Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

Phobos · 2002-08-26 21:37:47

Oh, and BTW, I believe the Falling Tree in the Forest question, is not to ask you an unanswerable question, but rather, to suggest that being concerned with such things is really a waste of time.

I think the purpose of the question is to create an interesting semantics problem. It's really getting to the root of the definition of sound. Obviously if a tree falls in the forest it's going to produce vibrations that could be picked up by the auditory systems of most animals, but are such vibrations "sound" if no human is around to interpret them? You could rephrase the question to ask "does a lightbulb emit light if no one is around to see it?" Well, if your definition of light requires a human presence to confirm it's existence, than no, the light doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you use the physics definition of light, then the lightbulb certainly emits light whether people are around or not since the physical properties of the universe exist regardless of human presence.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-27 05:31:14

Phobos: "... since the physical properties of the universe exist regardless of human presence."
I wonder what Schrodinger would have said about all this?! Or would he have had an opinion at all ... until we asked him for it?

Bill White · 2002-08-27 09:40:36

Doesn't quantum mechanics also teach us that you cannot observe a particle without changing its attributes?

If you listen to the "tree falling" has the tree been thereby changed?

On the quantum level, yes, on a "real world" level perhaps not. . .

Palomar · 2002-08-27 09:45:56

Afterall, the "reality" we all agree is "reality" is nothing more than a mass delusion reinforced through social constructs and limited by environmental constraints.
But then again, what do I know.

*There are indeed social constructs. For instance, the disparity of wages in the US [women on average earn 24% less money than a man earns, doing the same job]; the once-legal slave trade and enslavement of blacks in the US [now illegal]; the belief of Osama bin Laden that he is on a holy mission from Allah and believes the US should be destroyed...on and on. Social constructs are unavoidable, when you get more than 2 people together. Social constructs can be constructive or destructive; they can indeed come close to being "mass delusion" -HOWEVER- social constructs are not "mass delusion", as there will always be persons in a society which oppose the established social constructs. So long as there is 1 person who opposes the established social construct, there is no "mass delusion".

However, to deny that there is such a thing as REALITY is ridiculous. If there is no such thing as reality, then by all means I hope NASA saves my tax dollars by using water in the fuel tanks of the next shuttle launch, instead of fuel. And why would we need suits, helmets, and oxygen tanks on Mars? We should be able to breathe there, just like we do here, right? And having open windows on the Mars Direct craft should be no problem -- if there is no such thing as reality [the need for an enclosed, controlled, protected environment in the spacecraft], then certainly the astronauts should be able to stick their heads out of windows en route to Mars, let their hair be ruffled in the breeze. And heck, why do we even need a spacecraft to go to Mars? If there's no such thing as reality, let's just WALK there; it shouldn't be impossible. Yeah, right. There is absolutely no such thing as reality? How ludicrous.

To insist that everything is "mass delusion" is to discredit the human mind, human intellect, and human will -- it is also anti-individualistic. It is also, IMO, a convenient cop-out for people wanting to avoid self-responsibility and dealing with externalities.

And as for your statement, "But then again, what do I know." Well, Clark, you've said there is no such thing as reality; thus, you cannot know anything; thus, your statment is rather pointless. This is THE major flaw I see in your pet philosophy and its utter irrationality.

If there is no such thing as reality, then you cannot know [know what? there's nothing to be known, it's all mass delusion, there is no such thing as reality -- so you say]...so why make such a statement?

Also, you are saying mass delusion is reality. Tut, tut -- there is no such thing as reality, or so you say. Wow, what a philosophical pickle you are in!

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-27 10:18:14

Social constructs are unavoidable, when you get more than 2 people together.

I agree with you. So we are intelligent enough to understand our own behavior, why do we accept the constraints imposed by them?

However, to deny that there is such a thing as REALITY is ridiculous.

I agree with you. I hope you didn't misconstrue what i was saying to mean that I don't believe there is such a thing as "reality". My point, and this is only for clarification, is that this "reality" exsists and is understood through the definitions and relationships we place upon it through our perception and the actual physical limitations imposed upon us by the environment.

And why would we need suits, helmets, and oxygen tanks on Mars?

Case in point: Environmental constraints.

There can be such a thing as mass delusion; the Hitler movement was one example.

Freedom, privacy, and security being others...

But to insist that everything is "mass delusion" is to discredit the human mind, human intellect, and human will -- it is also anti-individualistic.

Hmm, think of it another way- the definition of "normal" is derived by observing what is the most commonly held behavior and/or practice within a given population. It is "normal" to be heterosexual, but it is not "normal" to be homosexual. This is derived by seeing that heterosexual behavior is predominant, and therfore the "norm". If everyone wore black socks to bed, those who did not would not fall into the "norm". Pretty mundane cases- pretty arbitrary- but that is the point I wish to demonstrate.

