have nothing to do with higher level brain functions. I do not care what is implied. 9/10th of the fun in being agnostic is that you get to go where a mood takes you on a given day. My only intention was to answer the question posed by the Title of this thread. I don't see evidence that the entire universe is conscious but I do see evidence that portions of it are. I'm not sure why this is a meaningful distinction. I don't know if it has a purpose. If it does, I suspect it would be to produce conscious beings with free will. Actually, I was going in the opposite direction. The thread's OP seems to be suggesting their might be such a Deity. I do see evidence that the universe is self-aware but that does not prove the existence of a Deity. I'm agnostic on the whole purpose thing. I choose to believe that our lives matter but I'm willing to be educated on the point. I love the power of being able to happily say, "I just don't know." If I were a super powerful & intelligent being, I can see wanting to set off a firecracker which produces conscious beings with free will. My sense that this is plausible and not to be dismissed out of hand doesn't constitute evidence. I don't see how you get around the reality that part of the universe are conscious. True, it's early in the morning and the air conditioning in my house is on the fritz (great way to come home from a vacation!) so my consciousness is tenuous. Still, my molecules, strings, whatever are made from cosmic processes and most of the time I am conscious. I was just answering the title of the thread not going anywhere in particular. I do have a sense of wonder about our place in the universe which I've expressed before. It took 14 billion years for us to get to this point where we are either going to evolve or snuff ourselves out. Pretty exciting stuff! Here's an article about our predecessors stringing together beads 100,000 years ago and even that length of time is but a tick of the cosmic clock. I've no idea whether this entire march to doomsday or evolution was envisioned by some being and set into motion. My point is only that whether there is or is not such a being, we are pretty cool too.

Levey's contention in the link I provided was that there had, in fact, been a decline in recent years in the value of this type of intelligence but that it had still been producing some highly important information. He was very fearful that now that the exact program is public knowledge the value will be markedly reduced. As is revealed by recent events, the potential base of terrorists is diverse and ranges from home grown yokels to our worst fears. They will have varying levels of intelligence and sophistication. Not all of them are abreast of the latest and greatest NSA/CIA etc efforts and I suspect they get much of their information from public sources.

Yes, obviously. Please recall that I was responding to Sisyphus' distinction between consciousness of the "universe itself" vrs portions of the "universe itself" becoming conscious. I'm not sure if this is a meaningful distinction if both concepts are bounded within this universe. My question was what criteria would we judge the "universe itself" to be conscious? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be part of a conscious pattern? Does 100% of the matter and energy have to be integral to a conscious pattern? 50% 1/3rd? Or, as you suggest, a lot of mechanical processes which have as their "inevitable" result, the generation of life? You view this to be a "side effect" but this is mere argumentation by label. Another concept that was floating out there in other posts was that the ability of this more encompassing intelligence to enlighten us would be relevant. Again, my point was I don't see why this would be a significant distinction between that life and our own. It would most likely flow merely from the stage of evolution of the various forms of life. When you say the universe is "built to produce black holes" you are speaking to the intent of the universe when I was not. I do not purport to declare the universe's purpose and have not claimed that it was built to produce life instead of black holes. I was raising a question about the concept being discussed. We are part of where the universe has become conscious. Why does this trouble you?

I do not understand the distinction. We are the universe itself. Through us, and possibility other intelligent species, the universe is conscious. For the universe "itself" to be conscious, would there have to be a certain percentage of the matter of the universe arranged into conscious patterns? Alternatively, does the universe "itself" have to be conscious and significantly more intelligent than humans so that it is possible for the "universe" to provide enlightenment to humans? I'm not sure why the standard of human intelligence would be relevant. I certainly acknowledge the possibility that other intelligences might seem godlike to us but I'm not sure why that is any more evidence that the "universe itself" has become conscious than recent developments on our planet.

Can anyone find a link for the detailed study? All I can find is the appalling conclusion: I'm feeling much better about the relative state of America's educational system.