So What,

[Asimov]

Since you live in a Taker culture your main nutrient sources are not very diverse -- wheat, corn, and rice.

 

Again that's false, I rarely eat wheat, corn, or rice.

[chefranden]

Could you define "taker culture" for me?

 

I defined it by description in parts A&B above.

 

You have rejected all the described assumptions of Taker culture. There are 2 possible interpretations of your rejections.

 

1. You have rejected all the assumptions of Taker culture as not being a good way to live, good. Nevertheless, these assumptions have constructed your way of viewing the world, as they have constructed my view of the world, and probably everyone on the board.

 

You stated, "It's a statement that my life is my own, and I shouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice myself for another for the "betterment" of anything." Even if you understand that you are connected to nature, this is a statement of a person that feels apart from the world. Your culture which trained you assumes that you are other. Now that is not taught directly. Your teachers didn't say to you, "Now remember, you are other." You learned in a thousand unconscious ways, by watching what people did. For example, you may have seen significant people give thanks to God for the food, but you probably never saw anyone give thanks to the food. (If this particular example didn't happen in your life, think of one that did, instead of just saying nope.)

 

Let's go back to the statement, "It's a statement that my life is my own, and I shouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice myself for another for the "betterment" of anything." If, as you say, you understand that you are connected to the world and that you have your life from it, on what basis do you make this assurtion, "my life is my own?" "I shouldn't feel obliged," is a moral statement. I asked you to give it's source and you said. " It comes from my own realisation that I'm an individual and am not obliged to help others if I don't want to." I know you write rather tersely, but going on the information you've supplied I conclude that you feel no connection to the world even if you understand to the contrary. Where does that feeling come from if not from your cultural training, by a culture that assumes that you, as any human, do not have to answer because you are on the top of the heap? I'm saying that the feeling comes from the culture you were raised in. You haven't yet said where it comes from.

 

You cannot just say it comes from me, because you have already admitted you are not a separate entity.

 

2. You reject the above assumptions because you don't think the culture is constructed this way.

 

If so then we are at an impass unless you are willing to describe the culture as it actually is.

[Fweethawt]

Dang! Asimov, you should probably do some serious thinking before replying this time.

 

Unless I'm interpreting Cheffy's words the wrong way, I think he's on the verge of showing you just how much of your overall outlook on life, and the world, has been instilled in you by culture.

 

I haven't fully grasped the points the Cheffy has been making in this thread and others. But that last post, I think, put me closer to understanding where he's coming from than all the others have.

[Asimov]

1. You have rejected all the assumptions of Taker culture as not being a good way to live, good. Nevertheless, these assumptions have constructed your way of viewing the world, as they have constructed my view of the world, and probably everyone on the board.

 

They may have constructed my early development, I can't say. I don't believe the same things I did.

 

My 'culture', from what I was taught, tried to show me that I was part of this multicultural society where we should all accept and love everyone for who they are, regardless of belief. We were also heavily driven to provide for others and told that "we are lucky and should give to the needy". I was given an obligation to help those less fortunate than I am. Looking back on that, I could never see those MORE fortunate than I am giving to me. If this type of trickle-down economics was supposed to work like that...then why wasn't my family receiving things?

 

Anyways, I USED to be heavily into socialism, into the ideal that everyone helps everyone and we all add to the pie so everyone gets a piece. I was also heavily into the idea that if human life was controlled by governments who were smart and capable, we would live in a better society. Where everyone helped everyone else.

 

Then I started reading some stuff from Ayn Rand, and her idea of objectivism and identity. I also began reading a series of novels which focused and borrowed heavily from Rand, which focused on the individual rather than the society as a whole. I started to object to that notion, and didn't understand fully exactly what the character in the story was talking about.

 

Reading about these ideas was a catalyst in the formation of my own ideas regarding my identity. It allowed me to shed the burden of guilt that I was taught to have (it still comes and goes). It wasn't my culture that shaped me, it was the antithesis to culture that shaped me.

 

Where does that feeling come from if not from your cultural training, by a culture that assumes that you, as any human, do not have to answer because you are on the top of the heap? I'm saying that the feeling comes from the culture you were raised in. You haven't yet said where it comes from.

 

It has nothing to do with superiority. The culture I live in is a "give all your shit away or bad things will happen to you" culture. I reject that. My life is my own.

[chefranden]

I reject that. My life is my own.

 

What is the I that rejects and owns consist of?

 

If your life is intimately attached to your environment what does owning life mean?

 

That is, if you reject the basic assumptions of Taker culture, whence the idea that there is an I that owns a particular process of nature?

 

Where is the boundary line of this life that you own? It obviously cannot be your skin, because you cannot subsist just on the stuff on the inside of your skin.

 

They may have constructed my early development, I can't say. I don't believe the same things I did.

 

I'm not really discussing what goes on in your intellect. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of conditioning.

 

Then I started reading some stuff from Ayn Rand, and her idea of objectivism and identity.

 

1. Ayn Rand developed her philosophy without realizing or caring that her conditioning was from Taker Culture. You have not removed yourself from taker culture by following Rand.

 

2. It is impossible for a subjective being that lives relative to its experience to be objective. A human is such a being.

 

3. At the very core of Rand's philosophy is "I am Other". "Therefore, how shall I then live," results in ideas that enhance the self -- ideas to help one to be self-ish.

 

I USED to be heavily into socialism, into the ideal that everyone helps everyone and we all add to the pie so everyone gets a piece.

 

You are confusing brands of Taker Culture with the Culture itself. Socialism and libertarianism are different brands of the same Culture. You are only arguing about which people will decide what the pie will be and who gets what piece. You are not questioning the notion that people should do the deciding.

 

If you dare to ask, "why should people (one out of millions of life forms) be the decider," what else can you say but that the world was made/evolved for man to conquer and subdue, i.e. two own. You don't ask that question, because in Taker Culture it is axiomatic that people run things.

[TCH]

2. It is impossible for a subjective being that lives relative to its experience to be objective. A human is such a being.

 

That’s an interesting concept. So it's not possible for anyone to understand exactly what you mean because we are subjective beings. We cannot step back and objectively look at any argument.

 

This would imply that consensus on any given subject could only be accomplished by those with similar experiences and the interpretation of those experiences.

 

Thus Asimov can never see your perspective and you can never see his.

[Asimov]

It obviously cannot be your skin, because you cannot subsist just on the stuff on the inside of your skin.

 

So? That doesn't mean we are not individual beings. Just because we have an interdependancy of survival does not mean that I am a carrot or anything else.

 

I'm not really discussing what goes on in your intellect. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of conditioning.

 

Well you're not explaining that very well. None of what you say makes any sense.

 

1. Ayn Rand developed her philosophy without realizing or caring that her conditioning was from Taker Culture. You have not removed yourself from taker culture by following Rand.

 

2. It is impossible for a subjective being that lives relative to its experience to be objective. A human is such a being.

 

3. At the very core of Rand's philosophy is "I am Other". "Therefore, how shall I then live," results in ideas that enhance the self -- ideas to help one to be self-ish.

 

Uh, no. Science relies on objectivity, as does logic. We do rely on our own experience, that doesn't mean we can't look outside our experience. And yes, it does rely on "I am Other", but your little catch-phrases like "taker-culture" and "I am other" do not mean what you seem to be defining them as.

 

You are confusing brands of Taker Culture with the Culture itself. Socialism and libertarianism are different brands of the same Culture. You are only arguing about which people will decide what the pie will be and who gets what piece. You are not questioning the notion that people should do the deciding.

 

Why shouldn't we decide for ourselves? You think we should all just lay down and die? Not try to survive? That goes against our own instincts.

 

If you dare to ask, "why should people (one out of millions of life forms) be the decider," what else can you say but that the world was made/evolved for man to conquer and subdue, i.e. two own. You don't ask that question, because in Taker Culture it is axiomatic that people run things.

 

Be the decider for what? Run what things? Chef, your throwin out shit here that has no meaning to me. You're talking OVER my head, using your Quinn Catch-Phrasery as if I understand or care. If you want to have a discussion, stop using those words. They are meaningless to me.

 

Thus Asimov can never see your perspective and you can never see his.

 

Which goes against the idea of empathy.

[chefranden]

2. It is impossible for a subjective being that lives relative to its experience to be objective. A human is such a being.

 

1. That’s an interesting concept. So it's not possible for anyone to understand exactly what you mean because we are subjective beings.

 

2. We cannot step back and objectively look at any argument.

 

3. This would imply that consensus on any given subject could only be accomplished by those with similar experiences and the interpretation of those experiences.

 

4. Thus Asimov can never see your perspective and you can never see his.

 

 

1. It is possible to understand, but not to understand "exactly" what I mean.

 

2. That's right.

 

3. Not exactly However the more your experiences and circumstance are similar the easier it is to come to consensus, or general agreement. Exact agreement is not possible.

 

4. He will never see my exact perspective. If you and I were standing side by side looking at a chair, our perspectives would be near enough to agree that it is a chair, but not the exact same perspective. Our perspective would not be exactly the same even if we figured out how to get our eyeballs into the same space time coordinants. There is more to subjective perspective then just location.

 

Each human has unique subjective filters constructed from his unique experience including but not restricted to:

 

Participants) You and other people who have "played a role" in your life.

Parts) Settings, significant facts, episodes, and significant states (including the present state and some original state)

Stages) Preconditions: Settings for the beginning of life, culture, language, economics, parents, siblings, extended family, environment, nutricion, gene expression, etc. Beginning: The original state followed by episodes in the same temporal setting. Middle: Various episodes and significant states, in succeeding temporal order. End: The present state.

Causation: Various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states.

Linear Sequence) The temporal position of the various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states. (example: learning a language as a child instead of as an adult)

Purpose) Goal: A desired state of self either constructed by the self, or by other actors, or by both. Plan: A sequence of episodes initiated by self and/or by other actors, which are perceived to be causally connected to the goal.*

(list taken with modifications from Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By pp172, 173)

 

Since the construction of these filters cannot be exactly shared even by twins, the perspective will always be subject to a person's unique construction. This is why that even if there were absolutes they will always be subjectively observed by humans.

 

Human understanding can be simular, but never the same.

 

* It is impossible to step back from these things, because they are recorded in the physical body, "Embodied Mind". When you step back you take it with you.

[chefranden]

So? That doesn't mean we are not individual beings. Just because we have an interdependency of survival does not mean that I am a carrot or anything else.

 

Obviously there is some uniqueness to us, but it is not absolute. I think of it like this. A whirlpool in a river is a pattern in the flow of water. The water flows through the pattern for a time, then after a bit the pattern dissipates. The pattern cannot exist with out the water, but the water can exist without the pattern. One whirlpool is unique from the other but they are made of the same substance. They have their existence in the properties of the water.

 

In like manner we are patterns in the flow of matter. We cannot exist without the matter, but of course the matter can exist without us. We have our existence in the properties of matter. This is what I mean when I say that nature is our ground of being.

 

1.Uh, no. Science relies on objectivity, as does logic. 2. We do rely on our own experience, that doesn't mean we can't look outside our experience. And yes, it does rely on "I am Other", 3. but your little catch-phrases like "taker-culture" and "I am other" 4. do not mean what you seem to be defining them as.

 

Uh, no.

 

1. Science hopes for objectivity, but cannot obtain it. Logic purports to achieve objectivity, but does not – at least not in humans, because both rely on “I am Other.” “I am Other” is a fiction, part of the myth of the culture you don't want me to mention.

 

2. You cannot look outside of your own experience. As soon as you look, walk, smell, read, listen, poke yourself in the eye it is your own experience, and it is filtered by what has gone before. What you know of Ayn Rand is your experience of reading her works, and your experience of any other means of information about her digested through your filters set by past experience. This is not Rand’s experience. (See post 58)

 

3. It doesn’t do to dismiss my ideas as “catch-phrases”. If you wish to disagree with them in discussion then you must show why they are not correct. Mere dismissal is a discussion stopper. If you wish to stop the discussion that is fine.

 

4. You are welcome to attempt redefinition. I earnestly wish that you would do so.

 

1.Why shouldn't we decide for ourselves? 2.You think we should all just lay down and die? Not try to survive? That goes against our own instincts.

 

1. No reason, except that we might not want to go extinct. There is no moral motivation outside of our feelings that we would like to remain an extant species. It seems obvious to me that our decisions about conquering nature are leading to an environment that will not support human life. That might be a good reason to let nature do the deciding, like nature did up until 10,000 years ago give or take.

 

2. Does this mean that you would like the species to survive, or are you referring to your own existence for as long as possible at what ever cost?

 

1. Be the decider for what? Run what things? Chef, your throwin out shit here that has no meaning to me. 2. You're talking OVER my head, using your Quinn Catch-Phrasery as if I understand or care. If you want to have a discussion, 3. stop using those words. They are meaningless to me.

 

1. The decider of what the pie will consist of and who or what shall get a piece.

 

2. You seem to care, because you keep trying.

 

3. I can’t stop using these words. They are what the thread is about. After all this is “my thread” “I own it”.

 

I apologize for not being able to make the terms clear. I admit that I’ve not been able to pry up a scale of your intellectual armor to let some of the “shit” leak in. I’m not the best of writers. Quinn does the better job. If you would like to know about this stuff, read Ishmael. You could probably get through it in 2-3 hours.

