Feb 1 2012: I can give you reasons why we can't define what it means to be human. If you can define it, and translate it to language, you can also translate to algorithms, which are then computable. If you define "human" then the computer can become human by definition. This would apply to "God" or "Holy Spirit", or all such processes which we try to attach to human qualities. "Human" seems to have no limits. If you offer a definition, then along comes another, and another, ad infinitum. It would appear that the fact we can't define humanity but are deeply desiring to know, is what makes us human.
Jan 31 2012: As I pointed out in a related discussion, corporations were created by Roman civil law and "baptized" int English cmmon law by the king of England(see Blackstne on corporations). Common law did not accept Roman law or civil law as an authority, but it DID adapt the corpratin as a useful tool, with the king;s regulation by scholars on the "King's Bench" which was the highest level of court authority at that time. Under E nglish common law, and ONLY by authority of the king, could a corporatio n be a "person". There is no such authority given to US government.
In the US, cproprations were rejected by the founders of the Constitution, and Jefferson advocated that we destroy in its infancy the "aristocracy of the moneyed corporation". Corporations were NOT approved by the founders. When Madison, Wilson, and franklin tried to develop a federal corporation for "internal improvements" the congress quickly votd it down. Civil law was to have no authority over common law. Since corporations were produicts of civil law and christened or baptized into common law, the power to cntrol corporations was to be kept within state auithority, and there was no power to declare it a person, except by authority of the king, and that authority was rejected by the colonists. There is nothing in the onstitution granting corporations the status of "personhood", nor can there be, since no such authority was ever transferred from the king to any branch of state government.
This means that the "due process" clause of the 5th and 14th amendments can not refer to corporations, nor grant protection of due process to corporations, since there is no authority whatever given to them as persons. What tis further means is that persons within communities have due process protection against corporate power, but this is ignored by SCOTUS.
Jan 28 2012: Philip Slater in a bok called "EarthWalk" gives some interesting insight on this. Slater writes that "a machine-like response in the face of danger had no value until men began making war on each other".
Evolution, suggested Slater, selected for "machine-like" thinking in terms of organization that cancelled the individual in favor of collective warfare that sacrified the individual to a greater cause. As a consequence, we tend to think in terms of collective organization to protect our personal interests."Greatest good for the greatest number". Dawkins, of course, gave us the "selfish gene", which then replicates itself as near perfectly as possible, generation to generation. To do so, the gene would need control of its immediate environment as much as possible, and cede control only in terms of what was mutually beneficial to neighboring genes. A machine-like response in the face of danger, therefore, would best serve the interest of the "genetic replicative algorithm", and allow for a greater control of environment and territory.
The biological "algorithm" therefore, would tend to select machine-like responses in the face of all threats, which would further make those religions that successfully proselytize the most successful in the evolutionary scheme. That is why successful religions also condone war as an extension of "God's will". The same "algorithms" that produced nation-states also produced religions. This suggests that the individual should not take part in either religion or government.
Jan 22 2012: Mardshall had a sharp mind, but hios decisions were not "without fail". He was a federalist, and hios decisions were usually chosen to further his federalist intent. The founders, both federalists and anti-federalists, had a good working knowledge of history, and could for the most part present far better arguments than we can today. The problem here is that the constitutio n is the "law of the land" for federal interpretations, but it is not actually what the founders recognized as "law of the land". That law was in fact the common law, over which the federal government had no jurisdiction. That is still the way it stands, even if being ignored. This is not merely legal theory, this is historical fact, as i stated from historical documents and decisions. Your argument still amounts to straw man, whether intended or not.
Jan 21 2012: Justen, noweher in any of my statemet on history did I mention Washington. This is what is known as the straw man fallacy. Look at my references: St George Tucker, a very smart man. Joseph Story, brilliant in his understanding of law, I cited "Dartmouth v Woodward" with decisin rendered by Chief John Marshall, whom no legal scholar would call 'slow".
Further, I cited Blackstone, and the understanding of men such as Madison, Hamilton, and Adams, among others read and practiced. I give you references from history, written by its most brilliant men, and you argue about Washington. That is classic straw man. Who caes what Washington said? As for franklin, he, along with james Wilson and Madison, tried to ceate a federal corporation for internal improvements, which the colonists quickly shot down. I' ve seen nothing frm you to counter my statements except a focus on Washington, whom we both agree offered little except as figurehead.
Jan 20 2012: I'm familiar with Hartmann's work. Back in the 80s, I was the organzing editor of a worldwide economics discussion group. I was emphasizing many of the same points as Hartmann, though at that time I had't studied actual court cases. At that time, as far as i k new , I was the only one emphasizing such policies against corporate personhood.
Jan 20 2012: What i wrote are the understandings of the founders, who wriote the constitution based on their experience regarding banks, corporations, and paper money. Their understanding was well founded in history, ad they were much smarter than we are, apparently. That is the foundational principles of the constitution(see Comentaries of St. George Tucker)
Either we stick to the constitution or not, but if we're not, I'd be happy to live my life on my own terms.
Jan 19 2012: A bit of history on corporations. They are a creation of civil law, not common law. Blackstone points out that common law does nt recognize the authority of civil law. Corporations actually achieved "personhood" by a process of "christening" or "baptism" into English commion law by the king of England(Blackstone). Once this occured, they became "persons" in a collective sense.
Since the US does not recognize the king, corporate personhood is abandoned for two reasons:
1.The colonists embraced common law as their birthright, not civil law(Declaratio of Rights 1774), and SCOTUS does not have general jurisdiction over common law. Since "due process" refers to common law(see Commentaries of Justice Joseph Story) the fifth amendment due process clause cannot refer to corporations as "persons" becaus SCOTUS has no power to "baptize' them i nto common, since it has no jurisdiction over common law. Also see "United States vs Aaron Burr".
