logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-28 07:00:43 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  RE: churchofvirus.org
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: RE: churchofvirus.org  (Read 912 times)
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: churchofvirus.org
« on: 2005-09-23 22:10:05 »
Reply with quote

Colby Thompson writes...

I read through your sins and virtues and such, and appreciate them. I
thoght I'd take a moment to share a few of my thoughts regarding these
issues.

If we can assume that a person choosing to accept this meme complex has
done so because they are ready, and have attained the necessary
intellectual rigor and been able to put themselves past the fear and
uncertainty created by denying superstition and embracing rationality,
then surely it would be an effective belief system for them.

Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more
effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical
belief alone.  I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility
regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. I'm sure that
you do as well, but I thought I'd take a moment to illustrate.

While tempering knoweldge opens the door for all kinds of seeming
irrationality, it also maintains room for a more open mind, and for hope
when hope has been lost. I believe that to a certain extent, this is an
important evolutionary survival tool for man.

The optimal man is grounded in rationality, and grand in perspective,
compassion, and empathy, but still posseses a frame of mind that allows
him to assimilate and conceptualize beliefs and abilities which he
cannot or does not understand, and which may seem entirely unlikely to
be true.

-----------

Example #1: Cell Phones (future true belief)

1700's rational man is asked whether he believes that a person could
talk into a small box, and communicate in near real-time with another
person holding a similar box on the other side of the world.  As a
skeptic, rational man would surely say no.  He would deny the existance
of such a device with near certainty simply because his metaphor for the
physical reality of the universe was incomplete and imperfect and told
him such a device was voodoo.  Today, we have a deeper understanding of
the phsyical properties of the universe, and we have cell phones.  Often
and forever, deeper truth requires a more open mind than skeptical
rationality borne out of current perspective dictates.

Where did the man go wrong?

He must temper his statements and beliefs in accordance with the
perspective he has been granted. He must have a vision of his true point
of observance, and of the limitations of his mental model.  He must be
able to say: I cannot understand how such a device would work, nor how I
could construct a device with the technology I posess, but should such a
device come to exist in my presence, my mind is willing to accept it and
to actively engage in understanding it with the assumption that it is
equally likely that it could be real or discreditable.  Rational man
could not do so, because he was
constrained by the egotistical need for the surety of his past knowledge
and intellectual investment.

-----------

Example #2:  Psychics (untapped ability, new talent)

Just about any rational person will tell you that beliefs in psychics is
irrational, and not supported by logic and scientific evidence.
Certainly Michael Shermer will.

Now imagine for a moment that man has developed some evolutionary
psychic ability through quantum mechanical or other effect, or perhaps
some ability that approximates some effects of what we could consider
being psychic (through subconscious association and the scent of emotion
and environment, linked with idiot savant like behaviour, etc).

A rational man is unable to obtain this ability, because he believes it
is not possible..  His beliefs have put caps on the limits of the power
of his intuition and subconscious mind.  You cannot posses and actualize
an ability that you do not believe in, unless your mind is actively open
to consider it --- regardless of prior empirical evidence.  What if you
were the first psychic to appear in the world?  Such an ability could
not be used until the mechanism was discovered and understood, and/or a
non-rational person posessing it came about and proved its efficacy and
means.

This concept has an impact on daily life, in that the human body and
mind is able to do things most of us would sincerely doubt were possible
(see guiness book of world records for plate balacing and other
ridiculous things).  The point is: Never underestimate a man that
overestimates himself.  There is an advantage in some situations to
believing you can do things you cannot. There is an advantage in many
situations in believing that you can do things in which success seems
statistically unlikely.  Having a 100% belief in your ability to do
something that 65% of people cannot, has the statistical effect of
improving your chances of success in many endeavors.  Strange and
backwater in origin, but useful to humans nontheless.

------------

I'm not hitting my mark terribly well, and I'm not precisely sure how
one would affix such concepts effectively to a belief system, but if you
were able to incorporate the benefits of contolled irrationality, along
with an approach centered in rational skepticism, I believe there is a
great deal of power there.

-Colby
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org
« Reply #1 on: 2005-09-24 03:46:12 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Hello Colby and thanks for dropping us a line. I take your point
about being closed to currently unthinkable possibilities. I think, though,
that the scientific method, which has always been encouraged by the
luminaries of Virus, takes this into account. A fact is never held to be
anything more than provisionally true and subject to falsification at any
future time.