 

If you wish to quit, I bear you no ill will.

[jjacksonRIAB]

In a purely metaphysical sense, Chef, I have to say I agree with you.

 

I apologize in advance for fragmenting your discussion with Asimov but I wanted to ask you about your suggestion that all of our experiences are biased by our past experiences as individuals, and possibly throw a wrench into the cog.

 

I remember reading about a test that suggests even aesthetics can be objective. Those subjected to the "tests" (people chosen at random) were given a choice between two woven rugs and queried as to which one "defined" them more as a person. More than 95% of the subjects chose the same rug. The tests were continued with two rugs chosen completely at random -- and yet the bias towards one over another persisted.

 

Maybe it is possible that even while experiences seem to be completely ours, our interpretations differ only somewhat slightly from those of others. Would this not suggest that perhaps most of us are understanding what is being conveyed in a written work?

 

I know this is a multivalent argument and not in any way 100% objective, and it does bolster the idea (if merely in the fact that it doesn't address it) that there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. On the other hand, would you settle for 95%?

 

In my mind, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. You seem to reject science bimodally (which is, paradoxically, where logic -the mother of science- has its roots), but even if we don't answer all of our questions with science, where is the realm of "good enough" for you?

[chefranden]

In a purely metaphysical sense, Chef, I have to say I agree with you.

 

1. I apologize in advance for fragmenting your discussion with Asimov but I wanted to ask you about your suggestion that all of our experiences are biased by our past experiences as individuals, and possibly throw a wrench into the cog.

 

2. I remember reading about a test that suggests even aesthetics can be objective. Those subjected to the "tests" (people chosen at random) were given a choice between two woven rugs and queried as to which one "defined" them more as a person. More than 95% of the subjects chose the same rug. The tests were continued with two rugs chosen completely at random -- and yet the bias towards one over another persisted.

 

3. Maybe it is possible that even while experiences seem to be completely ours, our interpretations differ only somewhat slightly from those of others. Would this not suggest that perhaps most of us are understanding what is being conveyed in a written work?

 

4. I know this is a multivalent argument and not in any way 100% objective, and it does bolster the idea (if merely in the fact that it doesn't address it) that there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. On the other hand, would you settle for 95%?

 

5. In my mind, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. You seem to reject science bimodally (which is, paradoxically, where logic -the mother of science- has its roots), but even if we don't answer all of our questions with science, where is the realm of "good enough" for you?

 

1. No need to apologize. I want everyone to take a shot at pulling my plug. There is more than likely a fatal flaw in this philosophy some where.

 

2. If I could only see those rugs.

 

Since we are of the same species, there are many characteristics that are quite similar. If you thought of these things as Photoshop layers piled on top of one another some are bound to look in focus with the layers below. Across brands of Taker Culture and of brands of Leaver Culture people use some of the same general metaphors that come from the way our body works. For example, because we feel best when upright ideas of goodness are expressed in upward directions. Another example, you will be able to get a good idea of person's feelings from her face regardless of her brand of culture.

 

3. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that one can understand nothing of another's writing, or other form of communication. You can understand some percentage of what the communicator is communicating, or we couldn't do this computer thing. I was only telling Azimov that one cannot step outside of one's own experience. He can understand Rand to some degree or another, but he is not stepping outside of his own experience to do so. Being able to understand is not the same as being objective.

 

4. I think that in this context we are thinking of being objective as being uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. So what I am saying is that one cannot be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. All that has constructed a mind is recorded in some physical fashion in the body. Everything done to understand the world out there must come through these filters or processes. There is no other way to do it. I am not a mind in a body. I am a bodymind. I am not a piece of software running on wetware. I am all wetware. (Or contrariwise, I'm all wet. )

 

Disclaimer: Just because I say we cannot apprehend the world objectively, does not mean that I think there is no objective world.

 

5. I'm not sure if I understand rejecting something bimodally. I would guess that you mean that I reject it 2 ways, except for your parenthesis.

 

It is not a matter of Science being able to answer all questions. It is a matter of why Science at all? Consider scientific research to find "the cure for cancer." There is a lot of hope, prestige, and resources invested in this search. I have to wonder why? Why spend so much on cancer cures, when 99%* of them are preventable. All that has to be done is stop dumping crap into the environment. But of course we don't want to do that. We like the crap. We are convinced that it makes our life better to have crap. We keep on making it and inventing more crap to add to the environment. The drugs we make to cure cancer will be even more crap added.

 

Ideally what would be good enough for me is no more crap.

 

 

*a hopefully educated guess.

[Asimov]

Obviously there is some uniqueness to us, but it is not absolute. I think of it like this. A whirlpool in a river is a pattern in the flow of water. The water flows through the pattern for a time, then after a bit the pattern dissipates. The pattern cannot exist with out the water, but the water can exist without the pattern. One whirlpool is unique from the other but they are made of the same substance. They have their existence in the properties of the water.

 

There is no such thing as absolute uniqueness. You are either unique, or exactly the same. Since I am different from everything else, I am an individual. Because I share similarities to other individuals, I am also a human. Because I share similarities to a broader range of individuals, I am a primate, ad infinitum.

 

1. Science hopes for objectivity, but cannot obtain it. Logic purports to achieve objectivity, but does not – at least not in humans, because both rely on “I am Other.” “I am Other” is a fiction, part of the myth of the culture you don't want me to mention.

 

Well, obviously that is a matter of differing opinion. Logic is objective and transcends humanity. Simply because WE notice the patterns of existence doesn't mean it isn't objective. Subjective pertains to each individual, objective pertains to reality.

 

2. You cannot look outside of your own experience. As soon as you look, walk, smell, read, listen, poke yourself in the eye it is your own experience, and it is filtered by what has gone before. What you know of Ayn Rand is your experience of reading her works, and your experience of any other means of information about her digested through your filters set by past experience. This is not Rand’s experience. (See post 58)

 

Of course you can look outside of your own experience. It's called empathy. I've never had my balls electroded, but I can put myself into the shoes of another person who has and look outside the scope of my experience, realising that maybe having your balls electroded is a bad thing, despite never experiencing it.

 

3. It doesn’t do to dismiss my ideas as “catch-phrases”. If you wish to disagree with them in discussion then you must show why they are not correct. Mere dismissal is a discussion stopper. If you wish to stop the discussion that is fine.

 

It's not a dismissal, all you are making is accusations that I don't understand, and that I'm "conditioned" by this Taker Culture. I dismiss your accusations out of hand because they don't apply to me.

 

You say my beliefs are irrelevant in the matter and that we're talking about my cultural conditioning. Well I don't have cultural conditioning. My actions are directly associated with my beliefs. The ex-Christians here were conditioned to be Christians, should I still accuse them of having Christian conditioning? No, that would be an insult. They're beliefs have changed, and as a result, their conditioning has changed.

