New Mars Forums

Phobos wrote:  "Someone could say the same though of fanatical political sects.  The deadliest wars of the 20th Century were fought over political differences, not religious ones.  Some people cling to their political philosophies with the same mindless and destructive fervor as some people do with their religious beliefs.  You have to be wary of letting in lunatics of any stripe, regardless of their beliefs, religious, political, or whatever."

*I couldn't agree with you more.

--Cindy

Me:  If persons from Earth will only go to  re-establish and continue destructive and irrational patterns of behavior so ingrained here on Earth, why bother going to Mars?   

Clark:  One person's irrational behavior is anothers legitimate means to express their will. It is subjective.

*Try telling that to Sharon Tate's parents.  Or to the families of those who lost loved ones in the WTC 9/11 attack.

Clark:  Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.

Me:  Explain, please.  I don't know what you intend with this statement.

Clark:  Deconstruction is a philosphical system of thought, the basic premise is that when you validate anything, you do so by exluding and invalidating everything else. If you say this is "good" it neccessarily implies that anything not exactly like that thing is "bad".

*No, not necessarily.  You're taking an extremist point of view.  This is Jacques Derrida's philosophy, right?

Clark:  "In order to have a majority, you force the creation of a minority- "

*"Force" is a strong word.  And one needn't necessarily be attempting to create a majority.  As an example, let's use our discussion here:  I'm not forcing you to interact with me (and I'm not implying you feel that I am -- again, this is an example); I make statements, you react to them of your own choice and volition. 

"in this case, deciding a certain behavior is irrational implies that there is other behavior that is completely rational- the act of which makes a subjective and artifical judgment seem to have more validity then it really has."

*I see the point you try to make...and I also see the danger in this philosophy.  I do believe child molestation is bad.  I do believe vaccinating a pet against rabies is good.  I believe forcible rape of a woman is bad.  If there is truly no such thing as irrational behavior, by all means let's stop the manufacture of anti-psychotic medications in pharmaceutical companies; let's totally scrap and throw out all laws, courts, jails, policemen, etc.  According to the philosophy you quote, nothing is irrational -- hence, nothing is wrong, nothing can be a crime against humanity; there are no morals, standards, or values -- hence, Adolph Hitler and Fred Rogers (of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" kiddie show fame) are completely equal, neither one better or more noble than the other.  Right?  Is this what you are saying? 

You see, this is a warped philosophy; it is also evil.  Why do I say it is evil?  Because it lowers Fred Rogers (a very lovely, kind, compassionate man with a huge heart) to the level of a hatemongering, genocidal, megalomaniac like Adolph Hitler.

Fred Rogers is wonderful and beneficent.  Adolph Hitler was a murderous thug.  The philosophy you quote makes neither one nor the other any better than the other.  This is wrong.

Besides, humans will always have their ideas of bad and good.  The best test of what people *truly* think is good or bad is WOULD THEY LIKE SUCH-AND-SUCH TO HAPPEN TO **THEM**?  This single concept usually breaks through any socially-conditioned stupidity.   

And as for Postmodern thought:  It stinks. 

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Phobos wrote:  "The Saturn V is a glorious, proven vehicle it didn't deserve to die such an untimely death!"

*Hear, hear!  Aesthetically speaking, glorious in that regard as well.  I was in awe of the images of those towering, gleaming Saturn V's as a kid...and I still get "that feeling" when viewing video clips of them.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

"By the way: Hi, I'm new to this forum. Nice to meet you!

Bruckner"

*Hi, and welcome aboard! 

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Note:  My previous more lengthy response -- and nearly completed -- went down the electronic tubes when my computer "froze up" and wouldn't accept commands...control/alt/delete was my only option at that point, and my original post went down the electronic drain.  Here goes:

Me:  "However, do you not believe there is such a thing as objective truth?"

Clark:  Your turn, define it.

*I asked first.    However:  The earth revolves around the sun.  The living heart pumps blood.  Saturn V rockets couldn't have blasted off the launch pad had their fuel cells been full of Hershey's chocolate syrup.  An objective truth is constant, demonstrable and re-demonstrable by two or more independent persons.

Clark:  The problem between science and religion is just like most relationships- one of communication. Science is a language of measurement- if it can't be measured in some way, it simply cannot exsist in science. Religion begins where science ends- when measurements fail, what do you have left?

*Science is open-ended.  It seeks proof.  It requires demonstration of and re-demonstration of a thing claimed.  It is a proponent of -- and enabled by -- curiosity; it questions; it is honest to admit when it does not know.  Religion is stagnant.  It does not require proof; "faith" alone is enough.  Don't question it or doubt it.  It cannot be wrong.

Clark:  "All science can provide us is that it is unable to tell us becuase it can't measure anything. We could say it therefore dosen't exsist, but that is merely avoiding the situation caused by a failure in the reliance of a limited belief system.

Science is a belief system- it is a belief in measurments, comparisons, and causality- but it is a belief (as well founded and rational as it may be).

*I totally disagree.  Can we say MATHEMATICS?    Would your computer function if you pushed the plug into a bowl of chocolate pudding as it does when you plug it into a live electrical outlet?  No?  Would you be willing to jump into a swimming pool while holding an electrical appliance plugged into a live outlet?  No?  Why not?  If you say there's no objective truth, go ahead and jump into a swimming pool with a toaster on a long extension cord, connected to a live electrical outlet -- I dare you! 

Me:  We're each "stuck" in our own  minds, with our own backgrounds, experiences, perceptions, emotions, etc.  That, too, is fact.  Subjective matters will always be tempered by
the fact of objectivity. 

Clark:  What exsists in this world that is "objective"?

*See examples above.

Clark:  "If we are stuck in our own minds, how can there ever be any objectivity? If we can be "tempered" by objectivity, that implies we can step outside our subjective world- but we exsist within our mind, so how can we do that?"

*We examine.  We measure.  We "share notes."  We discuss.  Constancy and consistency in our own findings leads us to the idea of objectiveness, i.e. "that fellow feels pain, too, when a 50-pound weight slams down on his little finger...this means there must be such a thing called pain."

Me:  "You, I, and everyone else who participates at this message board will die someday.  That is fact, not faith."

Clark:  "No, that is a matter of faith. Where is your evidence that proves You, I, and everyone else who participates on this message board will die someday?"

*No, it is a matter of fact.  You have seen cemetaries in your lifetime?  You, I, and everyone else participating at this message board are flesh-and-blood beings; we will die, as have our ancestors.  I haven't talked with anyone who was born in 1850 lately...have you? 

Me:  "This mind in this body will die someday, regardless -- as will yours. That is fact."

Prove I have a mind (I know there are quite a few of you who have wondered that about me yourself). How do you measure a "mind"? You can weigh a brain- you can measure electrical activity between the synapses- but what the hell do you measure to prove you have a mind? If you can't prove it exsists, how do you know what happens to it?

*"I think; therefore, I am."

Clark:  "Now, the point of this diatribe, is simply, to knock one more Science-ist off their proverbial high-horse. Science is a belief system, just like religious belief systems."

*Why call my opinions a "high horse"?  If that's so, then everyone is on a "high horse."  The "high horse" of science is what has given us electricity, sterile surgical procedures, refrigration, prolonged life spans, etc.

Me:  "There are facts.  There are matters of faith.  I prefer facts."

Clark:  "If you really prefer facts, then you can never know anything."

*Denis Diderot and Voltaire are doing cartwheels in their graves at this very moment.  On the contrary!  It is only by fact that we build greater levels of knowledge and ability.  Without objective fact there would be no alphabet, and subsequently no reading or writing, let alone libraries -- or the internet.  WITHOUT facts and the seeking out of them one can never know anything -- or hardly anything.

Clark:  "but you don't want faith..."

