while it's nice that you guys have this sense of community going on based on the shared thinking patterns, I think it would compliment your component "beliefs" to remember that the whole falsifiability is a mindset. Perhaps science is not rational, if your experiences which establish them as such are false. You don't know. It's that open minded sort of attitude that feeds thought and speculation. I think. That's why the whole structure of "church" and "sins" and "saints" and "accepted truths" is a bit touchy. It's good that there is the falsifiability clause including those "truths" but that clause also includes the falsifiability clause. This creates a nice paradox, especially when trying to create a unity of "believers". It's ultimately an expression of the "brink of order and chaos" described in religion and metaphysics forum. Just don't get too caught up in the ritual. . . I think . . .I mean, I think I think . . . .whatever. People are more observers and experiencers than they are derivers of truth. They physically ARE truth, and they FEEL truth, and they MAKE truth, but philosophically, it's difficult to prove. You have to do, not say.
It's good that there is the falsifiability clause including those "truths" but that clause also includes the falsifiability clause. This creates a nice paradox, especially when trying to create a unity of "believers".
I don't see the paradox here. The fact that something is falsifiable doesn't imply that it is false.
Re:While it's nice
« Reply #3 on: 2004-04-17 20:37:06 »
I take it your general query is on the disparity between the religious mindset and the scientific/rational mindset, given that the COV is, ostensibly, a bunch of people of a scientific/rational outlook trying to behave (at least marginally) like the more religiously inclined.
I don't really see the disparity, if that is what concerns you. We're attempting here to organise and reap the benefits of organisation. Although we may call ourselves a 'church', I doubt you'll find it easy to get anyone on this forum to bow to anyone. It isn't about enforcing a memetic system of unquestioning belief or setting a 'standard' dogmatic viewpoint. There's a large degree of variance in many of our viewpoints here.
What it's about, at least for me, is that we agree to accept a few basic principles within a fairly broad spectrum, and agree to be try to as rational as possible.
It's a damn sight more than I get in my daily life. That's why I find this forum so valuable.
and you'll see christians do that too. They accept a few basic doctrinal principles and proceed from there. However none of them have a clause that says that those principles are falsifiable. I just wonder how it is that any significant dogmatic agreement can be met with only rationality. Can you rationally prove that rationality is the best answer? That there should be a religion about it? you simply presuppose its authority. How does that make you different than any other relgion? The paradox is that you seemingly emphasize lack of dogma, yet you do it through establishing a dogma.
Re:While it's nice
« Reply #5 on: 2004-04-18 06:34:49 »
Greetings JeffCreel,
Quote:
How does that make you different than any other relgion?
Yes, I think that rationality and religion (especially Middle Eastern religions that believe in the historical process of salvation and the end times) are not that far apart. Both are attempts to build meaningful models. However, rationality is more open-ended in that it admits that it is a model for building models, whereas Middle Eastern religions deny this and claim access to an absolute truth. Both assume that the need for meaning is an inherently valuable thing. The question I am interested in is: Is scientific reason ahead in the game of model making, or is it merely another kind of model with its own advantages and disadvantages? Is it more evolved or is it merely based on different assumptions about the world? Is it representative of a higher level of abstraction or a meta-modelling?
take care and control the bricoleur
Your conscious life, in short, is nothing but an elaborate post-hoc rationalisation of things you really do for other reasons. - V. Ramachandran
Can you rationally prove that rationality is the best answer?
Jeff, I'd like to offer you my own attempt at that. I would answer, "as opposed to... what?" A lot of people think that using reason to establish the legitimacy or validity of reason is just like establishing the legitimacy or validity of coin-tossing as a truth-finding method, by tossing a coin again. But if reason is alone in the truth-finding toolbox, the only alternative is to abandon the truth-finding process. I know of no person who will decide to completely abandon the use of reason. That's where it differs from any alternative being offered: it is possible to attempt to abandon the use of coin-tossing or consulting magic 8-balls, and even abandon firm inner convictions and relativistic authoritarianism in the truth-finding process. This can be carried through completely, at least in principle if not in practice. You can't abandon the use of reason completely even if you tried. Someone who tried to do so would use reason to identify reason so it could be avoided. Otherwise they would be helpless to avoid it!
In the same way, if one believes reason is a valid approach but no more valid than other truth-finding "modes," what mode would we use to identify when to use which mode? To use something other than reason to do this simply means to abandon criteria for deciding when to use which "mode." Reason is the only method that you have no choice but to use to choose between methods. What is the definition of reason but "the application of criteria"? "Discrimination" "discernment" or "criteria" can be misleadingly applied within other so-called methods, but these words have no content without the concept of reason.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
The paradox is that you seemingly emphasize lack of dogma, yet you do it through establishing a dogma.