These are points well understood by the founders(see "Original meanings" by Jack Rakove), but they have been ignored or deliberately construed in opposition to original intentions. In "Dart mouth v Woodward" for example, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out that Dartmouth College had every right tio "personhood" because it had been appointed so by the king before the revolution, and the treaty with England allowed it to remain so. That, however, did NOT grant any power of the courts to grant personhood.
Jan 18 2012: You can't define God. If you could define God, you wouldn't need the idea of God, since God is that which we cannot define. Assume you can define God, and you can communicate God to others. If it can be defined and communicated, it can be translated to algorithms, if translated into algorithms, it can be programmed into a computer. The computer, therefore, becomes the definition of God, since it contains that definition. The same would apply Biblically for the "Holy Spirit". Once you define it and communicate it, it can be programmed, which meas the computer, to all intents and purposes, will have the "Holy Spirit".
As a co nsequence , we would only need to consult our computers each day for "God's will", and we could re-unite church and state, since God would be computible. Both Jesus and Paul taught that this is impossible. Paul pointed out in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind is enmity against God, therefore, the definitin of God cannot be computed, assuming the equivalence of the Church-Turing thesis. Further, no government can be organized in the name of God, either secular or religious, since no natural mind can be subject to God. This leaves us with one logical conclusion biblically, given by Jesus in Matthew 24:23. There is no need to follow any person who says, "here is Christ, or there".
Since we're talking about the impossi bility of mechanical representation, neither church nor state can represent God truthfully.
TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: What makes us human?
A comment on Conversation: Can corporations really interfere with the health or our world communites? If so how and what should we do about it?
In the US, cproprations were rejected by the founders of the Constitution, and Jefferson advocated that we destroy in its infancy the "aristocracy of the moneyed corporation". Corporations were NOT approved by the founders. When Madison, Wilson, and franklin tried to develop a federal corporation for "internal improvements" the congress quickly votd it down. Civil law was to have no authority over common law. Since corporations were produicts of civil law and christened or baptized into common law, the power to cntrol corporations was to be kept within state auithority, and there was no power to declare it a person, except by authority of the king, and that authority was rejected by the colonists. There is nothing in the onstitution granting corporations the status of "personhood", nor can there be, since no such authority was ever transferred from the king to any branch of state government.
This means that the "due process" clause of the 5th and 14th amendments can not refer to corporations, nor grant protection of due process to corporations, since there is no authority whatever given to them as persons. What tis further means is that persons within communities have due process protection against corporate power, but this is ignored by SCOTUS.
A comment on Conversation: Why do we need violence to transfer power?
Evolution, suggested Slater, selected for "machine-like" thinking in terms of organization that cancelled the individual in favor of collective warfare that sacrified the individual to a greater cause. As a consequence, we tend to think in terms of collective organization to protect our personal interests."Greatest good for the greatest number". Dawkins, of course, gave us the "selfish gene", which then replicates itself as near perfectly as possible, generation to generation. To do so, the gene would need control of its immediate environment as much as possible, and cede control only in terms of what was mutually beneficial to neighboring genes. A machine-like response in the face of danger, therefore, would best serve the interest of the "genetic replicative algorithm", and allow for a greater control of environment and territory.
The biological "algorithm" therefore, would tend to select machine-like responses in the face of all threats, which would further make those religions that successfully proselytize the most successful in the evolutionary scheme. That is why successful religions also condone war as an extension of "God's will". The same "algorithms" that produced nation-states also produced religions. This suggests that the individual should not take part in either religion or government.
A comment on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
A reply on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
Further, I cited Blackstone, and the understanding of men such as Madison, Hamilton, and Adams, among others read and practiced. I give you references from history, written by its most brilliant men, and you argue about Washington. That is classic straw man. Who caes what Washington said? As for franklin, he, along with james Wilson and Madison, tried to ceate a federal corporation for internal improvements, which the colonists quickly shot down. I' ve seen nothing frm you to counter my statements except a focus on Washington, whom we both agree offered little except as figurehead.
A comment on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
A comment on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
A reply on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
Either we stick to the constitution or not, but if we're not, I'd be happy to live my life on my own terms.
A comment on Conversation: How do we get corporations out of government.
Since the US does not recognize the king, corporate personhood is abandoned for two reasons:
1.The colonists embraced common law as their birthright, not civil law(Declaratio of Rights 1774), and SCOTUS does not have general jurisdiction over common law. Since "due process" refers to common law(see Commentaries of Justice Joseph Story) the fifth amendment due process clause cannot refer to corporations as "persons" becaus SCOTUS has no power to "baptize' them i nto common, since it has no jurisdiction over common law. Also see "United States vs Aaron Burr".
These are points well understood by the founders(see "Original meanings" by Jack Rakove), but they have been ignored or deliberately construed in opposition to original intentions. In "Dart mouth v Woodward" for example, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out that Dartmouth College had every right tio "personhood" because it had been appointed so by the king before the revolution, and the treaty with England allowed it to remain so. That, however, did NOT grant any power of the courts to grant personhood.
A comment on Conversation: How do you define God?
As a co nsequence , we would only need to consult our computers each day for "God's will", and we could re-unite church and state, since God would be computible. Both Jesus and Paul taught that this is impossible. Paul pointed out in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind is enmity against God, therefore, the definitin of God cannot be computed, assuming the equivalence of the Church-Turing thesis. Further, no government can be organized in the name of God, either secular or religious, since no natural mind can be subject to God. This leaves us with one logical conclusion biblically, given by Jesus in Matthew 24:23. There is no need to follow any person who says, "here is Christ, or there".
Since we're talking about the impossi bility of mechanical representation, neither church nor state can represent God truthfully.