*That's right, I don't.    Faith is irrational; it does not question; it makes assumptions; it is stagnant; it shuns doubt.

Clark:  "Happy Headache."

*No headache here.

Clark:  "If you could add my emal too the voltaire list, I would appreciate it."

*I'd be happy to assist you in doing that; however, the Yahoo! Groups set-up requires you to subscribe directly from your e-mail address.  It's a 2-part procedure; send a request, then verify it; you'll be on the list at that point.  I'd advise subscribing with a Yahoo! e-mail account as well, which will enable you to read directly at the home page -- and to utilize my extensive Bookmarks section as well.    ageofvoltaire-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Bill White wrote:  "Further, IMHO, Voltaire is valuable - very valuable - because he shredded the belief systems of the pompous asses that held power in his day. However, such service does not render Voltaire immune to being analyzed, criticized and corrected in the same manner as he himself skewered others."

*Yes, we must fit Voltaire into the context of his time and place; however, many of his thoughts and ideas are still useful today.  His voice is still modern in 2002, in many respects.

And no, Voltaire isn't above criticism, being analyzed, etc.  No one is.  I believe he is one of the greatest thinkers of all times; one of the most compassionate, consistent, humane, far-sighted of thinkers who was willing to ACT upon his beliefs (and not just yap on and on).  He also practiced what he "preached."  However, he was not perfect...and yes, he too must be held up to scrutiny.  There are areas of disagreement I have with Voltaire.  He wasn't a god, and he wasn't perfect.  But he came damned close, IMO   I truly feel he is one of the most noble and admirable person to have ever lived.  And that's not a compliment I give lightly or easily by any means.

Bill:  "Enlightenment "Reason" - big R - was a valuable step however there are limiits to what it can accomplish."

*It's only limited insofar as human understanding (or misunderstanding, as the case may be) allows it to be limited...or unlimited. 

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Phobos wrote:  "It's for real.  Even though I applaude the enthusiasm of that bill, I think it does go a bit overboard in places.  I think it's better to just have one or two big goals, like getting people to Mars in the first place, then to stretch ourselves to thin trying to build all these Martian moon stations, reusuable lunar vehicles, etc."

I feel this proposal is a red herring.  Why bother with the moons of Mars at this point in time -- if ever?  Focus on *Mars* itself.  Funnel the funding and resources into the *planet.*  If our space agency is going to fund the exploration and study of any planet's moon in the solar system, let it be Europa.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

I wrote:  "Please consider reading him more extensively; there is a great amount of  his material on the web, which I can direct you to.  His concept of Reason is easy to understand, but not easily pigeon-holed."

Clark:  "Whatever guidance you can provide will be appreciated."

*Consider joining my mailing list, ageofvoltaire@yahoogroups.com.  I can also send you information via your e-mailing address.  Which do you prefer?

Me:  "How do you define the words "subjective," "belief system," and "faith"?"

Subjective- varies from different  points of view, nothing more tangible than a person's experience. Being an American is a subjective experience, becuase being "american" means different things to different people- no one is wrong, no one is right.

*I see your point.  However, do you not believe there is such a thing as objective truth?

Belief system- what you personaly believe to be true.

Faith- an acceptance of information as fact and true without tangible evidence or complete answers.

Me:  "Is it a matter of faith or fact that if I were to jump from a 100-storey building here on Earth, onto the pavement below, I would die as a result?"

Clark:  "It is a matter of Faith."

Me:  I say it's a fact that I would die.

Clark:  You are wrong. It is a matter of faith that you belive that you will die if you jump- however, it dosen't become "fact" until you hit the pavement and die.  How do you reconcile your supposed "fact" with the people who have survived an un-opened parachute jump?

*And how often do people survive an unopened parachute jump?  Very, very seldom.  Even if they survive the initial impact, most die not long after.

Clark:  "You have faith in your belief system, the laws of physics and biology, that something falling 100 stories weighing as much as you will fall and die when it hits the ground. Whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing, you falling, is completely subjective."

*Subjectiveness is part and parcel of human nature, of the human personality and temperament...it's inevitable.  We're each "stuck" in our own minds, with our own backgrounds, experiences, perceptions, emotions, etc.  That, too, is fact.  Subjective matters will always be tempered by the fact of objectivity.

You, I, and everyone else who participates at this message board will die someday.  That is fact, not faith.  Even if you, I, and everyone else here were to be cloned, we still die and the clone's life is its own, not ours.  This mind in this body will die someday, regardless -- as will yours.  That is fact.

There are facts.  There are matters of faith.  I prefer facts.

--Cindy

Shaun wrote:  "This is interesting stuff. I didn't know there were reliable statistics showing more births during a full moon."

*I recall the first time I heard a woman say that more births occur during a full moon:  I was working in a small hospital in my first job after business college, and she was a nurse (RN).  I looked at her, laughed, and said "Oh yeah, right!"  I honestly thought she was teasing me and two other gals in the office.  She looked surprised, and reiterated this fact; other RN's chimed in that it was so, and a doctor as well.

"It's always fascinated me that the human menstrual cycle time-period is so close to the Moon's orbital period.  As Phobos, says, since no woman has ever been out of the Earth-Moon system, we don't really know what effect the lack of lunar gravity might have."

*It's one of the first things which came to my mind when I began reading MS material.

"What happens to our dreams of a new human civilisation on Mars if all our women-folk's reproductive plumbing shuts down?!"

*Yes, that's a very good question.  I don't think it'd be wise to treat it in some sort of "well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" situation...if people are serious (like me) about humans one day settling on, then colonizing, Mars, this needs to be at least given a good amount of consideration now.  Marsian colonization sans babies is a losing proposition.

--Cindy 

MS member since 6/01

Phobos wrote:  "Wow, my niece was born under a full moon a few months ago.  I guess it wasn't coincidence."

*It might have been a coincidence; you never know

Congratulations on the new addition to your family!  I love babies...

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

*Hi.  I just now read the following in the article at the MS home page, regarding the 2002 USA govt' space exploration bill:

"The twenty-year goal would require development of a reusable vehicle to carry humans to and from Martian orbit, development of a human occupied research facility on one of the moons of Mars..."

*Erm...this is a typo, right?  Why the heck try to land and create a research facility on one of the moons of Mars??

Explain?

--Cindy

Josh:  "Ooh, a culture without pens. Scary."

Clark:  "Ooh, a culture without the ability to make space suits capable of withstanding vacum, that live in vacum. Scary."

Josh:  "Americans stopped drinking tea, didn't they? I'm sure Britain thought, 'Oh! Americans will always drink tea, they simply cannot exist without it!'"

Clark:  "You can't exsist without air, what will you do when the last carbon scrubber fails and you lack the means to repair or replace it?"

*Actually, if push comes to shove where the rebelling colonists are involved, I think they may still have an ace up their sleeve.  For the sake of argument, let's say we have 200 Marsian settlers in the year 2202, from various national origins, who are bent on rebellion and becoming a colony.  They are, for the most part, independent -- but still not completely independent; they still need carbon scrubbers from Earth...but that only.

What are the chances that the powers-that-be on Earth would allow them to suffocate to death and not send them more scrubbers?  Sure, some malicious persons in power might like to see them die for their rebellion...but chances are good many more Earthlings will *not* stand idly by and allow the rebel Marsians to suffocate, and will be yelling, protesting, maybe even rioting in order to get the Marsians those carbon scrubbers.  No one nation of origin or one corporation is going to want to look like The Bad Guy Who Let The Marsians Suffocate...and there will be enough pressure and counter-pressure between nations and/or corporations to *not* allow this to happen, that the scrubbers will get sent to Mars anyway.

Is this a possible scenario?  I think so. 

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

"Mars or Bust, Baby"