Shermer, for instance, does not hold, I am reasonably certain, that psychic
power is impossible per se, only that there currently is no adequate reason
to suppose that it is.

A personal instance; not so long ago I was convinced that time travel was a
completely impossible thing and I still am so convinced, only for rather
different reasons than before! Effectively I have come to a different
conclusion in spite of the fact that the affect remains the same. (For now,
that is; I would love to be proved wrong.)

The idea that 'rationality' is a very closed off and impermeable world view
has gained considerable currency. In particular, superstitious persons whose
stock-in-trade is 'proving from the negative' are very fond of fanning these
flames. Important to note though, is that Virians hold dogmatism to be a
sin. Dogmatism (to me) means assimilating a 'truth' to the point where it
goes unquestioned for so long that it becomes 'sacred'. The 'sin' of dogma
is not so much a sin as a stern reminder that 'all good philosophers'
constantly reexamine their assumptions

IMO: 'impossible' is word best reserved for analytical problems;
'improbable' is better word for questions of fact. Too often, I grant, (and
I have myself sometimes been guilty of this) they are used interchangeably.

Best Regards.


David Lucifer
Sent: 24 September 2005 04:10

<snip>
Colby Thompson writes...

...Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more
effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical
belief alone.  I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility
regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. </snip> 


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
simul
Adept
****

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.81
Rate simul



I am a lama.
simultaneous zoneediterik
View Profile WWW
Re: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org
« Reply #2 on: 2005-09-24 10:49:09 »
Reply with quote

The word "rational thought" is often misused as well - to mean "accepting the current standard scientific viewpoint".

There is also a superiority complex among so-called "rational" thinkers.

However, irrational thought has its purposes.

Unreasoning faith and irrationality are highly conserved genetic traits.  In fact the so-called "god gene" may have been isolated.

Rational thinkers are unwilling to take large risks in order to test hypotheses.

Irrational thinkers may not be aware that their irrational viewpoints are merely nonstandard hypotheses.  However, taken as a collective, they test these hypotheses to limits which rational thinkers cannot.
 
A large portion of SETI foundation is funded by so-called irrationalists who actually believe that aliens have been visiting the earth.

SETI is valid science that is pushing the limits of computation and analysis.

Astrology fueled astronomy.

My guess is that a large part of every legitimate scientific effort was funded and fueled by legions of "irrationalists" who, for better or worse, helped make progress posible.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:46:12
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org

[Blunderov] Hello Colby and thanks for dropping us a line. I take your point
about being closed to currently unthinkable possibilities. I think, though,
that the scientific method, which has always been encouraged by the
luminaries of Virus, takes this into account. A fact is never held to be
anything more than provisionally true and subject to falsification at any
future time.

Shermer, for instance, does not hold, I am reasonably certain, that psychic
power is impossible per se, only that there currently is no adequate reason
to suppose that it is.

A personal instance; not so long ago I was convinced that time travel was a
completely impossible thing and I still am so convinced, only for rather
different reasons than before! Effectively I have come to a different
conclusion in spite of the fact that the affect remains the same. (For now,
that is; I would love to be proved wrong.)

The idea that 'rationality' is a very closed off and impermeable world view
has gained considerable currency. In particular, superstitious persons whose
stock-in-trade is 'proving from the negative' are very fond of fanning these
flames. Important to note though, is that Virians hold dogmatism to be a
sin. Dogmatism (to me) means assimilating a 'truth' to the point where it
goes unquestioned for so long that it becomes 'sacred'. The 'sin' of dogma
is not so much a sin as a stern reminder that 'all good philosophers'
constantly reexamine their assumptions

IMO: 'impossible' is word best reserved for analytical problems;
'improbable' is better word for questions of fact. Too often, I grant, (and
I have myself sometimes been guilty of this) they are used interchangeably.

Best Regards.


David Lucifer
Sent: 24 September 2005 04:10

<snip>
Colby Thompson writes...

...Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more
effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical
belief alone.  I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility
regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. </snip> 


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
MoEnzyme
Heretic
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 1.66
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
RE: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org
« Reply #3 on: 2005-09-25 14:00:59 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.66) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
ct
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 1
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile
RE: churchofvirus.org
« Reply #4 on: 2005-09-26 05:09:45 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed