From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 15:21:59 MST
[ben] I have one simple question. You and I both know or can easily lookup
the value of pi to N places.
[Hermit] Or even calculate it.
[ben] What's to stop us from encoding that information in a poem, ode,
sonnet, fruitcake recipe etc?
[Hermit] Nothing at all. Of course, the same answer would probably apply if
you asked how much use such "encoding" would be...
[ben] That being said, would it at all diminish one's ability to do so if
one was a priest of some religion, and proclaimed that one's ability to do
so was due to the glory and power of one's god/gods/sacred stuffed monkey?
[Hermit] The same answer as I have repeatedly given to this question
generally holds true. It does not matter who did something, or (usually) why
they did it. What matters is what they do and how well they do it. However,
such a proclamation would not be true. And any child handy with arithmetic
might say "The emperor has no clothes." And if the priests (or any other
kind of believers - racists, nationalists, anti-abortionists - not all
belief is religious - not all religions require belief, but it is the belief
that is harmful, not the religion) challenged the child (who is after all,
handy with arithmetic) he might show exactly how the priests did it. And
what then of their grandiose claims. When every man (and woman, and child)
has access to fair information, there is no need of gods. Which is the
problem with claims like this. Of course, the priests might say that the
child should be burnt at the stake for lying - believers are often upset at
seeing their crutches taken away until they learn to walk for themselves.
But even if the child were burnt at the stake, sooner or later another smart
mouthed child would say the same thing, again and again. And eventually, the
priests would be ignored.
[ben] Therefore, if one's culture had determined the value of pi (or even a
close approximation) anyone with that knowlege could do just that.
[Hermit] This is also true.
[ben] Whether or not the Vedics specifically did it is outside the scope of
my point
[Hermit] But that is the crux of my point. The probability that "the Vedics"
had such knowledge is so vanishingly small that it should be discounted
entirely until some strong evidence is shown for this claim - because this
is a very strong claim. For all the reasons I have detailed. Like the child
surmised above, I have "proved" how PI is embedded in Moby Dick. To even
greater precision than it was claimed for by the supposed priests in their
holy works. Did I say that this was because the gods showed me how? No! I
said, "the emperor has no clothes." Then I showed everybody how to perform
the same trick for themselves, and in so doing, proved the claim that the
alleged embodiment of PI was significant was false - and it didn't matter
who made that claim, it was the claim that was false not the motives for it
- they were irrelevant. This left Yash standing bare-ass naked in the snow,
and his high priestess understandably pissed off. But if they are lucky,
they will learn to walk without crutches, and maybe will learn to spot lies
when people tell them that the emperor has new clothes - given to him by
gods, ancestors or magical arithmetic.
[ben] , but it seems that a lot of your text on the matter seems to expound
the belief that if X has religious background or intent then X must be
rubbish.
[Hermit] Not at all. The standard of proof should be the same as that which
you apply to anything and anyone else - although the nature of belief (and
not incidentally the reputation of priests) should warn you (as Descartes
put it) to "first determine whether what know to be true is true." Any
believer is accepting things on insufficient evidence, or there is no need
for belief. Thus any believer, seeking confirmation of his world-perspective
is attempting to persuade you that his world-perspective is valid (which it
<em>cannot</em> be) even when it is accurate, as it has not been tested and
is <em>probably</em> not falsifiable as adhered to. Believers like their
belief. It makes them warm and happy. They also want you to share it,
because when you say to them "I don't believe" you are challenging their
world-perspective. Which makes them very unhappy. They will say and do
almost anything to make you see their perspective - which validates their
own for them.
[Hermit] The secret to immense happiness and complete immunity from belief
is to realize that the world does validate itself, that there are people out
there you can trust to assist to validate (or when needed invalidate) your
world view, but that you do not require approval of your world-perspective
from anybody. Approval is for people who need certainty. But certainty
itself is non-existent except in a dead, static, and frozen world. And this
is good. Because I love life and growth and warmth and honesty. Certainty
precludes all these things. So the people seeking certainty are in reality
seeking to be fooled about the world and its nature, to be told that they
are growing when they are not. To live in their world requires belief -
because this world can only exist on insufficient evidence.
[Hermit] Look at it this way. I have known honest believers. A few. And I
have known crooked believers. A lot. Most of whom imagined that that they
were pure as snow. And you may draw a dreadful warning from the fact that
everyone who has stopped believing in fairy godmothers also probably knows
that coke is always cut and far from pure. So, if X has a religious
background or intent, you should perhaps not give them the same benefit of
the doubt as you might give somebody else - because they might believe their
own lies - and so fool you. However that does not mean that they are
necessarily liars - it just makes it some finite amount more likely that
they are liars or knaves - out to get something from you, than the
non-believer who prefers the world as it is. If what they want is only
money, it's easy, zip up your wallet. Your belief or trust is trickier.
There are more ways to fool a person than there are of skinning cats. And
once you allow yourself to "believe" in anything (i.e. accept with
insufficient evidence), you can never trust yourself. Because it takes
somebody else who believes the same lies as you to validate your worldview.
And because we all need validation, we become dependent on acceptance, and
subject to manipulation in exchange for it.
A Parable
[Hermit] To put it another way, if a biologist told me about a water
breathing aquatic bird, I would have a tendency to provisionally accept this
as a part of life to which I would have to adapt my understanding of the
definition of bird. I would presume that she was attempting to educate me.
My acceptance would be provisional, because I might find reason to doubt her
analysis. It would be offered because, by and large, biologists are an
honest bunch. If I knew that the biologist in question was renowned for
practical jokes - or telling lies - my assent would be much more difficult
to obtain. If I found evidence that what I had been told was false, I might
also withdraw or reduce my acceptance.
[Hermit] If Magic Jim offered to show me an aqua-keet
(http://www.magicjim.net/midnight_carnival_of_wonders.html) I would presume
that he intended to manipulate my perception of reality and that while the
aqua-keet he might show me would be "real", that its reality exists in a
different environment and in a different way to the reality of the birds the
biologist might have told me about. I would, knowing Magic Jim, trust that
his motivation would be to challenge, amuse and enchant me. I would not
permanently connect the reality he offers to my usual world-perspective, it
would be separated by the fact that I understand that Magic Jim is not a
biologist. I would have very little reason not to accept his gift to me and
accept his reality for so long as it was offered. If I figured out what he
was doing, I would not tell anyone else, unless I had very strong grounds to
consider that his motives were fraudulent and that breaking the "implied
contract" of his offering his reality to me, and depriving others of the
pleasure of exploring his reality, would prevent a much greater harm to
others.
[Hermit] Now consider my reaction if a believer were to tell me about a
beautiful invisible bird that lived in holy water, so proving that evolution
was not true. I would first zip my wallet shut and then would look carefully
for the catch. Because evolution happens. Because beauty and invisibility
are incompatible. Because there is no difference between holy water and
other water. Because believers are experts at manipulating reality, just as
Magic Jim is, but for very different motives. Because the believer would be
attempting to alter my reality and that if I accepted his offering, I would
lose some of my ability to look at the world in the same way as I do now.
And because that would leave me poorer. So the provisional assent I would
offer to a biologist - or to Magic Jim - would be absent. I would not need
to know the believers "real" or "believed-to-be-by-himself" motive, his
ultimate motive would be irrelevant, as the prima facie motive I would
assume, would be that he intends to attempt to change my world-perception
(not virtual as in Magic Jim's case, but actual) without my having granted
permission (as I would to a person fulfilling an appropriate role). I would
begin by examining the methods he was using to achieve his effect, and would
anticipate a fraud, as due to my experience of believers. If I discovered
the use of deceptive methods, I would attempt to alert others who were
interested to what techniques were being used in order to help them
belief-proof themselves. As I would do if I discovered a magician (or indeed
anyone else) using deception to defraud. And as I hope that others would do
for me. Now if in evaluating his methods I discovered that the believer did
in fact have a water breathing bird, or even, a holy water breathing bird,
that became an expired bird on bringing it into the air or placing it in
ordinary or garden water, would the fact that I learnt this from a believer
alter the evidence? The answer has to be no. At that point the bird would be
in the same position as that presented to me by the biologist. A little
stronger perhaps, as I would have performed the investigation myself, and
thus the evidence in my possession would be more persuasive (to me). And
then I would look very hard at the "Holy Water" because I understand water a
great deal more than I understand water breathing birds. So while I would
not serve the believers purpose (whatever it was), the facts of the case
would be reported the same way. No difference in outcome, simply because I
learnt them from a believer. Just a somewhat higher threshold of evidence,
because I know that all believers are to a greater or lesser extent, engaged
in fooling themselves.
[Hermit] Now consider what I did when I was told that a guru (believer) was
using the "miracle" of the value of PI/10 to 32 significant digits (a holy
water dwelling bird) but without knowing his motives, in the light of this
parable. Note that we are a rational, atheist church, so there is a
presumption that all here wish to belief-proof themselves. We discuss
memetics, and this abuse of science (in this case the science of
mathematics) to persuade those prone to belief is a powerful memetic tool.
[Hermit] Anyone offended by the disclosures made here, should perhaps, not
have been here in the first place, but some here who are perhaps unsure of
what they wish for themselves might have learnt from this too, and
essentially, had signaled their consent to learning these things by joining
our mail list.
[ben] Meaning that either I misunderstand a repeated part of your point or
that you too are in some fashion replying based on your personal beliefs and
not pure logic.
[Hermit] I am as free of belief - through careful conscious effort - as I
think a person can be. I always look at the evidence and the speaker before
judging. Not through the spectacles of faith, but using what I already know
about the world to determine what is probable and what is not, who is likely
to report accurately and who is not. Then I decide what the evidence
suggests and assign it some truth value. And I always judge - even when the
judgment is "insufficient evidence". If something seems to be supported -
even if unlikely (an under water living bird) - I tend to accept it
provisionally into my reality model if from a reliable source (from a
biologist). If something does not appear supported (conflicts with my
reality model, no available evidence), it is likely to score very low and
will not alter my reality model although I might still accept it
provisionally (an aqua-keet) into a "virtual" reality model, if I consider
the source acceptable (e.g. Magic Jim) or trustworthy (e.g. Most - but not
all of my fellow Virians). If I am provided something by an untrustworthy
source that is well supported, I will only accept it into my reality model
if the evidence is very strong. Something which does not have strong
evidence and does not have appropriate support is unlikely to be
incorporated into my reality model at all. Even provisionally. Is this
belief? Not a chance. It is judgment.
[Hermit] Hopefully you understand better now. Ask any questions you like.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT