So What,

[Asimov]

Azimov

 

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

 

I would prefer it if you would allow me to restructure my post in a more organized manner, get across what I'm trying to say, and complete the post itself before you comment on it.

 

I had an insane weekend, driving to Seattle, taking an exam, coming back, recovering and working, and relieving stress that when I wrote it I don't think I did it in as coherent a manner as I would have liked.

 

Feel better, Chef, and I'll work on it tonight.

[pitchu]

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.

 

I can't speak for Chef, but my understanding of what he's trying to get across is that there was a time when humans interacted with, rather than chose dominon over, nature. And that for era after era, it all kinda worked.

 

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.

 

I have no idea what the situation was with locusts before there was farming; when humans were hunter-gatherers. It seems likely to me, though, that the concept of "plagues of locusts" only had/have meaning within human agricultural processes.

 

Don't viruses cycle? Mutate?

 

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.

 

If there are too many deer and they destroy the environment, is it the human environment of encroaching suburbs, etc., that you're referring to? Again, I don't know that there ever actually was the deer/wolf problem outside of the special interventions of humans.

[Asimov]

If there are too many deer and they destroy the environment, is it the human environment of encroaching suburbs, etc., that you're referring to? Again, I don't know that there ever actually was the deer/wolf problem outside of the special interventions of humans.

 

Why not? Not every species that dies out, dies out as a result of men or catastrophe. Man has only been around for 3 million years and that is barely a blip on the geological timescale of the 3.5 billions years that other species have been around.

 

Not to mention that agriculture has only been around for something like 10000 years.

 

I think it's naive to suggest that humans are solely responsible.

[Asimov]

Scientific Objectivism:

 

The objectivism that science seeks to obtain is in regards to empiricism. Studying that which can be empirically verified and nothing else. Ergo, anything material and existing in a physical and temporal sense within our universe is under the scope of science.

 

The scientific method itself is objective and lacks bias. The creators of the method readily recognized that while it is possible for scientists to minimize their own bias in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge, there had to be a filter that would allow for claiming invalid a suspected biased conclusion of the facts. Thus, the peer-reviewed system arose. Therefore, through the idea of falsification, science and objectivism are very much able to co-exist.

 

I submit that it is possible to abstractly disconnect oneself from our own emotional and prejudicial bias. By that I mean that it’s the effort of quelling ones own bias in order to obtain an objective mindset that is the abstraction.

 

Conditioning:

 

Your specific argument had to do with the idea of cultural conditioning as it pertained to this “Taker Culture”. If you can decondition oneself from being a Christian, or condition yourself to play Bach, or be conditioned to think that red is blue and blue is red, then it is certainly possible to decondition oneself from the idea of the Taker Culture.

 

Based on your listing of what a Taker Culture is and how it behaves and thinks, I have also stated that I do not follow the idea of the Taker Culture, nor do I behave in that way. Since you listed certain things which I assume is “evidence” of a taker culture, I am not going to establish a causal-relationship between whether I not I do those things and if they pertain to a taker-culture. Some of them clearly do, some of them do not.

 

You stated that I am culturally conditioned in the “taker-culture”, not that I am conditioned in general. I gainsay that statement. Any other discussion regarding other types of conditioning (training) is not germane to the discussion.

 

“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.”

 

Yes you can. Considering I lack the feeling to automatically help my fellow man because I am able it appears as if I have more empathy for them than you. I am at least able to see “outside” the box and use my imagination.

 

I don’t know what it feels like to be hit on the head with a rock, I can imagine that it wouldn’t be pleasant based on the estimated velocity, hardness, and force of a rock.

 

If it were impossible to look outside our own experience, then I guess movies must really have no effect on the public…oh wait, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

 

“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.”

We are talking about the empathic reaction one would have towards someone getting hit in the head with a rock, and how we are able to imagine what it would feel like despite never having had it happen to us.

 

If the target is my enemy, then I am cheering because I know it hurts…empathy.

If the target is my friend, then I am cringing because I know it hurts…empathy.

If the target is a stranger, then I am cringing because I know it hurts…empathy.

[NorthenSun]

I can't speak for Chef, but my understanding of what he's trying to get across is that there was a time when humans interacted with, rather than chose dominon over, nature. And that for era after era, it all kinda worked.

 

Yes the simple life does have its appeal. Those grade school text books show a depiction of the happy New Stone Age people with the woman and children sitting out in front of the grass shack, the man returning with a catch of fish or a rabbit, and a small golden wheat field growing near a small clear brook. Though, it does seem perhaps just a bit too rosy of a picture. No mention of wild animals, marauding tribes, disease, infant mortality, or shear boredom. Then again, Gauguin did find a sort of paradise when he left Europe and traveled to the island of Tahiti. One thing I have noticed in watching any show about primitive people on PBS, Discovery Channel, or History Channel is the preponderance of cultures where the women are topless. Maybe the constant sight of the naked breast has a soothing effect on the male gender which mitigates the desire to dominate nature. This may indeed be a practice worthy of consideration for re-inclusion within our modern world.

 

[chefranden]

Scientific Objectivism:

 

1. The objectivism that science seeks to obtain is in regards to empiricism. Studying that which can be empirically verified and nothing else. 2. Ergo, anything material and existing in a physical and temporal sense within our universe is under the scope of science.

 

1. I agree with objectivism at this point, there are real things and processes that are relationships between real things.

 

One of those real processes is human bodymind. The bodymind is mostly unconscious. A small portion of bodymind process is conscious. Consciousness is marvelous but limited. It works though ignorance. That it is aware of very few things. Try to make it aware of everything, and it soon ceases to function. That is why fighter planes have computers these days – too much for a human to be aware of. Science is based on human consciousness. It works like human consciousness works, by ignoring most of the bits and processes of the Earth in favor of a few bits and processes. Human consciousness works well for us when it’s used to decide between berry patches, but doesn’t work so well when we decide that all the Earth shall grow berries.

 

One of our major scientific achievements is agriculture. Agriculture culture can now produce 130 bushels of corn where 30 bushels of corn were grown back in the 1950’s. Marvelous! Except for one thing: we’ve destroyed the fertility of the soil in the process, not to mention the species we have made extinct by using almost every square inch of arable land possible. Most of what we are eating is oil or natural gas. Today it takes about 10 calories of petroleum to get 1 calorie of wheat, corn, rice, or potato. It takes about 60 calories of petroleum to make 1 calorie of pork. So we see that science, focusing on one thing “more food”, has missed the complexity of environmental viability. This will probably not be a good thing for people in the long run, and for most of the world’s people it has not been a good thing in the short run either. (See Richard Manning’s Against the Grain : How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization)

 

Science’s other two major focuses, war, and medicine, are adjuncts to agriculture. War is the way to get more land, and/or oil. Medicine is the way to hold back the ravages of poor nutrition, and pollution.

 

2. I agree; Science can look at anything and find something out about it. The problem of Science is not so much what it sees, but what it doesn’t see, usually involving consequences.

 

But lets suppose that we last long enough for Science to see and figure out all the bits and processes. Now what? Paradise? Hardly. We still have to relate to all that knowledge via human bodymind. And that means bodymind still has only a small bit of consciousness with which to process all that knowledge. Most of it will be ignored, because it has to be ignored. And it has to be ignored because that is the nature of the conscious portion of human bodymind after which science is modeled.

 

But lets remember the fighter plane. Let’s say we make a computer that can knows how to control all the bits and processes of the earth in a sustainable way so that we don’t have to be conscious of it very much. What will we have? What would be the best name for the computer? Nature? But we already have that, or at least had it. How will we relate to the computer? Will we submit to its dictates? Or will we attempt conquer nature the computer like the original nature?

 

 

1. The scientific method itself is objective and lacks bias. 2. The creators of the method readily recognized that while it is possible for scientists to minimize their own bias in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge, there had to be a filter that would allow for claiming invalid a suspected biased conclusion of the facts. 3. Thus, the peer-reviewed system arose. Therefore, through the idea of falsification, science and objectivism are very much able to co-exist.[/b]

 

1. This is a statement of faith. The method has at least one bias. It’s bias is the way human consciousness works, because that is what it is modeled after.

 

2. Minimization is not elimination. If there is bias, there is bias. If there is bias there is no objectivity.

 

3. If you read books like “The Big Bang Never Happened” you will get an idea of what the peer review system really is like. It’s rather like bringing a new theological idea to the Collage of Cardinals at the Vatican. What ever the highfalutin words may be in the peer review mission statement, the main effect is to maintain the status quo as long as possible.

 

I submit that it is possible to abstractly disconnect oneself from our own emotional and prejudicial bias. By that I mean that it’s the effort of quelling ones own bias in order to obtain an objective mindset that is the abstraction.

 

So you suppose that a biased system can suppress it self in an unbiased way. How does that work?

 

Let’s devise and experiment. 100 people are given a meal choice for every meal for a year. For every meal they are each offered a plate of shit and their favorite meal. They must choose the shit over the meal of favorite food every time. Will they be able to overcome their food bias? I first thought that we should offer them 10 million dollars if they can do it for a year, but that would only show that the bias for money could possibly be stronger than the bias against shit. No the bias must be voluntarily suppressed

 

I’m sure that someone else can think of a better experiment.

 

Conditioning:

 

Your specific argument had to do with the idea of cultural conditioning as it pertained to this “Taker Culture”. If you can decondition oneself from being a Christian, or condition yourself to play Bach, or be conditioned to think that red is blue and blue is red, then it is certainly possible to decondition oneself from the idea of the Taker Culture…

 

This portion is extra challenging, I will have to think about this a bit more.

 

Yes you can. Considering I lack the feeling to automatically help my fellow man because I am able it appears as if I have more empathy for them than you. I am at least able to see “outside” the box and use my imagination.

 

I don’t know what it feels like to be hit on the head with a rock, I can imagine that it wouldn’t be pleasant based on the estimated velocity, hardness, and force of a rock.

 

I’m not sure that you worded this the way you meant to. If you have more empathy (a feeling or emotion) than I, then you do not lack feeling.

 

Yes you know what it feels like to be hit on the head with a rock. That is the result of your experience, not someone else’s. Yes you can imagine that being hit on the head would not be pleasant for another. That image is produced by your bodymind and experienced by your bodymind. It is not the experience of the other person. It is your experience. Not his.

 

If it were impossible to look outside our own experience, then I guess movies must really have no effect on the public…oh wait, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

In order to be effected by a movie, don’t you have to go to it, or watch it on some home media device? If you[/u don’t experience it, it will not effect you directly will it? So watching the movie is your experience, not the experience of the people depicted. In fact the people giving you the experience of empathy (or other emotion) are not usually in need of your empathy. If the movie is well done your bodymind cannot tell the difference between witnessing the movie or a real event – except for maybe a small awareness in your conscious bit.

 

Your empathy is your emotion and it is only experienced by you. If the physical processes of the bodymind that produce empathy are disrupted by injury or drugs, you will not be empathetic no matter what you see. If you are told by someone that you should feel empathetic in this situation, you won’t have a clue as to what they mean. You will not even be able to supply empathy via conscious will.

[chefranden]

I can't speak for Chef, but my understanding of what he's trying to get across is that there was a time when humans interacted with, rather than chose dominon over, nature. And that for era after era, it all kinda worked.

 

Yes the simple life does have its appeal. Those grade school text books show a depiction of the happy New Stone Age people with the woman and children sitting out in front of the grass shack, the man returning with a catch of fish or a rabbit, and a small golden wheat field growing near a small clear brook. Though, it does seem perhaps just a bit too rosy of a picture. No mention of wild animals, marauding tribes, disease, infant mortality, or shear boredom. Then again, Gauguin did find a sort of paradise when he left Europe and traveled to the island of Tahiti. One thing I have noticed in watching any show about primitive people on PBS, Discovery Channel, or History Channel is the preponderance of cultures where the women are topless. Maybe the constant sight of the naked breast has a soothing effect on the male gender which mitigates the desire to dominate nature. This may indeed be a practice worthy of consideration for re-inclusion within our modern world.