We hold human life as sacred- killing others is not "normal" (nor do I wish it to be). However, this is just a social construct resulting from the advantages attributed with not killing each other in order to deal with the environmental constraints of our world, our "reality". If it was beneficial to kill each other in order to exsist within the environmental constraints, it would be "normal" and acceptable for us to do so. Case in point: We hold violence to be an unacceptable solution to resolving disputes between people; yet we also hold violence to be an acceptable solution to resolving disputes between "nations". Here we have two diametrically opposed behaviors that are both considered "normal", yet each operates from a different set of social constructs and environmental constraints.

The enviornmental constraints will always be with us, that is the ceiling upon which we push- where our understanding of our surroundings begin.

The social constructs are mechanisms with which we understand and influences our understanding. Case in point: Freud developed psychoanalysis, but it was heavily influenced by his culture and personality. His theories and studies into the human mind helped define some of our current environmental constraints imposed by the structure of the biological component of the human mind, but the understanding of what he learned or theorized was dictated by the era in which he lived.

Perception- how we perceive the world is influenced by the times and places in which we live. Perception is the manner in which we understand our environmental constraints. Ultimetly, it is our social constructs (think "era") that determine our understanding of "reality" That was, and is, my point.

clark · 2002-08-27 10:28:36

LOL. I missed the last few sentences in your previous post Cindy!

And as for your statement, "But then again, what do I know." Well, Clark, you've said there is no such thing as reality; thus, you cannot know anything; thus, your statment is rather pointless. This is THE major flaw I see in your pet philosophy and its utter irrationality.

Here's a dare Cindy. Please find where I SAID "there is no such thing as reality".

I never denied the exsistence of reality, I only commented on how it is understood and defined.

Good luck!

If everyone was blind save you, would rainbows be "real" or would you be "deluded"?

Bill White · 2002-08-27 10:35:39

Case in point: Freud developed psychoanalysis, but it was heavily influenced by his culture and personality.

Harold Bloom has suggested Freud formulated his theories by reading Hamlet - a thesis I can neither prove nor disprove but it is one I can enjoy!

clark · 2002-08-27 10:53:10

Harold Bloom has suggested Freud formulated his theories by reading Hamlet - a thesis I can neither prove nor disprove but it is one I can enjoy!

It only further illustrates my point: Frued's understanding of Hamlet would be influenced by the era he lived in- his culture would help define his perspective. Our understanding of literature changes with the era in whic it is studied.

Palomar · 2002-08-27 11:13:42

ME: Social constructs are unavoidable, when you get more than 2 people together.

CLARK: I agree with you. So we are intelligent enough to understand our own behavior, why do we accept the constraints imposed by them?

*Who says we are all accepting of the constraints imposed upon us? Many of us are not accepting of them. However, my point was that social constraints will exist whenever you get 2 or more people together, because at least one of them will be more dominant, domineering, and strong-willed than the other, and thus will seek to impose his/her will [to whatever degree] on the more pliant party. This seems to "simply" be human nature...however, it doesn't have to be accepted or liked.

ME: However, to deny that there is such a thing as REALITY is ridiculous.

CLARK: I agree with you. I hope you didn't misconstrue what i was saying to mean that I don't believe there is such a thing as "reality".

*You believe reality is simply and only mass delusion. Correct?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-27 11:19:26

ME: And as for your statement, "But then again, what do I know." Well, Clark, you've said there is no such thing as reality; thus, you cannot know anything; thus, your statment is rather pointless. This is THE major flaw I see in your pet philosophy and its utter irrationality.

CLARK: Here's a dare Cindy. Please find where I SAID "there is no such thing as reality".

*I think you're a bit smarter than to actually come out and say this; however, you do strongly imply this sentiment. At the very least, you believe reality is nothing more than mass delusion. I think you're wrong, as explained in my previous post.

CLARK: I never denied the exsistence of reality, I only commented on how it is understood and defined.

*And I still disagree with you. No one told me, the first time I fell on concrete as a kid, that it would hurt -- it just did.

CLARK: If everyone was blind save you, would rainbows be "real" or would you be "deluded"?

*I would trust my senses, and believe the rainbow is real. I would not bow to Group Think and allow the blind to tell me what I can see or cannot see, when they themselves have never seen.

If you get the chance, read Voltaire's short story "The Blind Pensioners at Quinze Vingt."

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-27 11:40:22

ME: And why would we need suits, helmets, and oxygen tanks on Mars?

CLARK: Case in point: Environmental constraints.

*The result of "mass delusion" too? If so, can we CHANGE our "mass delusion" to allow us to go to Mars [if it even really exists, i.e. maybe Mars is simply part of "mass delusion"] with open windows on the spacecraft, no pressurized suits and oxygen tanks, etc.? I mean, if reality is only "mass delusion," we should be able to do anything we want, so long as there is a "proper delusion" to it.

CLARK: Ultimetly, it is our social constructs (think "era") that determine our understanding of "reality" That was, and is, my point.