I think I can explain this paradox. I hate dogmatism, and so I've tried to hold my beliefs provisionally. I've tried to identify when I've held a dogma and make it non-dogmatic by calling it into question and scrutinizing it. But in this process of whittling down my presuppositions, I found that I was still left with six of them. They are the Six Axioms of Thought as found in the Epistemology document in the FAQ section of this messageboard. They are the only self-evident things. 1. Existence: Existence exists. 2. Consciousness: The self exists. 3. Reality: Wishing won't make it so. 4. Identity: Things have a nature. 5. Non-contradiction. 5. Causality. What I've done is not eliminated pre-suppositions completely, but I only don't question them because I can't help it. They are only beyond question because it is literally impossible to question them without refuting oneself. I still could be said to hold them provisionally, because if you come up with a way to question them I'd be happy to try it.
Therefore, by minimizing the Senseless Sin of dogmatism and eliminating it wherever possible, the Church of Virus really does emphasize lack of dogma. That's the way I see it.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
But if reason is alone in the truth-finding toolbox, the only alternative is to abandon the truth-finding process. I know of no person who will decide to completely abandon the use of reason. That's where it differs from any alternative being offered: it is possible to attempt to abandon the use of coin-tossing or consulting magic 8-balls, and even abandon firm inner convictions and relativistic authoritarianism in the truth-finding process. This can be carried through completely, at least in principle if not in practice. You can't abandon the use of reason completely even if you tried. Someone who tried to do so would use reason to identify reason so it could be avoided. Otherwise they would be helpless to avoid it!
I read this post and felt troubled. I define "human being" as a non self-mutilating entity. I appreciate all that is authentic, and because of that, I'll explain my perspective for what it's worth. My view on the human intelligence is no different than my view on a shark's jaws. I firmly believe we're animals, different only because of our awareness of the environment and our ability to influence it. Continuing this train of thoughts, evolution shows there's always a point of no return, where species become specialized and lose the ability to adapt to more than one specific context. Taking this into account, I personally think that expertise in intelligence is a very dangerous thing to do or desire. It not only narrows the number of contexts in which one can function properly, but it also subjects the membot to the most dangerous trap: the IQ limit. I've heard of no self evaluation mechanisms that would give the subject a danger-free result regarding the point past which the desire to use one's intelligence is unrealistic. This brings me to the next point.
Usage of reason cultivates habit. Solving problems and applying solutions builds confidence, up to the point where membots arguably support the "When you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" clichee. This, in my opinion, is a really dangerous approach. It not only utterly neglects the other aspects of the human being, but it also hinders what nature worked for millions of years to accomplish. My own belief (which I've seen explained many times by my own behaviour and identifiable motivations) is that reason is an evolutionary tool which appeared on top of everything else Homo Sapiens was before becoming Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If you consider a normal human's basic desires, you'll find that despite the civilization refined concepts, they all come down to the same basic needs of any animal. I don't mean to attack "the magic" of emotions or to deconstruct the dopaminic rushes of various emotional states. I don't think the human being should strive for logical crystalization. Instead, I think the human being should use reason to offer cohesion and strength to every other facet of humanity.
In the same way, if one believes reason is a valid approach but no more valid than other truth-finding "modes," what mode would we use to identify when to use which mode? To use something other than reason to do this simply means to abandon criteria for deciding when to use which "mode." Reason is the only method that you have no choice but to use to choose between methods. What is the definition of reason but "the application of criteria"? "Discrimination" "discernment" or "criteria" can be misleadingly applied within other so-called methods, but these words have no content without the concept of reason.
Reason is a valid approach only in the external and abstract environments that affect nothing else: decision making, control, etc. Internally, reason is at most a self diagnostication and investigation tool. I'm sure everyone went through "I feel like doing..", and reason could get at most a "Maybe because.." out of it. This is why I say reason is a tool that's meant to simply give us a mean to better get what we need or want. While I'm here, I'd like to point out that "truth finding modes" is a very broad concept. Very, very broad. If I were to deconstruct it, I'd start with "truth". From a logical point of view, "truth" is achievable only if the premises are also true. This already mounts the quest for truth on moving sands, unless perhaps the quest for a truth would also imply a quest for the truth of every premise, each with it's own premises, ad infinitum. "Finding" is a part of this concept that's flawed in the sense that once more, it's meaning depends on whether the "truth" is interior or exterior. An exterior truth can either be abstract - depending on the assumed truth of the premises, or empirical - which outright makes reason obsolete. An interior truth on the other hand is subject to personality and neurochemistry, in which case "truth" is an arbitrary value either consciously selected or caused by chemical reactions. By "modes" I assume he meant instruments, in which case I'd like to point out that each instrument doesn't need to be selected, nature took care of it for us. For a math problem, you won't eat. You'll reason. For attracting a mate, you won't recite geometry theories, but you'll dance and touch. For escaping a rabid dog, you'll run, HOPEFULLY, unless you're a memoid that discards everything else for reason. So, at least as far as I can see, a rationalist approach on life is a bit radical, even if it's designed to control or enhance.