 

 

 

I think I need to say here that I don't think that primitive life was idealic. I'm sure that it was quite troublesome. People probably got as sad and angry when a lion killed their child as when a modern child is killed by a car or cluster bomb. One thing it was, was being sustainable. Another thing it was, was contained. That is no one group of mad men like Bush and company could destroy everything.

 

I do disagree that they were bored. I think that is a modern affliction. We are trained by school not to entertain ourselves, and we largely loose the ability. Just like we no longer know how to get food and pay for it instead, we pay for entertainment. Besides, fun is not nice in this culture, and you should feel guilty if you have too much of it.

 

And I disagree that they were overly plaged by dissease. The bones of ancient hunter-gathers are found to be much more robust and dissease free then those of ancient farmers.

[Asimov]

This will probably not be a good thing for people in the long run, and for most of the world’s people it has not been a good thing in the short run either.

 

No, but as you can see there are scientists who recognize this and are trying to get a voice heard. Since the government would probably fund anything that makes them rich, it's the governments bias of "we need more people, so let's feed more people to make more people" that is the problem here, not science itself. Again, science is not a monolithic enterprise.

 

Science’s other two major focuses, war, and medicine, are adjuncts to agriculture. War is the way to get more land, and/or oil. Medicine is the way to hold back the ravages of poor nutrition, and pollution.

 

Science's main focus is knowledge, Governments two main focuses are war and medicine. The scientists who work FOR the government because they get funded are the ones who are destroying. You're trying to group all of science again into one big group.

 

2. I agree; Science can look at anything and find something out about it. The problem of Science is not so much what it sees, but what it doesn’t see, usually involving consequences.

 

All humans are short-sighted, don't blame the system.

 

 

1. The scientific method itself is objective and lacks bias. 2. The creators of the method readily recognized that while it is possible for scientists to minimize their own bias in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge, there had to be a filter that would allow for claiming invalid a suspected biased conclusion of the facts. 3. Thus, the peer-reviewed system arose. Therefore, through the idea of falsification, science and objectivism are very much able to co-exist.

 

1. This is a statement of faith. The method has at least one bias. It’s bias is the way human consciousness works, because that is what it is modeled after.

 

2. Minimization is not elimination. If there is bias, there is bias. If there is bias there is no objectivity.

 

I didn't say there was no bias or that bias was eliminated. You're arguing from a pretty absolutist point of view, chef.

 

If there isn't 100% certainty we don't know anything.

If there isn't Absolute morality, we should just kill everyone and do what we want.

If you're not with me, you're against me.

If there isn't 99% objectivity, there's no objectivity.

 

mmmhmmm....

 

You will get an idea of what the peer review system really is like. It’s rather like bringing a new theological idea to the Collage of Cardinals at the Vatican. What ever the highfalutin words may be in the peer review mission statement, the main effect is to maintain the status quo as long as possible.

 

I hear this from creationists all the time too.

 

So you suppose that a biased system can suppress it self in an unbiased way. How does that work?

 

By recognizing that you are biased, and analyzing the facts in a rational way, through logic.

 

Let’s devise and experiment. 100 people are given a meal choice for every meal for a year. For every meal they are each offered a plate of shit and their favorite meal. They must choose the shit over the meal of favorite food every time. Will they be able to overcome their food bias? I first thought that we should offer them 10 million dollars if they can do it for a year, but that would only show that the bias for money could possibly be stronger than the bias against shit. No the bias must be voluntarily suppressed

 

What the hell does that even mean, chef? Shit isn't food.

 

I decide between what I want to eat and what I should eat all the time. I generally choose what I should eat.

 

I’m sure that someone else can think of a better experiment.

 

Yea, one that doesn't involve killing people with their own shit.

 

I’m not sure that you worded this the way you meant to. If you have more empathy (a feeling or emotion) than I, then you do not lack feeling.

 

No, empathy for others is putting yourself into their shows. Acting on that empathy is different. I do not feel the need to act.

Yes you know what it feels like to be hit on the head with a rock. That is the result of your experience, not someone else’s.

 

I've never been hit on the head with a rock, so I do not know what it feels like.

 

Yes you can imagine that being hit on the head would not be pleasant for another. That image is produced by your bodymind and experienced by your bodymind. It is not the experience of the other person. It is your experience. Not his.

 

Yes, but it's a projection of his experience based on empathy, chef. I'm not saying his experience is my experience, I'm saying me experiencing empathy is me putting myself into his place and imagining experiencing that. My god, you are pedantic.

 

In order to be effected by a movie, don’t you have to go to it, or watch it on some home media device? If you[/u don’t experience it, it will not effect you directly will it?

 

If you don't use your senses to obtain information, you wont gain information...that's a revelation, chef.

 

So watching the movie is your experience, not the experience of the people depicted.

 

Another revelation.

 

Your empathy is your emotion and it is only experienced by you. If the physical processes of the bodymind that produce empathy are disrupted by injury or drugs, you will not be empathetic no matter what you see. If you are told by someone that you should feel empathetic in this situation, you won’t have a clue as to what they mean. You will not even be able to supply empathy via conscious will.

 

I'm overwhelmed with revelation, chef. You should right a book on pedantics and how to miss the point of what other people say.

[NorthenSun]

 

One of our major scientific achievements is agriculture.

...

Science’s other two major focuses, war, and medicine, are adjuncts to agriculture. War is the way to get more land, and/or oil. Medicine is the way to hold back the ravages of poor nutrition, and pollution.

If Stone Age man using a stick to poke holes in the ground and plant seeds is considered a scientific achievement then also using a stick to poke holes in a woolly mammoth, so it can be captured and eaten, should also be considered a scientific achievement. Both involve use of a tool to achieve an outcome useful to the Stone Age man. Yet the tactics of the hunter gatherer are considered 'good' while those of the early agriculturalist are considered ‘bad’. Clearly this eliminates the attack on science as being all bad. The argument that science is a 'bad' human activity falls apart when you consider you have used 'good' science in support of you argument for the hunter gatherer life style.

 

As Asimov has said, stop attacking science as if is a monolithic entity, its not.

 

Human consciousness works well for us when it’s used to decide between berry patches, but doesn’t work so well when we decide that all the Earth shall grow berries.

 

The 'Human consciousness' process is the same for both these examples. In each case input is gathered, past experiences are reviewed, some type of weighting and comparison of the options is done, and then a decision is taken. Its like trying to say trees are ok but the forest sucks, or individuals are fine but humanity is terrible. Where does one draw the line between single entities and the whole mass? I don’t think you can.

[Asimov]

Any empirical pursuit of knowledge can be considered science.

 

As I said before, there are different kinds of science, chef. Pure Science (development of theories through the gathering of facts - broken into natural sciences and social sciences), and Applied Sciences (the use of research for human needs).

 

You are lumping all of these together into one, chef. Just like it's fallacious to say "all christians are stupid", it's fallacious to say "all science is bad".

[Vigile]

Just like it's fallacious to say "all christians are stupid", it's fallacious to say "all science is bad".[/b]

 

And that about sums it up.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Any beef I have is not with science - it is with humanity.

 

As a computer scientist (I think of myself more as a writer), it is sad that the skills I have are employed towards the goal of storing data on people and their money instead of solving the riddles of the Universe like I would rather do -the result: career change.

 

I find it profoundly disappointing that a system of individuals that thrive on money will not use their intellect to release themselves from the necessity of money. Substitute food for money, and the argument persists.

 

I don't fault science for this, because I know I could use it to release myself even when others choose not to, but on the other hand I can also understand the sense of disappointment that arises from observing the a system that, through misuse and abuse, has gotten us into a lot of trouble with our planet.

 

Science has had a short history, so I cannot blame it for the fact that we have used it chiefly to render crude approximations of ourselves, or satisfy animal desires. The term "science" is a morphological construst. It is any approach designed for improving our chance of success. I think science can provide those answers, but first we must have the desire to do so.

[chefranden]

Conditioning:

 

Your specific argument had to do with the idea of cultural conditioning as it pertained to this “Taker Culture”. If you can decondition oneself from being a Christian, or condition yourself to play Bach, or be conditioned to think that red is blue and blue is red, then it is certainly possible to decondition oneself from the idea of the Taker Culture.

 

My jury is still out in the matter of total de-conditioning. I’m not completely de-conditioned from Christianity. I can find traces of the conditioning without looking very far that still frame my understanding of the world. I’m inclined to think that de-conditioning is less successful than conditioning.

 

In favor of total de-conditioning, I find no desire to smoke hiding in any nooks crannies of bodymind. I haven’t smoked Since 75, but had a desire to for a long time after that. I don’t know when that stopped. Against total de-conditioning I still find myself fascinated by the mechanics of war and sometimes desire to enter combat again. This is in spite of actively standing against war since GWI. Intellectually I know war is wrong and stupid, but if I was offered the chance of combat again, I’m not completely sure I would refuse it. War still frames my understanding of the world, and of myself. I know veterans from 6 wars now (god I’m getting old). I think that all of them would choose de-conditioning if they could.

 

Based on your listing of what a Taker Culture is and how it behaves and thinks, I have also stated that I do not follow the idea of the Taker Culture, nor do I behave in that way. Since you listed certain things which I assume is “evidence” of a taker culture, I am not going to establish a causal-relationship between whether I not I do those things and if they pertain to a taker-culture. Some of them clearly do, some of them do not.

 

I reject the tenants of Taker Culture too, just as I reject the tenants of Christianity. However, that does not mean I am de-conditioned. I ate at a fast food joint just yesterday, because I was too lazy and sore to make a salad or a stir-fry. I say I did it because I’ve been conditioned to it, even though consciously/logically/intellectually I knew it was stupid.

 

Nevertheless, I suppose that I should give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you never cave to your old conditioning in like fashion. But I won’t because you haven’t really shown that you know the difference between conditioned framing and intellectual understanding. I suspect you think that you have thrown off your conditioned responses and understandings merely by changing your belief. If I’m allowed to judge by 56 years of human experience, I don’t think that happens, though to be sure there are thousands of Christian testimonies to the contrary.

 

You stated that I am culturally conditioned in the “taker-culture”, not that I am conditioned in general. I gainsay that statement. Any other discussion regarding other types of conditioning (training) is not germane to the discussion.

 

Of course it is germane to the discussion. Where will you go for any kind of training/conditioning that does not have its origins in this culture?

[chefranden]

1. If Stone Age man using a stick to poke holes in the ground and plant seeds is considered a scientific achievement then also using a stick to poke holes in a woolly mammoth, so it can be captured and eaten, should also be considered a scientific achievement. Both involve use of a tool to achieve an outcome useful to the Stone Age man. Yet the tactics of the hunter gatherer are considered 'good' while those of the early agriculturalist are considered ‘bad’.

 

2. Clearly this eliminates the attack on science as being all bad. The argument that science is a 'bad' human activity falls apart when you consider you have used 'good' science in support of you argument for the hunter gatherer life style.

 

3. As Asimov has said, stop attacking science as if is a monolithic entity, its not.

 

Sun,

 

Thanks for chipping in.

 

I sort of hope that you been though the other thread on this matter http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7981, but don’t inflict it on yourself if you haven’t. I started this thread as an attempt to refocus that one.

 

The question that is in my mind is, is science an adequate means to understanding the world? Another way to frame the question would be is conscious/intellectual/rational/logical thinking an adequate means to understand the world.

 

The question most people that are attempting to find fault with my line of thinking seem to have is similar to yours. Is Science adequate for figuring out how to poke a stick into a mammoth? Sure it is. Science is also adequate for finding out how to make dwarf varieties of grains that won’t fall over if the size of the head becomes too large for a long stem via the addition of nitrogen fertilizer. Viola, now ADM can reap the benefits of 130 bushels of wheat where 30 were grown before. Never mind that the side effects include minor things like the pollution of aquifers with nitrates, a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico of 18,000 kilometers and growing, and the disappearance of the family farm. Science does very well at finding out stuff, and then making stuff. What it doesn’t do well is understanding, or at least so it seems to me, therefore my question.