*To a point. Culture, society, environment...these things are social constructs, there are countless types around the globe, etc. But this is NOT "mass delusion"...simply because [as I pointed out previously] there will always be at least ONE person in opposition to the social construct; and so long as there is just ONE dissenter, there is NO "mass delusion." Social constructs also do not entirely determine our understanding of reality; they do mold and shape our perceptions, etc., but there is reality beyond the power and force of social constructs [read on]:

However, social constructs are limited as well: No matter what the social construct of a tribe, nation, village, family, etc., everyone grows old unless they die young, and everyone dies. Or is the aging process and death part of "mass delusion" on the part of humans as well? If you say yes, I'm going to have "Taps" performed, in memory of your mind.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-27 11:45:47

Case in point: Freud developed psychoanalysis, but it was heavily influenced by his culture and personality.
Harold Bloom has suggested Freud formulated his theories by reading Hamlet - a thesis I can neither prove nor disprove but it is one I can enjoy!

*Sigmund was a hoot. If a woman wearing a pony-tail means she has "penis envy," what about the man who wears a pony-tail?

I guess he never saw the portraits of all our male friends of the 1600's and 1700's, with their pony-tailed wigs!

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-27 11:56:38

IMHO - the biggest "take home" message from Freud is that people can change by engaging in dialouge with themselves.

Freudian psychoanalysis contemplates that a skilled therapist can guide a patient to learn about themselves by closing examining the details of their own life.

But some of us believe we already understand ourselves fully - like GWBush who once said - I don't often look in the mirror, except when I comb my hair - and my hair don't need combing right now. . ."

No link is offered, I saw this live on CNN.

Maybe the unexamined life is worth living after all. . .

clark · 2002-08-27 13:50:31

*You believe reality is simply and only mass delusion. Correct?

No. I believe there is a reality. I believe that whatever THAT reality is is understood through what can be termed "mass delusion". Mass delusion does not have to happen to everyone- however, anyone that views things outside the parameters of the generally accepted "mass delusion" is considered crazy, or has a perverted interpretation of "reality".

*Who says we are all accepting of the constraints imposed upon us?

Isn't that what "cultural imperialism" is? Imposition of social constraints upon another?

*I think you're a bit smarter than to actually come out and say this; however, you do strongly imply this sentiment.

Then say I "imply" it- don't attribute things I have never said to me as if I had- it is intellectualy dishonest and rude. And, for the record, I do not IMPLY this sentiment either, you infer it based on your own private bias in an attempt to discredit my argument.

At the very least, you believe reality is nothing more than mass delusion.

No, reality is quite real. However, the UNDERSTANDING and interpetration of reality is nothing more than a mass delusion. The painting is real, but what it means is imagined.

*And I still disagree with you. No one told me, the first time I fell on concrete as a kid, that it would hurt -- it just did.

Again, this is an environmental constraint- "reality" as real as it gets. However, the significance of the event- how you understand the "hurt" and what it means to you- the LIVING in reality is all a delusion supported by social constructs.

*I would trust my senses, and believe the rainbow is real. I would not bow to Group Think and allow the blind to tell me what I can see or cannot see, when they themselves have never seen.

And yet YOU question the valdity of Religion!!! If you believe that the rainbow is real, but no one else believes it is there- they can see no evidence (to them) that it does exsist, how would you truly know what you saw was real?

So, considering that last quote there Cindy, do you want to maybe clarify your position regarding the validity of religion? I would hate to be infering something that I shouldn't.

I mean, if reality is only "mass delusion," we should be able to do anything we want, so long as there is a "proper delusion" to it.

Well, it used to be we couldn't sail around the earth- you see, it was flat. It used to be man could not fly, it was impossible for somethign heavier than air to fly. Not long ago, it was thought that putting a man on the moon was science fiction- the moon was made of cheese.

But this is NOT "mass delusion"...simply because [as I pointed out previously] there will always be at least ONE person in opposition to the social construct;and so long as there is just ONE dissenter, there is NO "mass delusion."

MAss delusion does not have to be everyone. You are being too literal and twisting this out of context.

However, social constructs are limited as well: No matter what the social construct of a tribe, nation, village, family, etc., everyone grows old unless they die young, and everyone dies.

You have just illustrated my point- social constructs determine the meaning of the environmental constraints.

it is a fact we all grow old, and die, unless we die young, either way, we all die.

That is a fact. That is reality. But what the hell does it mean?

The social constructs provide the framework with which we interpret and understand the "facts" of reality, i.e. the environmental constraints.

Or is the aging process and death part of "mass delusion" on the part of humans as well?

No, it is an environmental constraint- it is a fact. But facts don't tell us anything in and of themselves- we apply our understanding to make sense and order the facts into an entire whole so we can better manuever and manipulate within our environment.

Palomar · 2002-08-27 14:39:03

CLARK: however, anyone that views things outside the parameters of the generally accepted "mass delusion" is considered crazy, or has a perverted interpretation of "reality".