 

What I see YOU doing here is attempting a conversion, despite your claims to the contrary. In order to convert someone, you must:

 

1. Create a problem or condition. (Taker Culture).

2. Convince people they have this problem/condition.

3. Offer a solution.

 

I contend that while you may not offer the Jesus Christ of the Taker Culture, I do contend that you fabricate a problem and are now trying to convince me of it.

 

4. You are welcome to attempt redefinition. I earnestly wish that you would do so.

 

I think we got to this previously. Individuality is based on the Law of Identity. A=A. I have specific attributes that define me. These are Primary Attributes, Secondary Attributes, Relational Attributes. Negative Attributes fall into play when defining what something is not (ex: I am not you).

 

1. No reason, except that we might not want to go extinct. There is no moral motivation outside of our feelings that we would like to remain an extant species. It seems obvious to me that our decisions about conquering nature are leading to an environment that will not support human life. That might be a good reason to let nature do the deciding, like nature did up until 10,000 years ago give or take.

 

Nature never does the deciding. Nature is not a being. There is no Gaia. Every species vies for domination over the other species, fights for control of resources. We are going with our instincts, and that is to multiply and eat. What we need to do is go against our instincts to an extent that allows the environment to bounce back a little.

 

Every species manipulates its environment and tries to "conquer" nature.

 

2. Does this mean that you would like the species to survive, or are you referring to your own existence for as long as possible at what ever cost?

 

My self-interest in survival helps the species along. The over-interest in other peoples survival is going a little too far.

 

I apologize for not being able to make the terms clear. I admit that I’ve not been able to pry up a scale of your intellectual armor to let some of the “shit” leak in. I’m not the best of writers. Quinn does the better job. If you would like to know about this stuff, read Ishmael. You could probably get through it in 2-3 hours.

 

If you wish to quit, I bear you no ill will.

 

I'm not conceding. I wish to try to understand where you're coming from, so far I don't accept what you are saying.

 

 

I remember reading about a test that suggests even aesthetics can be objective. Those subjected to the "tests" (people chosen at random) were given a choice between two woven rugs and queried as to which one "defined" them more as a person. More than 95% of the subjects chose the same rug. The tests were continued with two rugs chosen completely at random -- and yet the bias towards one over another persisted.

 

I'm going to make a wild guess and say that the same rugs that were chosen were symmetrical.

 

Just a guess.

[Fweethawt]

I wanna have my balls electroded.

 

 

[Asimov]

I wanna have my balls electroded.

 

 

 

Hey, I try and inject a little humour into the discussion to lighten it up a bit.

 

[jjacksonRIAB]

I'm going to make a wild guess and say that the same rugs that were chosen were symmetrical.

 

Just a guess.

 

Your guess would probably be right. Patterns are almost objective (at least enough to bank on), yet have aesthetic qualities. It would appear even the domains long considered entirely subjective have also many objective qualities.

 

I was reading a post you did in another thread where you had a string of random letters. I looked at the string and found within it at least 10 three letter words. If people were to judge randomness aesthetically, they might also come to the same conclusions between two random strings, because patterns are our way of understanding nature.

[pitchu]

Every species manipulates its environment and tries to "conquer" nature.

 

Asimov, can you give examples?

 

I agree that every species tries to "use" nature, but this is different from "conquering" it.

 

Example: Beavers "use" sticks and twigs to create a dam. But they don't "conquer" the overall thrust and flow of the water, which they need as much as they need the dam. "Conquering" water flow, as humans have, creates flood plains and other destructive miseries which are ultimately anti-human.

 

Humans are the only species I can think of which is capable of, and is proceeding to, "nature-conquer" itself out of existence.

 

jjackson, it's my guess that the rug experiment was done with people from one specific culture. I wonder what the results would have been if half the participants had been from Cleveland and the other half from Bombay... ?

[chefranden]

1.There is no such thing as absolute uniqueness. You are either unique, or exactly the same. 2. Since I am different from everything else, I am an individual. Because I share similarities to other individuals, I am also a human. Because I share similarities to a broader range of individuals, I am a primate, ad infinitum. 3.

 

1. If there is no such thing as absolute uniqueness then, “You are either unique, or exactly the same,” is nonsense. I’m going to suppose that you meant that “uniqueness is absolute therefore you are either unique or exactly the same.” You are correct; I used unique incorrectly.

 

2. So you are different, but the same? Yes that is what I was trying to say.

 

3. You only commented on one sentence of the paragraph.

 

1. Well, obviously that is a matter of differing opinion. Logic is objective and transcends humanity. Simply because WE notice the patterns of existence doesn't mean it isn't objective. Subjective pertains to each individual, objective pertains to reality.

 

I will say that you do not understand what scientific objectivity is. To say that Science cannot obtain objectivity is not to say there is no objective world. Scientific objectivity is the attempt to look at data without prejudice or emotion. That is what cannot be done. It cannot be done because the scientist is a bodymind, not a mind in a body. In order to be objective you would need to disconnect your consciousness from your body. That cannot be done either actually or virtually.

 

Please try to respond to what I write rather than your preconceived notions of subjectivism. I am attempting to understand the world as an experientialist not an objectivist or a subjectivist. That is, what does it mean to be a subjective mind in an objective world? The world is objective i.e. has real existence, is not a figment of my imagination. Nevertheless, my engine of apprehension of the real functions subjectively. So does yours. Therefore objective reality includes the reality of subjective human minds.

 

Try to pay attention to the feelings that accompany your responses in this conversation. This “Chef, your throwin out shit here that has no meaning to me. You're talking OVER my head, using your Quinn Catch-Phrasery as if I understand or care. If you want to have a discussion, stop using those words. They are meaningless to me.” indicates to me that you are experiencing some degree of frustration in this conversation. I suggest that you will find that you cannot carry on the conversation objectively, i.e. without prejudice and emotion. At the very least you will need a feeling of interest and the prejudice that you are right to continue.

 

My emotions and prejudice in this conversation consist in part of interest, amusement, compassion for your youth, frustration, prejudice about libertarianism, prejudice about my rightness, prejudice about Ayn Rand, prejudice about objectivism, prejudice about subjectivism, prejudice about environmental degradation.

 

Of course you can look outside of your own experience. It's called empathy. I've never had my balls electroded, but I can put myself into the shoes of another person who has and look outside the scope of my experience, realising that maybe having your balls electroded is a bad thing, despite never experiencing it.

 

Sorry, your empathy is your experience. If it wasn’t your experience you would have no knowledge of it. You haven’t experienced the guy’s cooked balls. Your have experienced your empathy. Brain damaged people that cannot physically produce the emotion of empathy can watch 10,000 sets of cooked balls and then eat supper and get a good night’s sleep.

 

You say my beliefs are irrelevant in the matter and that we're talking about my cultural conditioning. Well I don't have cultural conditioning. My actions are directly associated with my beliefs. 1. The ex-Christians here were conditioned to be Christians, should I still accuse them of having Christian conditioning? No, that would be an insult. They're beliefs have changed, and as a result, their conditioning has changed.

 

I would say that you were experiencing a little un-objective anger here. (not meant as a criticism, meant as observation)

 

1. If this is the case why is there an Ex-Christian Life forum on the board? Why would there be threads like Do You Still Doubt or Struggle?

 

If the way your live your life is based on intellectual beliefs rather than conditioning, the you ought to be able to change the way you act, just by changing beliefs. You could do amazing things.

a. You could go to the mall. Believe that being naked in public is the right way to be. Take off your clothes and do your shopping without the slightest bit of self consciousness or embarrassment.

 

b. You could become a devout Christian for a month and know all the right church moves and talk to Jesus. Then, next month, you could be a devout Muslim knowing all the right mosque moves and feel Allah closer than the veins in your neck.

 

c. If you only believed you were an organist, you could sit down and play Bach as well or better than Bach himself. There would be no end of what you could do.

 

Can’t do these things? Then I suggest you are still culturally conditioned. (Again that is an observation not a criticism.)

 

1. What I see YOU doing here is attempting a conversion, despite your claims to the contrary. In order to convert someone, you must: 2.

 

1. Create a problem or condition. (Taker Culture).

2. Convince people they have this problem/condition.

3. Offer a solution.

 

3. I contend that while you may not offer the Jesus Christ of the Taker Culture, I do contend that you fabricate a problem and are now trying to convince me of it.

 

1. I would guess that there is no prejudice and anger about evil evangelists here? It is an absolutely objective statement right?

 

2. In order to convert someone I would have to have a solution as you say. I don’t have a solution. However, if you should decide to believe in me for a month, please sell all that you own and send me the money.

 

3. I agree that it is a fabrication in the sense that it is my theory of how humans are in the world. You have been attempting show me the theory’s anomalies, but so far I haven’t seen one. And Yes I am attempting to get you to see the problem, if in fact I’m rightish about it. Contrariwise, you are attempting to make me see that there is not a problem, right?

 

I think we got to this previously. Individuality is based on the Law of Identity. A=A. I have specific attributes that define me. These are Primary Attributes, Secondary Attributes, Relational Attributes. Negative Attributes fall into play when defining what something is not (ex: I am not you).

 

Ah this is a good one and makes me struggle a bit.

 

It is a fundamental property of life that an entity must, in some fashion, distinguish between me and not me. These properties are part of this pattern and these properties are not. My pattern can use these materials, but not those materials. IMHO this is the biological source of the law of identity. But this cannot be an absolute law or property of the universe or else we could not say E=mc2. While the pattern exists the law of identity is useful for maintenance of the pattern, but once the pattern dissipates it is no longer important.

 

Thought experiment: Fashion a 1# sphere and a 1# cube of ice, keep them in the freezer and apply the law of Identity to them. The cube is the cube and not the sphere. The sphere is the sphere and not the cube. Now take them out of the freezer and place the in a pan in a warm room. Wait until they melt completely and then again apply the law of Identity to them. Oops, it doesn’t apply. Where did the identities of the cube and the sphere go? The same sort of thing happens to humans only we are not usually aware of it. It appears that the law of Identity is not an absolute law.

 

A human can only exist in the field of matter and energy that can give rise to its pattern. If we alter the field enough it will no longer give rise to human patterns of matter and energy. Our primary use of Science is altering the field.

 

Nature never does the deciding. Nature is not a being. There is no Gaia. Every species vies for domination over the other species, fights for control of resources. We are going with our instincts, and that is to multiply and eat. What we need to do is go against our instincts to an extent that allows the environment to bounce back a little.

 

Every species manipulates its environment and tries to "conquer" nature.

 

Nature doesn’t intellectually decide. But it decides right enough. If nature slams a planetoid into the earth tomorrow all human intellectual will be moot. Nature has already decided what sort of environment will produce a human. If the human decides to make that environment go away, so will the human. If the human decides to live in the environment provide by nature it will last until nature changes the environment. It is an artifact of Taker Culture that supposes the human intellect to be “the decider” of the universe. It is an artifact of Taker Culture that the human intellect is a better decider than nature.

 

I’ll continue later, real life calls.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Every species manipulates its environment and tries to "conquer" nature.

 

Asimov, can you give examples?

 

I agree that every species tries to "use" nature, but this is different from "conquering" it.

 

Example: Beavers "use" sticks and twigs to create a dam. But they don't "conquer" the overall thrust and flow of the water, which they need as much as they need the dam. "Conquering" water flow, as humans have, creates flood plains and other destructive miseries which are ultimately anti-human.

 

Humans are the only species I can think of which is capable of, and is proceeding to, "nature-conquer" itself out of existence.

 

jjackson, it's my guess that the rug experiment was done with people from one specific culture. I wonder what the results would have been if half the participants had been from Cleveland and the other half from Bombay... ?

 

You know, I almost covered that base in advance - even started typing it, but I've got visitors this week so I don't have the time for much more than an abbreviated effort ;-)

 

But yes -- they were random people from many different cultures.

[Asimov]

1. If there is no such thing as absolute uniqueness then, “You are either unique, or exactly the same,” is nonsense. I’m going to suppose that you meant that “uniqueness is absolute therefore you are either unique or exactly the same.” You are correct; I used unique incorrectly.

 

2. So you are different, but the same? Yes that is what I was trying to say.

 

3. You only commented on one sentence of the paragraph.

 

I correct my statement then, due to the inconsistency of what I was trying to phrase. It was badly worded.

 

We are either unique, or exactly the same. Since we are not exactly the same, there is no basis in saying that there are no individuals or "others".

 

We are not the same, we have similarities. Just like each atom is not the same, but have similarities that we classify as 'hydrogen', 'oxygen'.

 

I will say that you do not understand what scientific objectivity is. To say that Science cannot obtain objectivity is not to say there is no objective world. Scientific objectivity is the attempt to look at data without prejudice or emotion. That is what cannot be done. It cannot be done because the scientist is a bodymind, not a mind in a body. In order to be objective you would need to disconnect your consciousness from your body. That cannot be done either actually or virtually.

 

Scientific objectivity is pooling our finds together into a collective of knowledge. Every individual has some kind of bias, but it is possible to abstractly "disconnect" yourself and look at things through a filter. I may not like that I am composed of lumps of atoms, but that doesn't mean I can't accept it. That is looking at things objectively.

 

I suggest that you will find that you cannot carry on the conversation objectively, i.e. without prejudice and emotion. At the very least you will need a feeling of interest and the prejudice that you are right to continue.

 

Conversing objectively doesn't mean to act like robots, chef. I embrace my emotions, but I don't let them control me. I do think I'm right, and I don't think you have a factual foundation in your ideas regarding "cultural conditioning".

 

Sorry, your empathy is your experience.

 

Yes, it's the experience of looking at things from outside your own personal experience. Extrapolating how you might feel if what you observe happening to others happened to you. What happens to others is not your experience, but how you empathize about them is a projection of what's going on to other people.

 

I would say that you were experiencing a little un-objective anger here. (not meant as a criticism, meant as observation)

 

As do many people perceive my posts and the way I talk.

 

1. If this is the case why is there an Ex-Christian Life forum on the board? Why would there be threads like Do You Still Doubt or Struggle?

 

If the way your live your life is based on intellectual beliefs rather than conditioning, the you ought to be able to change the way you act, just by changing beliefs. You could do amazing things.

a. You could go to the mall. Believe that being naked in public is the right way to be. Take off your clothes and do your shopping without the slightest bit of self consciousness or embarrassment.

 

b. You could become a devout Christian for a month and know all the right church moves and talk to Jesus. Then, next month, you could be a devout Muslim knowing all the right mosque moves and feel Allah closer than the veins in your neck.

 

c. If you only believed you were an organist, you could sit down and play Bach as well or better than Bach himself. There would be no end of what you could do.

 

Can’t do these things? Then I suggest you are still culturally conditioned. (Again that is an observation not a criticism.)

 

I submit to the "court" , that this place is

 

1) A transitory stage for those fighting their christian conditioning.

2) A place of support and fellowship.

 

For those who "doubt and struggle", they are still in the process of deconditioning.

 

You seem to think that my statement that "my actions are a direct result of my beliefs" a little too literally. Allow me to expand on that thought:

 

The information that I receive on a daily basis and the sorting of it into a rationalization shapes my beliefs. My beliefs shape my actions. I don't just fabricate beliefs out of thin air and say "I believe I can play bach, therefore I can".

 

1. I would guess that there is no prejudice and anger about evil evangelists here? It is an absolutely objective statement right?

 

Prejudice means to "pre-judge" I'm not pre-judging. I'm judging.

 

2. In order to convert someone I would have to have a solution as you say. I don’t have a solution. However, if you should decide to believe in me for a month, please sell all that you own and send me the money.

 

3. I agree that it is a fabrication in the sense that it is my theory of how humans are in the world. You have been attempting show me the theory’s anomalies, but so far I haven’t seen one. And Yes I am attempting to get you to see the problem, if in fact I’m rightish about it. Contrariwise, you are attempting to make me see that there is not a problem, right?

 

You don't have a solution, nor do you have a palpable problem that I accept.

 

How can I formulate a rational criticism regarding your theory when I don't see an actual argument, just accusations? I've seen you state what you think is this "Taker Culture", and I told you I rejected it, therefore I don't live that way. Yet you still maintain that I'm conditioned to do so. I maintain that what I was taught as a child is different from what I teach myself now, and I also behave differently than I did before.

 

Yet you still maintain that I am culturally conditioned.

 

Where did the identities of the cube and the sphere go? The same sort of thing happens to humans only we are not usually aware of it. It appears that the law of Identity is not an absolute law.

 

It is an absolute law that A=A , you change the properties of A and you get something with a different identity ( .

 

You change the properties of a human (alzheimers, brain damage), and you get something with a different identity.

 

Nature doesn’t intellectually decide. But it decides right enough. If nature slams a planetoid into the earth tomorrow all human intellectual will be moot. Nature has already decided what sort of environment will produce a human. If the human decides to make that environment go away, so will the human. If the human decides to live in the environment provide by nature it will last until nature changes the environment. It is an artifact of Taker Culture that supposes the human intellect to be “the decider” of the universe. It is an artifact of Taker Culture that the human intellect is a better decider than nature.

 

I’ll continue later, real life calls.

 

Nature also produced the human, it seems you are applying the blame to the victim of production rather than the real "culprit".

 

We are not the "deciders' of the universe, we are the "deciders" of ourselves.

 

 

Every species manipulates its environment and tries to "conquer" nature.

 

Asimov, can you give examples?

 

I agree that every species tries to "use" nature, but this is different from "conquering" it.

 

Example: Beavers "use" sticks and twigs to create a dam. But they don't "conquer" the overall thrust and flow of the water, which they need as much as they need the dam. "Conquering" water flow, as humans have, creates flood plains and other destructive miseries which are ultimately anti-human.

 

I've just had a thought that chef seems to differentiate between "us" and "nature"...interesting considering that he maintains it's bad to have an "I am other" attitude.

 

Let's look at locusts...they eat everything in their path, destroying everything. Look at viruses, they consume their environment until it can't sustain them anymore and then they die out within that body...even though they might manage to spread, they never try to maintain a harmonic and symbiotic relationship with it.

 

If there are too many deer, they destroy the environment, eat all their resources and starve to death until the environment can bounce back and the deer can populate once more. If the wolves eat all the deer the wolves will starve and die out.

[chefranden]

Scientific objectivity is pooling our finds together into a collective of knowledge. Every individual has some kind of bias, but it is possible to abstractly "disconnect" yourself and look at things through a filter. I may not like that I am composed of lumps of atoms, but that doesn't mean I can't accept it. That is looking at things objectively.

 

Well see there you go, we are arguing apples and polliwogs. Pooling finds would be something like archiving. It is not objectivity by any dictionary I’ve ever read. A collected archive of knowledge would constitute an object, but I wouldn’t confuse that with objectivity, judging something without emotional and prejudicial bias.

 

You actually agree with me. “ Every individual has some kind of bias...” Now I only have to convince you of it.

 

How is abstract disconnection, real disconnection? The abstraction has to take place the same way any thought takes place via the processes of a bodymind. Try as you might nothing that is human knowledge is outside of a bodymind. Granted a library is an object outside of your bodymind. But as an object it is only ink and paper and/or other media. It is not human knowledge until it is read into a bodymind and reading in is itself a bodymind process subject to the filters. Those bodymind processes always include everything that has made one what one is, including what you had for breakfast and your cultural conditioning. You may not like that, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t accept it.

 

To look at things objectively is to look at them with out emotional and prejudicial bias. This cannot be done by a human, because emotion and prejudice are effects of one’s construction as a human which includes cultural conditioning. That doesn’t mean that one can’t know anything. It only means one can’t know anything apart from one’s filters, including knowing that one has the filters. If we really want to know what is real, it does no good to ignore or deny the construction of the knower.