 

2. I don’t think that it takes a PhD to see that the world is in trouble as far as sustainable human activity is concerned. Now is Science at fault in the sense that it is a bad guy? Does Science get up in the morning saying, “how can I make the world a worse place for life today?” No, of course not, but that is what happens. Why? Don’t you want to know? I do.

 

Science is the most efficient means that we’ve found for digging the hole we are in. Yet generally our answer to the obvious problem is “more Science”. That strikes me as odd. That strikes me as illogical. And may Darwin forgive me the blasphemy, but that sounds too much like “more Jesus” to me.

 

Yes I do use Science findings and logic to attempt to make my points. I don’t find that odd, because that is how I’ve been trained. I’m crappy at math, poetry and other art forms that maybe I could communicate my thoughts with. One of the things that Science tells me is that conscious mind is a sub-process of unconscious processes of nature and bodymind and that it is a minor part of what bodymind does. Yet we have elevated this ability to the highest places we have in our myths. Why? Why throw out the super, conscious of all things, intellectual guy in the sky and yet not question the place of conscious of few things, intellectual guys on the ground?

 

Do you think that I advocate not using our conscious/intellectual/logical/reasoning bit of ability of body mind? That wouldn’t be any smarter than cutting off a leg. But just as a body is not all leg, bodymind is not all intellect. It is not even mostly intellect. So wouldn’t it behoove us to discuss the real nature of how we relate to and therefore understand the world instead of following a partial use of mind to the dead end it seems to be headed for?

 

3. I agree that I am treating Science as a monolith. I’m doing so, I hope, in the same sort of way that I would use Forest when I want to discuss the collective of plants, animals, and processes that make up a Forest with out having to write collective of plants, animals, and processes every time.

[NorthenSun]

Jack, I think you mean well, but most of your statements don’t really make much sense.

 

Any beef I have is not with science - it is with humanity.

Are you a non-human alien from a different world? I will presume not, and that you are a human and thus part of humanity. You can dislike or regret some of the actions that humans take, but I don’t think you should condemn or dismiss all humans in general. This is a form of unhealthy self loathing, of which there is no real benefit to you to partake in.

As a computer scientist (I think of myself more as a writer), it is sad that the skills I have are employed towards the goal of storing data on people and their money instead of solving the riddles of the Universe like I would rather do -the result: career change.

Unless you are doing something illegal, unethical, or purposely meant to harm others, I see nothing wrong with your occupation. Someone thinks your work is valuable and is willing to pay you for your time and efforts. (This might be questionable only if you work for the government, which has the power to coerce citizens to pay for services that the government thinks are valid but that the majority of the people may not always think are worthwhile.)

 

And also remember the scene from “It’s a Wonderful Life” where there is a run on the bank and George Bailey tells the people that he does not have their money, its out in the community in their homes and businesses. Financial services allow the savings of some to be put to valuable work by others.

 

I find it profoundly disappointing that a system of individuals that thrive on money will not use their intellect to release themselves from the necessity of money. Substitute food for money, and the argument persists.

 

Money is merely a medium of exchange to make society operate more efficiently. Even the Bible says it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself. I don’t think you are worshiping money, so don’t worry about putting your paycheck in the bank and using the money to buy the things you need to live on. If you feel the urge to give away some of your left over money to some cause you value, then go ahead (or send it to me).

 

Science has had a short history, so I cannot blame it for the fact that we have used it chiefly to render crude approximations of ourselves, or satisfy animal desires.

 

We are animals, and therefore our desires are animal desires. Is it ok for a rabbit to go into a garden and eat some carrots but wrong for you to go to the store, pay for some carrots, and then eat them? And whose desires besides our own are we going to satisfy, the Creator’s? Their is no such thing as sin against 'Mother Nature" by humans, because their is no such thing as 'Mother Nature'.

 

But of course you mean to imply that there is more to humans than just our baser animal nature, and I would agree. Our human consciousness makes us unique in the world, and we have the capacity to understand our place in the world and our impact on others. And it is true that most of what humans do is satisfy our baser animal instincts, and then seek to justify and excuse our behavior. So how then shall humans behave? Religious and philosophical people have been trying to provide answers for millenniums.

It is any approach designed for improving our chance of success. I think science can provide those answers, but first we must have the desire to do so.

On this I agree with you, our problems will be solved by exercise of our political will, not by casting aspersions on the all too human activity of science.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Are you a non-human alien from a different world? I will presume not, and that you are a human and thus part of humanity. You can dislike or regret some of the actions that humans take, but I don’t think you should condemn or dismiss all humans in general. This is a form of unhealthy self loathing, of which there is no real benefit to you to partake in.

 

I am not dismissive of them. I am dismissive of their actions.

 

Unless you are doing something illegal, unethical, or purposely meant to harm others, I see nothing wrong with your occupation. Someone thinks your work is valuable and is willing to pay you for your time and efforts. (This might be questionable only if you work for the government, which has the power to coerce citizens to pay for services that the government thinks are valid but that the majority of the people may not always think are worthwhile.)

 

I find my occupation disappointing chiefly because it steers me away from understanding the Universe. That's why I'm leaving for University.

 

Money is merely a medium of exchange to make society operate more efficiently. Even the Bible says it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself. I don’t think you are worshiping money, so don’t worry about putting your paycheck in the bank and using the money to buy the things you need to live on. If you feel the urge to give away some of your left over money to some cause you value, then go ahead (or send it to me).

 

It's not that I hate money, but sometimes I think it places us on a course that would prevent us from

finding ways in which we could render it unnecessary.

 

We are animals, and therefore our desires are animal desires. Is it ok for a rabbit to go into a garden and eat some carrots but wrong for you to go to the store, pay for some carrots, and then eat them? And whose desires besides our own are we going to satisfy, the Creator’s? Their is no such thing as sin against 'Mother Nature" by humans, because their is no such thing as 'Mother Nature'.

 

Not sin - merely to bring about our own destruction.

 

But of course you mean to imply that there is more to humans than just our baser animal nature, and I would agree. Our human consciousness makes us unique in the world, and we have the capacity to understand our place in the world and our impact on others. And it is true that most of what humans do is satisfy our baser animal instincts, and then seek to justify and excuse our behavior. So how then shall humans behave? Religious and philosophical people have been trying to provide answers for millenniums.