*Would you want a schizophrenic experiencing a psychotic break to fly an airplane you were going to be the passenger of? I wouldn't.

ME: Who says we are all accepting of the constraints imposed upon us?

CLARK: Isn't that what "cultural imperialism" is? Imposition of social constraints upon another?

*Oh, you want to start THAT debate up again? What if Amina and the people who protested her being stoned to death were [gasp!] actually REJECTING the social constraints forced upon her? Did that ever occur to you? Obviously not. It's really "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with you, isn't it? If we don't protest Amina's stoning to death sentence, we're going along with "mass delusion." If we DO protest her stoning to death sentence, we're "cultural imperialists." Geez.

ME: I think you're a bit smarter than to actually come out and say this; however, you do strongly imply this sentiment.

CLARK: Then say I "imply" it- don't attribute things I have never said to me as if I had- it is intellectualy dishonest and rude.

*No intellectual dishonesty or rudeness on my part. After you called me on the issue of whether or not you'd actually denied there is such a thing as reality, I went through a dozen or so of your posts relative to various debates we had. I realized you had never stated a disbelief in reality, but you do imply it.

CLARK: And, for the record, I do not IMPLY this sentiment either, you infer it based on your own private bias in an attempt to discredit my argument.

*You do too imply it. And how can I have a "private bias" if I, like everyone else [according to you] is operating in a state of "mass delusion"? Hmmmm?

ME: At the very least, you believe reality is nothing more than mass delusion.

CLARK: No, reality is quite real. However, the UNDERSTANDING and interpetration of reality is nothing more than a mass delusion. The painting is real, but what it means is imagined.

*This makes no sense. How can we even know it is a painting to begin with, then? I see the Mona Lisa: A woman in blackish garb with hints of a natural landscape in the background. That's reality. Is the painting pretty or ugly? That's subjective interpretation. And since there are VARIED opinions as to whether it's a pretty painting or not, this proves that there is no "mass delusion" where the Mona Lisa is concerned.

ME: I would trust my senses, and believe the rainbow is real. I would not bow to Group Think and allow the blind to tell me what I can see or cannot see, when they themselves have never seen.

CLARK: And yet YOU question the valdity of Religion!!! If you believe that the rainbow is real, but no one else believes it is there- they can see no evidence (to them) that it does exsist, how would you truly know what you saw was real?

*Um, because they can't see and I can. Hello? Don't you even understand simple logic? Yes, I question the validity of religion, and nothing I've said compromises it; as a matter of fact, everything I've said all along only bolsters my questioning the validity of religion! Have you read my quote of David Hume? It's under my signature line.

CLARK: So, considering that last quote there Cindy, do you want to maybe clarify your position regarding the validity of religion? I would hate to be infering something that I shouldn't.

*I just did [see above]. Reason enables me to see, think for myself, act upon the sensory input my senses send to my brain, to aquire knowledge, to learn, etc., etc. The religious people could be equated to the blind people YOU gave as an example [and knowing how that goes, I'd probably be labeled "an agent of the devil" and killed for daring to assert that I do see a rainbow!]. The joke's on you Clark. You walked right into that one.

ME: I mean, if reality is only "mass delusion," we should be able to do anything we want, so long as there is a "proper delusion" to it.

CLARK: Well, it used to be we couldn't sail around the earth- you see, it was flat. It used to be man could not fly, it was impossible for somethign heavier than air to fly. Not long ago, it was thought that putting a man on the moon was science fiction- the moon was made of cheese.

*Man could have sailed around the Earth anytime he chose to do so, so long as he had the proper navigation equipment; he could have flown, so long as he had the technical/aviation means of doing so; and not everyone believed the moon was made of cheese. The people who insisted on the Flat-Earth theory and "man will never fly" were the blind Group-Think sorts you gave as an example, whereas the doers and the provers had their sight and senses intact, and used them.

ME: But this is NOT "mass delusion"...simply because [as I pointed out previously] there will always be at least ONE person in opposition to the social construct;and so long as there is just ONE dissenter, there is NO "mass delusion."

CLARK: MAss delusion does not have to be everyone. You are being too literal and twisting this out of context.

*Well then you should take care to define HOW you are using words. I'm not intentionally twisting anything.

CLARK: But facts don't tell us anything in and of themselves- we apply our understanding to make sense and order the facts into an entire whole so we can better manuever and manipulate within our environment.

*Agreed. This is Reason. You're getting there, Clark.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-27 15:35:11

Would you want a schizophrenic experiencing a psychotic break to fly an airplane you were going to be the passenger of? I wouldn't.

Neither would I. I fail to understand why you ask this question though. I pointed out a process of how normalcy is determined, which therby establishes which interpretation of reality is the correct one. How do WE know that someone else is crazy- by measuring their behavior relative to our own and others.

*Oh, you want to start THAT debate up again?