 

To think that a mind can be apart from its physical construction is an artifact of this culture. “I (the real me in this body) am other.” As an idea it is directly embraced by most religionists as real reality. It is their otherness that Christians hope to preserve when their material melts. Atheists reject this idea as a real reality, but then continue to act and think as if it were actually the case. Why? Cultural conditioning.

 

Conversing objectively doesn't mean to act like robots, chef. I embrace my emotions, but I don't let them control me. I do think I'm right, and I don't think you have a factual foundation in your ideas regarding "cultural conditioning".

 

I submit the following as factual foundation.

 

The information that I receive on a daily basis and the sorting of it into a rationalization shapes my beliefs. My beliefs shape my actions. I don't just fabricate beliefs out of thin air and say "I believe I can play bach, therefore I can".

 

Of course you don’t just fabricate them out of thin air. You can’t. That is my point. The beliefs come from everything that has constructed you to this point in your life. You can believe you can play Bach only when you have been conditioned to play Bach. If you have not already been conditioned to play Bach and you want to play Bach, you will have to be conditioned to play Bach. Sometimes we call conditioning training. You were trained to believe you should wear clothes to the mall. That is why you would feel uncomfortable naked at the mall. You were trained to believe that knowledge should be Scientific. That is why you feel uncomfortable when a religionist, or basic moron like me challenges that.

 

Now please, if you would, explain how any of the following do not apply to the construction of the being Azimov.

 

Each human has unique subjective filters constructed from his unique experience including but not restricted to:

 

Participants) You and other people who have "played a role" in your life.

 

Parts) Settings, significant facts, episodes, and significant states (including the present state and some original state)

 

Stages) Preconditions: Settings for the beginning of life, culture, language, economics, parents, siblings, extended family, environment, nutrition, gene expression, etc. Beginning: The original state followed by episodes in the same temporal setting. Middle: Various episodes and significant states, in succeeding temporal order. End: The present state.

 

Causation: Various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states.

Linear Sequence) The temporal position of the various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states. (example: learning a language as a child instead of as an adult)

Purpose)

 

Goal: A desired state of self either constructed by the self, or by other actors, or by both. Plan: A sequence of episodes initiated by self and/or by other actors, which are perceived to be causally connected to the goal.*

(list taken with modifications from Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By pp172, 173)

 

I submit to the "court" that this place is

1) A transitory stage for those fighting their christian conditioning.

2) A place of support and fellowship.

 

For those who "doubt and struggle", they are still in the process of deconditioning.

 

Ah, then you are willing to admit that at least Christians are conditioned. Well that’s a start. Are you saying that only Christians are conditioned? If not are you saying that only religionist are conditioned? If not are you saying that only libertarian atheists are not conditioned?

 

Prejudice means to "pre-judge" I'm not pre-judging. I'm judging.

 

Exactly, “pre” before. In the past you have judged Science (I would say via training/conditioning) to be the only proper way to look at the world. Now a basic moron comes along and says, “Science, maybe not.” Do you re-judge Science to see if basic moron is maybe right? No, of course not. You have already done that work. You have judged Science before so it is now your prejudice. Therefore, you already know that basic moron is well, a basic moron, and you don’t have to consider his points to know that.

 

I’m not saying that is bad. I am saying this is the way our bodyminds work. I suggest that you don’t like the idea of having prejudices, because your culture has trained you to see prejudice as bad, instead of as what is. However, as you say, just because you don’t like the idea of being a pre-judger, doesn’t mean you can’t accept it.

 

You don't have a solution, nor do you have a palpable problem that I accept.

 

Don’t worry about that. Most people don’t see the problem. Thus, there will be an environmental collapse that will take most living humans, if not all. Of course that is sad only from a human standpoint. Nature will not morn, she will just do something else.

 

How can I formulate a rational criticism regarding your theory when I don't see an actual argument, just accusations? I've seen you state what you think is this "Taker Culture", and I told you I rejected it, therefore I don't live that way. Yet you still maintain that I'm conditioned to do so. I maintain that what I was taught as a child is different from what I teach myself now, and I also behave differently than I did before.

 

Of course you live that way. Do you use computers? Do you go to the store for food? Do you live in a dwelling built by someone else, and possibly owned by someone else? Do you buy anything on line? Do you drive a car? Do you drive on roads? Do you own stocks? Is petroleum, directly or indirectly, your major source of energy? Do you have a favorite TV show. Do you buy any products made by people who get less than $2/day? Do you speak English? Do you wash your hair with pre-manufactured soap. Do you read books. Do you like technology? Are you employed? Do you think of money or gold as wealth? Do you pay money to play games? Do you pay money to watch games? Do you buy (or steal) music made by someone else? Do you think that only certain persons should eat? Do you think that you have the right to a piece of land, merely because you exchange pieces of paper with another human. Do you think that you can do to that piece of land what ever you want no matter how it may affect other living things that find their place on or beside it? Do you find any of this odd? Do you find anything about your life odd? (I don’t count.)

 

If what I’m saying is irrational, and I’m not yet saying for sure that it isn’t, then you should be able to formulate a rational argument to the contrary like you would for an irrational Christian.

 

Yet you still maintain that I am culturally conditioned.

 

Yes

 

1. It is an absolute law that A=A , you change the properties of A and you get something with a different identity (cool.gif.

 

2. You change the properties of a human (alzheimers, brain damage), and you get something with a different identity.

 

I see then. Absolute Identity is only temporary. You = you, but only for the moment. One cannot step into the same river twice. The you that I replied to yesterday is not the you that I’m replying to today. Will the real Azimov please step forward? 2. Heck, and here I thought that’s what I said.

 

1. Nature also produced the human, it seems you are applying the blame to the victim of production rather than the real "culprit".

 

We are not the "deciders' of the universe, we are the "deciders" of ourselves.

 

I just had this same sort of thought this morning. It looks like Nature’s human experiment is going to tank a lot sooner than Nature’s cockroach experiment. Nature won’t and isn’t upset by it. I am though. So I think about it.

 

2. Just so, yet we act as if we are the deciders of the universe.

[chefranden]

Yes, it's the experience of looking at things from outside your own personal experience. Extrapolating how you might feel if what you observe happening to others happened to you. What happens to others is not your experience, but how you empathize about them is a projection of what's going on to other people.

 

 

I'm sorry that I missed this in my last post.

 

No. You cannot look outside of your personal experience. Any looking outside or inside is your personal experience. Anything that you observe about what is happening or has happened to another will stimulate conclusions, actions and emotions coming from your already formed self including your cultural conditioning. The observation may add to the construction of yourself in a way that will be used in future observations.

 

Example:

 

You observe a person being smacked in the back of the head by a thrown stone.

 

His experience includes pain and damaged infrastructure etc. Your experience includes seeing the thrower, seeing the stone fly and seeing the stone connect with the guy's head.

 

You don't experience the pain. He doesn't experience the events leading to his pain. Your experience of your observation of the event is neither the experience of the thrower, or of the target.

 

Now imagine some of your possible reactions to your experience of the thrower and the target's experience. This will largely depend on the state of your bodymind preceding the observation.

 

The thrower is your best friend, the target your enemy. Your reaction

The thrower is your enemy, the target your best friend. Your reaction

Both are strangers. Your reaction.

 

Your experience of and reaction to the event are necessarily contingent on the state of your bodymind. The state of your bodymind is necessarily contingent on its prior conditioning.

 

If your bodymind is not there in a position to observe through its senses the event, as far as your bodymind knows the event did not happen. You cannot know an event except from your experience.

 

Now let's remove you from the scene. The event takes place. You learn of the event via a news article. Both your friend's story and your enemy's story are quoted verbatim each blaming the other. Who are you going to be inclined to believe? Why?

 

In both scenarios your knowledge of the incident is your experience. The observation of the incident is your experience of your observation. Reading about the incident is your experience of reading about the incident. In neither case have you actually stepped out of yourself into the shoes of another. Now of course you can imagine yourself doing so, but now you are experiencing your imagination of the incident and not the experience of any other participant. No matter how you try, you cannot get outside of your bodymind and its construction. That does not mean that there is no out there there, only that you cannot get to it in the way that you think you can.

[pandora]

Dammit, chef... quit making me want to live in a cabin in the woods with my own little self-sustaining farm of animals and plants.

[Asimov]

Well see there you go, we are arguing apples and polliwogs. Pooling finds would be something like archiving. It is not objectivity by any dictionary I’ve ever read. A collected archive of knowledge would constitute an object, but I wouldn’t confuse that with objectivity, judging something without emotional and prejudicial bias.

 

My intention wasn't to convey the idea that we can wholly disconnect ourselves from our own training, ideas, beliefs, and prejudices. I think it's possible to quell and minimize your own bias, though. Science operates on the idea that objective refers to that which is based on observable (empiricle) phenomena, or that which is presented factually, and with looking at things without bias. A religious man who is a scientist wont allow his religious bias to interfere in his work as a scientist...we can see the result of that through Creationism and ID.

 

There is nothing wrong with being biased, it's how you present your work is what matters.

 

How is abstract disconnection, real disconnection?

 

It's not, and I didn't say it was.

 

You were trained to believe that knowledge should be Scientific. That is why you feel uncomfortable when a religionist, or basic moron like me challenges that.

 

If you're going to put words into my mouth, I'll end the discussion here and now. Science works on inductive reasoning regarding the empirical world. Inductive reasoning is not, as much as we'd like to think, knowledge. It's educated conclusions based on the available evidence, but is never absolute. There are many things we can know that are not scientific.

 

Mathematics is not scientific.

Logic transcends Science.

Rationalism is not scientific.

 

All these operate on knowledge and truth, without the scientific method. If you want to get literal, then science can be viewed as any rational inquiry into the objective world.

 

Now please, if you would, explain how any of the following do not apply to the construction of the being Azimov.

 

Each human has unique subjective filters constructed from his unique experience including but not restricted to:

 

They all apply.

 

Ah, then you are willing to admit that at least Christians are conditioned. Well that’s a start. Are you saying that only Christians are conditioned? If not are you saying that only religionist are conditioned? If not are you saying that only libertarian atheists are not conditioned?

 

Haha, I think it would be of the utmost arrogance to claim that I am not conditioned, wholly or in part. I reject your claim that I am culturally conditioned, because I have disconnected myself from any cultural conditioning that I have had. We are talking about a specific type of conditioning, cultural conditioning or "taker culture" conditioning. Not conditioning in general.

 

Prejudice means to "pre-judge" I'm not pre-judging. I'm judging.

 

Exactly, “pre” before. In the past you have judged Science (I would say via training/conditioning) to be the only proper way to look at the world. Now a basic moron comes along and says, “Science, maybe not.” Do you re-judge Science to see if basic moron is maybe right? No, of course not. You have already done that work. You have judged Science before so it is now your prejudice. Therefore, you already know that basic moron is well, a basic moron, and you don’t have to consider his points to know that.

 

Where did I say that Science was pure and absolute? Without flaws?

Where did I call you a basic moron?

 

If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Science is not perfect, nor is it the only way we can garner knowledge from reality.

 

You've pointed out the flaws in science (the misapplication of it), and I recognize that. Unfortunately, you haven't done much more except accuse me of being conditioned to think that science is the only way.

 

I suggest that you don’t like the idea of having prejudices, because your culture has trained you to see prejudice as bad, instead of as what is. However, as you say, just because you don’t like the idea of being a pre-judger, doesn’t mean you can’t accept it.

 

I have my prejudices, and I'm very intolerant as well. In this instance, regarding science, you are wrong. My training in the sciences is nearly all self-taught from about 5 years ago. I hold some degree of hope in science into the ideas of how we can improve ourselves, but improvement comes from the individual, not from a philosophical ideology of description rather than prescription.

 

Don’t worry about that. Most people don’t see the problem. Thus, there will be an environmental collapse that will take most living humans, if not all. Of course that is sad only from a human standpoint. Nature will not morn, she will just do something else.

 

Because there is no problem. If and when we collapse, those who can adapt and realise that they don't need other people to survive will do so.

 

Of course you live that way. Do you use computers? Do you go to the store for food? Do you live in a dwelling built by someone else, and possibly owned by someone else? Do you buy anything on line? Do you drive a car? Do you drive on roads?

 

Yes, but that isn't the idea of Taker-Culture as you've defined it.

 

Do you own stocks? Is petroleum, directly or indirectly, your major source of energy?

 

My major source of energy is carbohydrates, I don't own stocks.

 

Do you have a favorite TV show. Do you buy any products made by people who get less than $2/day? Do you speak English? Do you wash your hair with pre-manufactured soap. Do you read books. Do you like technology? Are you employed?

 

I do, probably, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes so that I can do these other things. The problem here is that you are asking me if I do these things, not if I need these things to survive? I need them to live in this society and survive within this society. I want them because they make my life enjoyable and comfortable. That doesn't mean if society were to collapse that I would also. I enjoy the company of fellow human beings.

 

Do I believe and do the things that you claim were the conditions of a taker culture? No.

 

I can't continue because I have to work, I'll bbl to finish.

[chefranden]

Dammit, chef... quit making me want to live in a cabin in the woods with my own little self-sustaining farm of animals and plants.

 

Sorry. Go ahead and enjoy civilizaton while it is still around and you are still high on the heap. It's pretty nice from up here.

[chefranden]

Azimov

 

I haven't forgoten you. I'm a bit under the weather today.