 

I don't think it's a matter of behavior. I think it's a matter of transcendence. If all of our problems with each other stem from food, and gathering food is no longer necessary for anyone, then we have no "animal" problems left except exploring the world around us.

 

On this I agree with you, our problems will be solved by exercise of our political will, not by casting aspersions on the all too human activity of science.

 

Then we actually disagree. I don't think exercising political will solves anything - in fact, I think it creates problems. I look for the solution in a science that renders us autonomous. When we no longer have to depend on each other then our bonds will strengthen because we are not forced, coerced, or deprived of a single thing.

 

We will participate because we want to, not because someone decided we should.

 

Whether that situation is paradise or a living nightmare remains to be seen.

[NorthenSun]

 

I find my occupation disappointing chiefly because it steers me away from understanding the Universe. That's why I'm leaving for University.

 

 

I wish you well in what ever course you desire but I offer these words to consider:

 

In the search for truth there are certain questions that are not important. Of what material is the universe constructed? Is the universe eternal? Are there limits or not to the universe? What is the ideal form of organization for human society? If a man were to postpone his search and practice for Enlightenment until such questions were solved, he would die before he found the path. – Buddha

 

And also this Zen koan which says the same thing in a different manner:

 

"One should not think about life. One should live it."

 

You can probably learn as much about the world by reading and studying while keeping your present job. Finding a girlfriend and a good pub where you can hang out with your friends will probably provide you more benefit than going back to school, IMO.

 

 

I don't think it's a matter of behavior. I think it's a matter of transcendence. If all of our problems with each other stem from food, and gathering food is no longer necessary for anyone, then we have no "animal" problems left except exploring the world around us.

 

Then we actually disagree. I don't think exercising political will solves anything - in fact, I think it creates problems. I look for the solution in a science that renders us autonomous. When we no longer have to depend on each other then our bonds will strengthen because we are not forced, coerced, or deprived of a single thing.

 

We will participate because we want to, not because someone decided we should.

 

 

By politics I mean the ways that people are allowed to interact with each other, the concept of the ‘social contract’. Even if there were only two people in the world with all their material needs met, they would still have to come to some form of agreement on how to treat each other. Perhaps it’s as simple as an agreement to divide their world in two and leave each other alone. If they have no agreement, then you have a mini anarchy and either one is free to pursue a course to enslave the other if one should so choose.

Don’t assume that having plenty of food will necessarily eliminate strife between people. France and Germany fought a very bloody World War I and it had little to do with either side being hunger. Also look at Osama bin Laden, he was a person from a very wealthy family but that did not stop him from becoming angry and trying to enforce his world view on other people through violence.

Science and technology will make us better off materially, but it provides little direction as to how we are to get along with each other. That is the province of ethics, morality, philosophy, religion, and politics.

[chefranden]

Let’s devise and experiment. 100 people are given a meal choice for every meal for a year. For every meal they are each offered a plate of shit and their favorite meal. They must choose the shit over the meal of favorite food every time. Will they be able to overcome their food bias? I first thought that we should offer them 10 million dollars if they can do it for a year, but that would only show that the bias for money could possibly be stronger than the bias against shit. No the bias must be voluntarily suppressed

 

What the hell does that even mean, chef? Shit isn't food.

 

I decide between what I want to eat and what I should eat all the time. I generally choose what I should eat.

 

I considered insect grubs for the alternative choice in the experiment that I presumed would remain on the thought level, but it occurred to me that shit would bring a stronger reaction and show your bias more forcefully. Your immediate reaction, “shit isn’t food,” is a biased statement. Of course shit is food. Lots of critters love the stuff. I once had a dog that would eat cat turds out of the cat box when ever he managed to get at it. However, I bet that never crossed your mind. Shit is not food for me, therefore shit is not food. That is a bias and probably included the emotional reaction, disgust.

 

Now your bias against shit as food is probably good for you as long as there is no famine over by you. Nevertheless, it is a bias that was taught you by your parents. In my experience with babies, I’ve noticed that they are not particularly squeamish about shit. Running across some doggy do in the yard, my son (about 18 months) gave it a try and didn’t seem put off by it, even though I was acting like it was the end of the world.

 

One thing that you have learned from your culture is that bias and emotion are not good! You should eliminate or at least repress them as much as possible. Why? Because, you have been taught that they get in the way of the conscious/intellectual/logical/rational thinking bit of your mind, i.e. the scientific bit. So when some nutball comes along and seemingly accuses you of being biased you are going to be skeptical maybe to the point of denial.

 

For this reason you know that you are not biased against shit as food, because shit simply isn’t food. For this reason I knew I wasn’t biased against Vietnamese people, because they simply weren’t people.

 

It is a mind game that we all play. We play it because our bodyminds are evolved to play it. I don’t see what good it does to pretend it is not so.

[NorthenSun]

 

The question that is in my mind is, is science an adequate means to understanding the world?

 

 

This question has already been answered overwhelmingly in the affirmative by yourself, when you wrote:

 

 

I like civilization. I know how to be civilized. I don't know how to be uncivilized.

 

One would have to question the seriousness of someone who claimed that they were an ex-Christian but also that they believe in God and Jesus, pray every day, and continue to go to church on Sundays and Wednesdays. In like manner I question your seriousness in asserting the invalidity of science and technology while continuing to revel in it benefits. If I am wrong then just find the main breaker in your house and flip off that flow of evil electricity.

 

Does Science get up in the morning saying, “how can I make the world a worse place for life today?” No, of course not, but that is what happens. Why? Don’t you want to know? I do.

 

I can see that we don’t view the world in the same light at all. I don’t agree that the world is getting worse, I think it is getting better.

 

 

One of the things that Science tells me is that conscious mind is a sub-process of unconscious processes of nature and bodymind and that it is a minor part of what bodymind does. Yet we have elevated this ability to the highest places we have in our myths. Why?

 

The conscious mind is the most superior part of humans. Should be think the opposite?: Gen Sheridan is paraphrased as saying: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I guess he was right, dead Indians are unconscious, more rock like, superior. We did the natives a great service by killing most of them off. They no longer have to suffer the inferiority of being a conscious human being.

 

Do you think that I advocate not using our conscious/intellectual/logical/reasoning bit of ability of body mind? That wouldn’t be any smarter than cutting off a leg. But just as a body is not all leg, bodymind is not all intellect. It is not even mostly intellect. So wouldn’t it behoove us to discuss the real nature of how we relate to and therefore understand the world instead of following a partial use of mind to the dead end it seems to be headed for?

 

Conscious/intellectual/logical/reasoning are the only part of how we understand the world. My leg does not give a flip about how to understand the world, because it has none of these capabilities. “Understanding” is a conscious mental process. You can try to explain Latin to me while I am asleep and unconscious, but I am really quite certain I will gain absolutely no understanding of any Latin while I am unconscious. Please explain how Terry Schiavo used the unconscious part of her mind to gain a better understanding of how the world worked?

I agree that I am treating Science as a monolith.

Where do you fit in Ethics, Morality, Aesthetics, Philosophy, Politics? To me these are branches of knowledge which only minimally overlap with Science, but they are also all activities of a conscious mind. I would use these branches of knowledge to explain the world in addition to Science. I think most of your complaints about the modern world stem from problems in these areas, not Science.

[chefranden]

Any beef I have is not with science - it is with humanity.

 

How do you separate Science and Humanity?

 

This is an echo of taker culture that assumes that people are flawed. It can’t be the Culture that is flawed. Therefore, it must be the people, and not just some people, but all people. It can’t be that God is flawed, therefore people are flawed, and not just some people all people.

 

As a computer scientist (I think of myself more as a writer), it is sad that the skills I have are employed towards the goal of storing data on people and their money instead of solving the riddles of the Universe like I would rather do -the result: career change.

 

I find it profoundly disappointing that a system of individuals that thrive on money will not use their intellect to release themselves from the necessity of money. Substitute food for money, and the argument persists.

 

You are right about money, but I wonder why you don’t see Science’s contributions to this abuse of power.

 

 

I don't fault science for this, because I know I could use it to release myself even when others choose not to, but on the other hand I can also understand the sense of disappointment that arises from observing the a system that, through misuse and abuse, has gotten us into a lot of trouble with our planet.

What makes you think that you will or could succeed with some sort of pure use of Science, where others have failed?

 

Would it be correct to state that people are flawed because they don’t use their conscious/intellectual/logical/reason for good? If so, what good? Or better, whose good?

 

 

Science has had a short history, so I cannot blame it for the fact that we have used it chiefly to render crude approximations of ourselves, or satisfy animal desires. The term "science" is a morphological construst. It is any approach designed for improving our chance of success. I think science can provide those answers, but first we must have the desire to do so.

 

What is your beef with “animal desires”? We are animals, right? Satisfying “animal desires” is what most animals do to survive as a species. We seem to think we are the only exception. Why?

 

What does “success” consist of, so that we will know when science supplies it?

 

There is at least one question that Science cannot supply an answer for: What will supply the desire to do so?

[jjacksonRIAB]

How do you separate Science and Humanity?

 

This is an echo of taker culture that assumes that people are flawed. It can’t be the Culture that is flawed. Therefore, it must be the people, and not just some people, but all people. It can’t be that God is flawed, therefore people are flawed, and not just some people all people.

 

I wasn't separating people from culture. I think most structure is flawed, and hierarchial thought is one of the greatest flaws of science, politics, and religion. We need cholarchies.

 

You are right about money, but I wonder why you don’t see Science’s contributions to this abuse of power.

 

Oh, but I do! By Science, you mean a living body of people - I do not. How can I fault a paradigm for how it is employed? Anything that can create energy can also be used to create destruction. While knowledge is a living entity in some respects, hinging on the paths we take once we acquire it, I don't think it has human characteristics. If we lost all knowlege today, we would have to start over, but the body of knowledge would grow yet again.

 

Examining factors of casuality can seem paradoxical. Provide a child no rearing whatsoever, and that child will be wild, completely incapable of acheiving the same level of cognition that seems to pass between us on a daily basis. If all of us came from roots like that, whence came knowledge? Is it a purely social trend?

 

In that respect I could say that maybe knowledge is inherently social -even cultura-, so how could one hope to employ it towards any other end? Is that what you're asking?

 

What makes you think that you will or could succeed with some sort of pure use of Science, where others have failed?

 

Would it be correct to state that people are flawed because they don’t use their conscious/intellectual/logical/reason for good? If so, what good? Or better, whose good?

 

My aim is science for the individual - a mechanism by which the individual can employ science absolutely for his own good, and not merely as a method of acquisition for the hive as it has been employed thus far.

 

What is your beef with “animal desires”? We are animals, right? Satisfying “animal desires” is what most animals do to survive as a species. We seem to think we are the only exception. Why?

 

I know I am no exception, but I would like to be, and I say that without desire for pretense.

 

What does “success” consist of, so that we will know when science supplies it?

 

Omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Man asgod, not supplanted by the imagination of God.

 

There is at least one question that Science cannot supply an answer for: What will supply the desire to do so?

 

None of this, because Science considers it immoral, unethical, arrogant, conceited, foolish.

 

Religion stands in stark contrast.

[chefranden]

 

One would have to question the seriousness of someone who claimed that they were an ex-Christian but also that they believe in God and Jesus, pray every day, and continue to go to church on Sundays and Wednesdays. In like manner I question your seriousness in asserting the invalidity of science and technology while continuing to revel in it benefits. If I am wrong then just find the main breaker in your house and flip off that flow of evil electricity.

 

One would wouldn’t they. However you’ve made a couple of errors in this assumption.

 

1. Ignoring the context of my remark: ” I like civilization. I know how to be civilized. I don't know how to be uncivilized. I'm aware that my like for civilization is something like a smokers like of tobacco. It is just easier to keep smoking.” I would pull the plug if I knew how. I don’t know how. It is not as simple as going back to the land. There is no land to go back to any more. As I’ve said to Asimov, I don’t have a solution.