If you would like, we can. However, i would like to point out that I was asking a question regarding "cultural imperialism"- I asked if what you stated could be a definition of cultural imperialism- at no time did I say it was or wasn't. It was a simple and honest question, which you seem to think was more.

What if Amina and the people who protested her being stoned to death were [gasp!] actually REJECTING the social constraints forced upon her? Did that ever occur to you?

But they are not protesting the social constraint. they are protesting the punishment associated with a crime. Protesting a "social constraint" is protesting the power of the State to murder. You should really think about this some more.

If we don't protest Amina's stoning to death sentence, we're going along with "mass delusion."

True. Which is why maybe we should reassess the whole concept of the death penalty- not just Amina's case.

If we DO protest her stoning to death sentence, we're "cultural imperialists."

Becuase you are imposing your values on another in terms of punishment for a crime.

I realized you had never stated a disbelief in reality, but you do imply it.

Cindy, I haven't stated I don't believe in reality. There are several posts where I directly say I DO believe in reality. If I answer in the affirmitive, how can you still contend that i imply otherwise? Just let it go, okay- we'll chalk it up to miscommunication on both our parts.

*You do too imply it. And how can I have a "private bias" if I, like everyone else [according to you] is operating in a state of "mass delusion"?

You can have a private bias for the same reason you can have your own thoughts. How we understand reality is the shared delusion- the individual bits of reality are wholly our own. How I see you, how you see me, how Phobos see's us both is all different- however, how we interpret reality is shared based on our mutual social constructs.

Have you ever travelled to another country Cindy? You might understand what I am getting at here.

*This makes no sense. How can we even know it is a painting to begin with, then? I see the Mona Lisa: A woman in blackish garb with hints of a natural landscape in the background. That's reality. Is the painting pretty or ugly? That's subjective interpretation. And since there are VARIED opinions as to whether it's a pretty painting or not, this proves that there is no "mass delusion" where the Mona Lisa is concerned.

No, the shared delusion is that it is a painting- that is the social construct.

*Um, because they can't see and I can. Hello? Don't you even understand simple logic?

LOL. "Becuase they can't see and I can." Most people who believe in god say the same thing when asked why they share their views with non-believers. I understand logic, but I am always trying to learn more. Do you understand logic Cindy?

Yes, I question the validity of religion, and nothing I've said compromises it; as a matter of fact, everything I've said all along only bolsters my questioning the validity of religion!

I take no issue you with questioning religion, i do however think it is unwise to question the "validity" of religion. It is ultimetly futile and only serves to undermine anything else you might belive in. Science is based on faith, just as religion is- they both go about it differently, yet the fundamental structures exsist in both systems. They exsist because both systems were derived by us, and are limited by how our minds operate.

Reason enables me to see, think for myself, act upon the sensory input my senses send to my brain, to aquire knowledge, to learn, etc., etc.

You rely upon your senses to understand the world around you- yet what i am pointing out is the effect of our understanding of the world influencing how we perceive and understand what senses are "sensing".

The religious people could be equated to the blind people YOU gave as an example [and knowing how that goes, I'd probably be labeled "an agent of the devil" and killed for daring to assert that I do see a rainbow!]. The joke's on you Clark. You walked right into that one.

LOL! Did I? The religous people can be equated with the people who can "see". It you who are questioning the validity of religion- it is you who questions those who "see" something which you are unable or unwilling to see. Wether or not there is somethign actually there is immaterial- they hold that the rainbow exsists- yet you cannot see this rainbow so you question them. You walked into this one, not I.

The people who insisted on the Flat-Earth theory and "man will never fly" were the blind Group-Think sorts you gave as an example, whereas the doers and the provers had their sight and senses intact, and used them.

You mean they were the people who rejected the social constructs of their time and challenged the supposed environmental constraints of their time.

*Well then you should take care to define HOW you are using words.

I will take care in the future. Should I use big words or small ones?

*Agreed. This is Reason. You're getting there, Clark.

I look forward to enlightenment.

Phobos · 2002-08-27 22:27:46

Harold Bloom has suggested Freud formulated his theories by reading Hamlet - a thesis I can neither prove nor disprove but it is one I can enjoy!

This is one of the great things about Shakespeare, he could capture the elements of human psychology like no writer since. The Oedipal complex specifically is what Freud identified in Hamlet. I'm a big Shakespeare nut and I think the British were right on when they named Shakespeare the person of the millenium. My favorite plays are A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, Richard the Third, The Tempest, and Twelfth Night.

Palomar · 2002-08-28 10:36:20

ME: *Um, because they can't see and I can. Hello? Don't you even understand simple logic?

CLARK: I understand logic, but I am always trying to learn more. Do you understand logic Cindy?

*Are you asking me that simply because I asked you? Parroting, in other words? Yes, I believe I understand logic.

ME: The religious people could be equated to the blind people YOU gave as an example [and knowing how that goes, I'd probably be labeled "an agent of the devil" and killed for daring to assert that I do see a rainbow!]. The joke's on you Clark. You walked right into that one.