Re:While it's nice
« Reply #9 on: 2004-06-03 11:43:40 »
I don't know exactly what you're saying, but you've piqued my curiosity. I have several questions to help me grasp what you're getting at. What other aspects of the human being are you referring to? Coin-tossing, consulting a magic 8-ball, and various kinds of faith were presented in my post as the alternatives to reason, but if you can think of something else I'd like to hear it.
Which leads to the question, towards what goal or end do you use the instruments that you propose? Which function is in mind? My post was about how to make decisions, how to shape a mental map on which to base those decisions. The goal or end I've chosen for instruments to achieve is to attempt to draw a mental map, which I intend to match a terrain. Are you saying we might want to engage in other activities? Well sure, but if you would list eating as an alternative to thinking, that's not a replacement, it's an addition.
I am one of those people whose mental map has a starting point, a foundation that terminates the supposedly infinite regress of justification. That foundation is the six axioms of epistemology as listed in the Virian doctrine: 1. Existence exists. 2. I exist and am conscious of existence. 3. A thing that exists has an identity, a nature. 4. Reality is a set of conditions that exists with a nature, whether I know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not. 5. Non-contradiction. 4. Causality.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
It sounds like your problem here is with habit, not reason.
Quote:
Reason is a valid approach only in the external and abstract environments that affect nothing else: decision making, control, etc. Internally, reason is at most a self diagnostication and investigation tool.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I think that you're saying that decision making is external and abstract, and therefore affects 'nothing else'. Tell me if you meant something else, because I would say decision making can affect everything. Also, we can use reason to make internal decisions that are as valid as external ones, even if the process is murked up considerably by hormones and whatnot.
Quote:
For a math problem, you won't eat. You'll reason. For attracting a mate, you won't recite geometry theories, but you'll dance and touch. For escaping a rabid dog, you'll run, HOPEFULLY, unless you're a memoid that discards everything else for reason. So, at least as far as I can see, a rationalist approach on life is a bit radical, even if it's designed to control or enhance.
I'm currently in college, and when I get stuck on homework I take a shower. For some reason I think better there. I've also troubleshot car trouble from the shower. One of my strongest reasons for attending college was to meet intelligent women. I've never danced with my wife, and I never married any girl I ever danced with. Probably just a reflection on my dancing ability. Both reason and emotion tell us to run from a rabid dog, but the dog must still be dealt with, i.e. captured or killed. Reason is far more useful than emotion for this.
I think that as a tool for living, reason is far more useful than emotion. However, it's hard -- maybe impossible -- to get 'higher purpose' or meaning or reasons for living from reason, so reason must still take account of personal emotional reality, family obligation, ethical beliefs, etc.
I don't know exactly what you're saying, but you've piqued my curiosity. I have several questions to help me grasp what you're getting at. What other aspects of the human being are you referring to? Coin-tossing, consulting a magic 8-ball, and various kinds of faith were presented in my post as the alternatives to reason, but if you can think of something else I'd like to hear it.
Which leads to the question, towards what goal or end do you use the instruments that you propose? Which function is in mind? My post was about how to make decisions, how to shape a mental map on which to base those decisions. The goal or end I've chosen for instruments to achieve is to attempt to draw a mental map, which I intend to match a terrain. Are you saying we might want to engage in other activities? Well sure, but if you would list eating as an alternative to thinking, that's not a replacement, it's an addition.
I am one of those people whose mental map has a starting point, a foundation that terminates the supposedly infinite regress of justification. That foundation is the six axioms of epistemology as listed in the Virian doctrine: 1. Existence exists. 2. I exist and am conscious of existence. 3. A thing that exists has an identity, a nature. 4. Reality is a set of conditions that exists with a nature, whether I know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not. 5. Non-contradiction. 4. Causality.
The other aspects I'm reffering to are the hardwired reactions to specific situations and stimuli. There are circumstances in which reason fails, and I think I've made my point in the previous post about this. Decision making at the conscious level is a narrowly appliable approach, since you're depending on adequate premises, flawless logic, and enough data. The other aspects instantly provide solutions, since they're stored in your genes. If I were to give an example, I'm curious if you ever had a (non-platonic) relationship with someone whom you picked via reason. Or if you ever pulled your hand from a hot iron after a few moments' worth of thinking about it. I'd like to ask you this: have you picked the chair you sit on right now ? If so, after deciding it to be ergonomic, didn't you go and pick the ergonomic one you LIKED ? Likewise, your career is perhaps based on economic prognosis, instead of being something you "feel suited for yourself" ? Every time you risked everything you simply nulled reason.