 

2. I haven’t come to any conclusions yet that’s why it is a question. I’ve been defending my reasons for doubting and so far no one has answered the reasons for doubting except for standard doctrinaire answers.

 

I can see that we don’t view the world in the same light at all. I don’t agree that the world is getting worse, I think it is getting better.

 

Show me.

 

The conscious mind is the most superior part of humans. Should be think the opposite?: Gen Sheridan is paraphrased as saying: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” I guess he was right, dead Indians are unconscious, more rock like, superior. We did the natives a great service by killing most of them off. They no longer have to suffer the inferiority of being a conscious human being.

 

The answer to the question why is consciousness considered superior is not, “it is superior.” Am I supposed to accept that on faith? Am I a heretic for asking?

 

As a bodily function do you think that consciousness is superior to breathing, heart beating, digestion, or kidney function, to name a few? It is odd, don’t you think, that you continue breath all day but are unconscious for about 1/3 of the day. Body can only go a few minutes without breath, but can go 8 hours or more without consciousness. One would suppose that if consciousness is the most important thing a body does that one might be conscious all the time.

 

I said, “One of the things that Science tells me is that conscious mind is a sub-process of unconscious processes of nature and bodymind and that it is a minor part of what bodymind does. Yet we have elevated this ability to the highest places we have in our myths. Why?” I wonder why you don’t answer the question, instead of giving some flip remark about dead Indians. You could for example challenge the notion that consciousness is a sub-process of unconscious processes of nature and bodymind. As an evolutionary materialist, I must conclude that this is the case. However, you may have access to information that I lack.

 

Now I will answer your question: The conscious mind is the most superior part of humans. Should be (sic) think the opposite? You are positing a false dilemma. Consciousness is neither the highest or the lowest function of your body. Consciousness is simply a function of your body, like digestion. What else could it be? Soul? Spirit? Man in the Machine? It does what it does in conjunction with all your body functions.

 

To suppose that consciousness is superior can only be a human cultural construct. It is in fact a human bias is it not? Superiority cannot be shown to be a property of nature. Nothing about evolution judges this one thing better than another. Now please don’t wax eloquent about survival of the fittest. The idea of fitness is again a human construct of understanding based on the conditioning and structure of bodymind and not a property of nature which cannot form an idea.

 

1. Conscious/intellectual/logical/reasoning are the only part of how we understand the world. 2. My leg does not give a flip about how to understand the world, because it has none of these capabilities. 3.“Understanding” is a conscious mental process. 4.You can try to explain Latin to me while I am asleep and unconscious, but I am really quite certain I will gain absolutely no understanding of any Latin while I am unconscious. 5. Please explain how Terry Schiavo used the unconscious part of her mind to gain a better understanding of how the world worked.

 

Again I will do you the courtesy of addressing what you write rather than just hopping off into left field somewhere. I ask the same courtesy of you in the future.

 

1. Exactly. Since you agree that consciousness is only a part, what would you surmise to be the additional parts of understanding?

 

2. So, do you then regard your leg as not a part of your bodymind? It is true that you can cut it off and still continue thinking. But can you show that your thinking would be the same without it as with it? I submit that the loss of your leg would make some changes in your consciousness.

 

3. If understanding is only a conscious process, then whence the idea of sleeping on a problem? Many scientists report that their understanding of some natural process often just comes out of the blue when they are thinking and doing something else. Those moments don’t come from conscious manipulations or calculations. The information is handed to the conscious, by what? God? I would say it is handed over by the unconscious functions of mind. Conscious manipulation of data has its place, but it is a very clumsy means of understanding. For most of what we do everyday, it is best if consciousness stands in the corner and keeps out of the way.

 

4. This is true. You need consciousness to focus attention, and that is IMHO its primary function. Your attention focuses on the source of information, the lecture on Latin, but most of the learning process is unconscious. You do not consciously select which bits of information get stored where. Consciousness can take charge for awhile to decide which bits of lecture to pay attention to as long as your unconscious bodymind doesn’t have other priorities. When that sexy blond gets up out of her chair to get a drink, there goes the lecture. Now where did that come from? When your unconscious bodymind informs the conscious that it is going to pee soon, there goes the lecture.

 

Yes, with effort you can train your consciousness to pay attention longer and ignore some distractions, but you cannot do it indefinitely.

 

5. Wouldn’t you agree that Terry had a very damaged bodymind? Her bodymind couldn’t do very many of its functions, and those few only because people fed her and kept her clean.

 

Consciousness has its place in the process of understanding, but it is not the whole of it. I’m sure that you understand many things about the world. I’m equally sure that you are not conscious of most of those understandings most of the time.

 

Where do you fit in Ethics, Morality, Aesthetics, Philosophy, Politics? To me these are branches of knowledge which only minimally overlap with Science, but they are also all activities of a conscious mind. I would use these branches of knowledge to explain the world in addition to Science. I think most of your complaints about the modern world stem from problems in these areas, not Science.

 

Good question. Why do I pick on Science and not these other disciplines?

 

I’m using Science to question the cultural assumptions of what human understanding is in part because this community reveres Science. If I were still allowed to post at CF I would use theology to approach the questions. All of these disciplines use many of the same cultural assumptions. The strongest assumption is that the world was made/evolved for man. Therefore, man should rule. How does one rule? One conquers. How does one conquer? War i.e. destruction, and threat of destruction. What is needed for War? Evermore powerful weapons*. How does one get evermore powerful weapons? Science. What is Science? The methodological use of conscious/intellectual/rational/logical mind in a way that ignores the rest of the mind as much as possible.

 

*Not just the weapons designed to kill people, but also to kill any life that competes for resources we want.

[Asimov]

Your immediate reaction, “shit isn’t food,” is a biased statement. Of course shit is food. Lots of critters love the stuff. I once had a dog that would eat cat turds out of the cat box when ever he managed to get at it. However, I bet that never crossed your mind. Shit is not food for me, therefore shit is not food. That is a bias and probably included the emotional reaction, disgust.

 

Shit is not food because is provides no nutritional value to humans, and is therefore not food. In fact, it is even HARMFUL to eat it.

 

I'm out, I can't deal with this.