CLARK: LOL! Did I? The religous people can be equated with the people who can "see".

*Can they? I notice you didn't stop to ask these religious people: "If everyone was blind save you, would rainbows be 'real' or would you be 'deluded'?" -- which is what you asked me [and I did answer].

CLARK: It you who are questioning the validity of religion-

*It is you who are questioning the validity of reason.

CLARK: it is you who questions those who "see" something which you are unable or unwilling to see.

*They claim to "see" based on faith and dogma. I claim to see based on my brain and my sensory input. See the difference, pardon the pun? I bet you don't.

And here's the fundamental difference: You claim religious people can "see", whereas I believe they are blind and that I am the one who can see [because I think, decide, and choose for myself, whereas religious people are always under command by some self-imposed "higher authority"]. We're not going to agree on this one; we can talk to each other until we're blue in the face, and we're not going to agree.

And going back to mass delusion [which you brought up], religion has been the greatest perpetrator and instigator of delusion [but notice I didn't use the word "mass" with delusion -- because not all people agree, and thus there is no such thing as mass delusion]. If anyone would like to read the highly controversial writings of Jean Meslier regarding religion, send me a message via this board's messenger. But be warned: Meslier doesn't mince words and you might not like what you read.

CLARK: You walked into this one, not I.

*Or so you like to think.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-28 12:26:02

*Are you asking me that simply because I asked you?

No.

*Can they? I notice you didn't stop to ask these religious people: "If everyone was blind save you, would rainbows be 'real' or would you be'deluded'?" -- which is what you asked me [and I did answer].

I am left wondering if you even understand the point I was making. According to your thinking here, no one can be considered truly "crazy". You establish that being able to perceive something is the only qualifier with which to establish what is and isn't real. You fall back upon your senses, in the case I presented, one where you would be the only one able to "see" a rainbow that no one else could see because they lack the ability to see it. Now, if I claim I "see" god through religion, I am fully justified and VALID in making that claim since it is merely me working against "group-think" as you classify it. Your OWN logic Cindy, not mine. how do you reconcile this?

And, I also question those who question the validity of science, not just religion.

*It is you who are questioning the validity of reason.

No, i do not question the "validity". I question placing more value in reason versus anything else. Reason is no better or worse than religion, that has been my whole point all along.

*They claim to "see" based on faith and dogma. I claim to see based on my brain and my sensory input. See the difference, pardon the pun? I bet you don't.

But don't you see what you are doing? You have categorized their "faith" as insufficent to qualify as a legitimate means with which to interpret the world- the same way you use your "sensory input" to interpret the world. Perhaps they are able to see something you are unable to, which means you should allow for the possibility that their claims, their views are just as valid as your own.

And here's the fundamental difference: You claim religious people can "see", whereas I believe they are blind and that I am the one who can see [because I think, decide, and choose for myself, whereas religious people are always under command by some self-imposed "higher authority"].

Cindy, I don't know if they can or not- that really isn't for me to say. It isn't for you to say either. You claim your senses are correct, and theirs are not based on a belief that your system is better than theirs. That line of thought has been the basis for thousands of years of human suffering.

We're not going to agree on this one; we can talk to each other until we're blue in the face, and we're not going to agree.

Why not? Is your mind that closed? What is it precisley that you have such a hard time agreeing with?

Do you think religion has no validity to it at all? If so, what does that say regarding the prospects of the Human race considering that most of the human race chooses one religion or another?

Palomar · 2002-08-28 13:27:06

ME: Can they? I notice you didn't stop to ask these religious people: "If everyone was blind save you, would rainbows be 'real' or would you be'deluded'?" -- which is what you asked me [and I did answer].

CLARK: I am left wondering if you even understand the point I was making.

*And I'm left wondering if we are absolutely incapable of communicating!

CLARK: According to your thinking here, no one can be considered truly "crazy".

*Where are you getting this notion?? Good grief, I'm thinking this is precisely what YOU are saying! According to your irrationalist deconstructionalist "thought," no one is sane or insane -- everything's equal, nothing better or worse than anything else. You are the one who inadvertently is saying there is no such thing as a crazy person, not me.

CLARK: You establish that being able to perceive something is the only qualifier with which to establish what is and isn't real. You fall back upon your senses, in the case I presented, one where you would be the only one able to "see" a rainbow that no one else could see because they lack the ability to see it. Now, if I claim I "see" god through religion,

*I can see a rainbow with my eyes. The PHYSICALLY blind people around me [in the example you gave] cannot. Why should I allow them to let me think I'm "crazy" because my optic nerves, discs, lenses, and pupils work and theirs do not? I am speaking of PHYSICAL senses. Even the Bible says that God cannot be seen with human eyes -- so good luck finding the person who has PHYSICALLY SEEN God, because no one has. To see a rainbow with PHYSICAL eyes [optic nerves, brain, lenses, pupils] is objective reality. To "see god" through a principle of faith is subjective sentiment.