You speak about decision making and mental maps. In my previous post I agreed that reason is mainly an awareness enhancing tool. However, as far as decision making goes, reason is just an aid. You have your own interests that preceede reason. You have a need for safety and prosperity, a need to protect your loved ones, a need to advance profesionally. Reason may or may not help you. I'm able to put up these problems because I live in a not-so-friendly environment, where reason is only a part of what makes life tick. If your life or the number of situations you encounter only pose abstract problems, of course you only need reason. But as soon as life becomes more than "I need to pick up a college, a car brand, a house", reason becomes a very limited tool. You can't reason your way out of a knife/throat situation. But you can fight, or sacrifice. And yes, as I specified in my previous post, my conclusions are drawn from my own experience.
Reason is a mean. Peoples' goals are as as various as there are people. I've heard of people submerged underwater for more than ten minutes , in the name of their non-scientific belief. On the other hand, I've never heard of someone walking on coals or not breathing for ten minutes using reason. Likewise, if you'll ever fight for your life, you'll get a better insight on what I mean.
It sounds like your problem here is with habit, not reason.
Successful usage of reason leads to building up trust in it. It's a trap of hyperspecialization.
Quote:
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I think that you're saying that decision making is external and abstract, and therefore affects 'nothing else'. Tell me if you meant something else, because I would say decision making can affect everything. Also, we can use reason to make internal decisions that are as valid as external ones, even if the process is murked up considerably by hormones and whatnot.
I was talking about the concept of "truth", as presented by Matt Arnold to be the Grail of reason. Decision making (when reason is used) is a process that occurs externally and abstractly, in the sense that it's based on external input and it leads to external output. I was simply taking the mind as a point of refference. Decision making is not what mind IS, but what mind PRODUCES. Therefore it's subject to various mechanisms that dictate what ammount of reason is needed for a certain decision. If you're saying CoV aims at turning people into The Gray Ones, with frail bodies, big heads, all reason and no human emotions, I'll confess my dislike of it.
Quote:
I'm currently in college, and when I get stuck on homework I take a shower. For some reason I think better there. I've also troubleshot car trouble from the shower. One of my strongest reasons for attending college was to meet intelligent women. I've never danced with my wife, and I never married any girl I ever danced with. Probably just a reflection on my dancing ability. Both reason and emotion tell us to run from a rabid dog, but the dog must still be dealt with, i.e. captured or killed. Reason is far more useful than emotion for this.
You're mistaking instinct for emotion. Emotions are conscious reactions. Instincts bypass consciousness, and it's because of that, that they are incomparably more valuable than this abstract mechanism called "reason", appliable only in a safe, stress free environment. I'm not an idealist. I have practical knowledge on how to survive. And trust me, the order of the priorities is always this: survive, evolve. Try to evolve without surviving, and my genes will get a better chance. And no.. not reason and emotion make you run from a rabbid dog, but the instinct your grand(x100000)father aquired while in his not-so-safe hunter gatherer community.
Quote:
I think that as a tool for living, reason is far more useful than emotion. However, it's hard -- maybe impossible -- to get 'higher purpose' or meaning or reasons for living from reason, so reason must still take account of personal emotional reality, family obligation, ethical beliefs, etc.
If you think there is such a thing as The Tool for Living, I think you're dramatically mutilating who and what you are. My approach is to cultivate every aspect of my being (both phisical and mental), since everything has it's well defined role. Otherwise, my genes wouldn't have made it this far.
Re:While it's nice
« Reply #13 on: 2004-06-03 16:29:14 »
I see no problem with what you're saying. You and I don't disagree at all, we're just changing the subject. When I pick what chair to sit in, or fall in love, or take my hand off a painfully hot object, or react to a beautiful symphony, these are not claims which can be judged true or false. And yet such judgement was the only realm to which my earlier comments in this discussion have ever applied. My comments should pose no threat to anything outside that jurisdiction.
I agree that truth is a fuzzy concept, and truths cannot be pinpointed or held down with certainty (except for the six axioms). Nevertheless, I still don't think you would deny that we eventually have to do the best we can, no matter how tentative, to rate competing claims for their relative truth value. This is far from a concept of absolute Truth. It's a sliding scale of factuality, in which, even if a claim is imperfect, it's still an improvement on some other claim that tries to contradict it. The other things you refer to are valuable for what they're able to do in their domains. But reason alone is a judge of competing claims in the realm of factuality.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
The other things you refer to are valuable for what they're able to do in their domains. But reason alone is a judge of competing claims in the realm of factuality.
I agree with everything I didn't quote. What I quoted is probably the essence of what we're discussing. My view is that factual claims are best handled by empirical approaches and instincts, while reason is best at prognosis and planning. I continue to regard reason as a cohesion factor between the various facets of the person. You should take into account the fact that most factual truths are perceived at a subconscious level, while only the purposefully sought after truths get to be approached via reason.
Author
Logged
