It seems that we have no shortage of science fiction, based on the premise
of future technologies and scientific knowledge that can only be dreamed of
now. I find nothing irrational in reading it. There is nothing irrational
about being open to context, vision and possibilities. It seems however a
common meme amongst the anti-scientific. Often said but simply not true.
Irrationality generally falls under the hypocrisy, and dogmatism spectrum
of our ethical system. I don't find anything redeeming about it. Likewise
I find nothing irrational about Vision, which it seems many of the
anti-scientific would like to steal as an "irrational virtue". With a more
contingent, non-dogmatic approach, Vision comes more, not less easily. As
a transhumanist group the Church of Virus takes the approach of an ethical
system in the middle of things, in a state of change, not a dogmatic
foundation of "First principles" etc. As such we ourselves (via Virtues
and Sins) remain open to the same critical thinking that we advocate for
others. There was an earlier time in the Church of Virus, "The Great Faith
Wars", which only get larger in mythology than they actually seemed at the
time. But it was a critical juncture at which we were arguing over the
Virtues and Sins, specifically the Sin of Faith. And through the process
we changed it to dogmatisim, with the understanding that what the Sin of
Faith faction objected to was dogmatic faith, or faith as a virtue. People
claiming that the strength of their beliefs was a virtue. Indeed if that
were the case, then holding patently irrational ideas counts as proof of
ones virtue. Kirkegaard was one of the early leading Christian
philosophers on this still swelling bandwagon when he said "I believe it
BECAUSE it is absurd". Virians past and present on either side of the
Great Faith Wars would agree that there is nothing virtuous there. Those
on the Sin of Dogmatism faction which prevailed objected to the Sin of
Faith, because "faith" is often used in non-irrational ways, like having
faith in yourself or others to accomplish something new, like being
faithful to ones word, etc. These are generally synonymous of Vision
depending on the context. We also wished to take the language (definitions
of faith) more or less as it is used, not as we wish it was used for the
sake of a particular argument.
As to your last instance where you described a psychic sense that required
a certain "belief" in it in order for it to work. I would have to remain
skeptical of any proposed sense that required some special belief to be
used in the first place since none of our senses seem to have this
pre-requisite. My eyes continue functioning even when I question their
accuracy, believe I am really in a dream, or otherwise. It sounds to me
more like an advocacy for a belief in something even in preference to
whether it actually exists or not, which is a very typical meme replication
strategy.
Thanks for the thoughts Colby. Write again sometime.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: David Lucifer <
david@lucifer.com>
> To: <
virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 9/23/2005 9:10:06 PM
> Subject: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2005 board on
Church of Virus BBS.
>
<
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid=33558>
> ---
> 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>