CLARK: I am fully justified and VALID in making that claim since it is merely me working against "group-think" as you classify it. Your OWN logic Cindy, not mine. how do you reconcile this?

*Explained above.

ME: It is you who are questioning the validity of reason.

CLARK: No, i do not question the "validity". I question placing more value in reason versus anything else. Reason is no better or worse than religion, that has been my whole point all along.

*Reason = objective = sensory input and output.

Religion = subjective = faith and belief which requires no proof and asks no questions.

How much plainer can I make the difference here? I've spelled this out before.

ME: *They claim to "see" based on faith and dogma. I claim to see based on my brain and my sensory input. See the difference, pardon the pun? I bet you don't.

CLARK: But don't you see what you are doing? You have categorized their "faith" as insufficent to qualify as a legitimate means with which to interpret the world

*That's exactly right.

CLARK: - the same way you use your "sensory input" to interpret the world.

*Repeating again:
*Reason = objective = sensory input and output.

Religion = subjective = faith and belief which requires no proof and asks no questions

CLARK: Perhaps they are able to see something you are unable to, which means you should allow for the possibility that their claims, their views are just as valid as your own.

*I'd like them to produce a few photos, tangible PHYSICAL evidence, etc. They can't.

ME: And here's the fundamental difference: You claim religious people can "see", whereas I believe they are blind and that I am the one who can see [because I think, decide, and choose for myself, whereas religious people are always under command by some self-imposed "higher authority"].

CLARK: Cindy, I don't know if they can or not- that really isn't for me to say. It isn't for you to say either.

*Who are you to say what I can say and what I can't?

CLARK: You claim your senses are correct, and theirs are not based on a belief that your system is better than theirs. That line of thought has been the basis for thousands of years of human suffering.

*You are totally mixed up. Yes, I mean that. What have most of the wars on Earth been fought over? Religion. What have most people been slaughtered, raped, burned alive in the name of? Religion. Who has censored books, burned books, banned books, persecuted/murdered "heretics" and "heretical authors"? Religion. Open a history book. Reason is beneficial to mankind, if he recognizes it and knows how to utilize it; religion is not. The history books prove my point. It's apparent to me, as you yourself have admitted, that you are ignorant regarding the philosophy of reason as it relates to the writings 18th-century personages. You are attempting to argue with me on a level you aren't even at; how silly is that? How do you suppose that you can understand where I'm coming from, or attempt to engage me in a particular fashion, if you aren't even familiar -- as you yourself admit -- with the basis for my viewpoints? I'm familiar with Derrida; how familiar are you with Voltaire, d'Alembert, Rand, Diderot, d'Holbach, etc.? You make many ASSUMPTIONS regarding me and the basis for my viewpoints -- and this is most likely the difficulty in our communication.

ME: We're not going to agree on this one; we can talk to each other until we're blue in the face, and we're not going to agree.

CLARK: Why not? Is your mind that closed?

*Nope [btw, some of the most close-minded people I've known are religionists of whatever stripe]. I simply sense that you and I could talk about these matters indefinitely and the lack of communication will continue [and also, see above]. I think it's called diametrical opposition. Are you suggesting I'm "close-minded" because I prefer reason to religion? Are you "close-minded" because you prefer Derrida deconstructionalism? Would you ever consider seriously studying 18th-century Enlightenment philosophy, as I have studied Derrida, postmodernist thought, etc.?

CLARK: What is it precisley that you have such a hard time agreeing with?

*Trying to guilt induce me won't work. Do I HAVE to agree with you? I don't believe I'm close-minded; if I were to write out my personal history you might agree that I'm not close-minded. You don't know me; you don't know where I've been, what I've been through, how I got from A to B. However, there are things I believe to be true and things I don't believe to be true. I won't accept your "standard" ala Jacques Derrida's deconstructionalism that "everything is equal" and "nothing is better or worse than anything else" - which is nonsense. Your way of thinking is a degradation of the human mind, i.e. you seek to degrade the objective and logical by questioning the truth of whether functioning physical eyes, optic nerves, and brain can perceive a rainbow, while at the same time insisting that people who "see" pink elephants floating by, who believe in fairies, gnomes, and sylphs are just as valid and believable. This is precisely why I shun and despise deconstructionalism. It's as much a disservice and insult to human intelligence as punishing the straight-A honor student by deliberately demoting him/her into special education classes, and telling the child "Your IQ of 130 means nothing, because Tommy's is 65 -- it's all equal." So how would you tell Adolph Hitler, "No, you can't murder 6 million Jews" when your philosophy [Derrida deconstructionalism] insists that Hitler is no better or worse than, say, Fred Rodgers? Deconstructionalism is short-sighted and foolish; while it seeks to avoid inequalities [itself a futile task], it refuses to acknowledge the fact that persons like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Bundy, Dahmer, etc., etc. would simply take advantage of this philosophical system, i.e. "Well, you're no better than I am, so I'll murder people if I want to." And how could you stop them, philosophically speaking? I accidentally ran over a squirrel a few years ago, and it got killed; I felt bad all day -- it ruined my day. These yahoos can butcher human beings by the dozens without batting an eye, and sleep soundly that very night. But I'm supposedly morally equal to them and they to me? Bovine fecal matter! That is precisely where Derrida deconstructionalism goes...and if accepted and put into practice by most humans, would plunge us into utter chaos. Ever read _Animal Farm_ by George Orwell? Why don't you read this book, if you haven't, and then come back and talk to me.

And I think you should ask yourself if you really, truly do buy Derrida's deconstructionalist thought. If so, why do you bother arguing with me or anyone else?

CLARK: Do you think religion has no validity to it at all? If so, what does that say regarding the prospects of the Human race considering that most of the human race chooses one religion or another?

*People can choose to have whatever religion they want. I'm all for freedom of religion -- and freedom FROM religion as well. No, I don't believe religion has any validity. Carl G. Jung has validity, religion does not; Jung attempted to make sense of the workings of the human mind via scientific method; religion simply demands to be believed "just because __ says so"...and that's not good enough for me.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-28 14:54:27

People who see pink elephants floating by are crazy -- because most people do NOT see pink elephants floating by. Sensual consensus is about the best basis for reality we have.

I agree, that's why I don't understand your sentiments. The question I posed to you would place you as the SOLE person who saw a rainbow in a world of people incapable of seeing the rainbow. To everyone else, rainbows are not part of their world becuase they are incapable of perceiving the rainbow. You then stated that you would trust your senses, and believe that the rainbow exsisted- going against "group-think". You end up denying the "best basis" of determining reality if you accept that your senses alone determine reality. That's the problem you have set up by answering as you have. You allow that you personaly are able to determine what you can perceive and what you can't perceive, but you do not afford the same consideration to others- namely those who view religion as valid. What am I misunderstanding?

*I can see a rainbow with my eyes. The PHYSICALLY blind people around me [in the example you gave] cannot. Why should I allow them to let me think I'm "crazy" because my optic nerves, discs, lenses, and pupils work and theirs do not?

BECUASE Cindy wrote:

People who see pink elephants floating by are crazy -- because most people do NOT see pink elephants floating by. Sensual consensus is about the best basis for reality we have.

If I can see pink elephants with my eyes, should I just disregard all those around me who cannot see it? Why should I allow them to let me think "i'm crazy"?

I am speaking of PHYSICAL senses. Even the Bible says that God cannot be seen with human eyes -- so good luck finding the person who has PHYSICALLY SEEN God, because no one has.

Have you ever "seen" gravity? No, but you can "feel" it's effects. I belive many religous people make similiar comparisons.

To see a rainbow with PHYSICAL eyes [optic nerves, brain, lenses, pupils] is objective reality.

If you want to discuss sensory input and how unreliable it really is, I'm game. Senses can lie- take a drug, don't sleep long enough, watch a scary movie- they all end up affecting your senses, making you see, hear, taste, smell, or feel things that are not real.

To "see god" through a principle of faith is subjective sentiment.

How so?

*I'd like them to produce a few photos, tangible PHYSICAL evidence, etc. They can't.

Okay, back to my question: You are the only person who can see in a world of blind people, what evidence can you give them to prove that rainbows exsist? You can't. if you can offer no evidence to them, wouldn't that place the rainbow in the same category that you hold religion in?

*Who are you to say what I can say and what I can't?

Why shouldn't I?

*You are totally mixed up. Yes, I mean that. What have most of the wars on Earth been fought over? Religion.

Really? Most wars have been fought over "religion"? I will have to firmly and confidently have to say, you are wrong Cindy. All wars, actual wars, have been due not to religion, but resource aquisition and distribution. Religion, ideology, race, economic status, language, etc. have all been used to mobilize people into groups in order to carry out a more effective and effcient war- Religion, and Reason, have both been corrupted by those who would wish to control the resources.

Do guns kill people or do the people who use the guns kill people?

What have most people been slaughtered, raped, burned alive in the name of? Religion.

What have most people done good deeds, lived altrustic lives, improved the world they live in for? Religion.

Who has censored books, burned books, banned books, persecuted/murdered "heretics" and "heretical authors"? Religion

Who has brought literacy, mercy, compassion, understanding, respect for others, and abridge to other cultures? Religion.

Open a history book.

Read one.

Reason is beneficial to mankind, if he recognizes it and knows how to utilize it; religion is not.

Religion is benefecial to mankind, if you can recognize and utilize it.

The history books prove my point.

Which ones?

Psychology, Sociology, anthropology, neurology, social dynamics, and history prove mine.

It's apparent to me, as you yourself have admitted, that you are ignorant regarding the philosophy of reason as it relates to the writings 18th-century personages.

You have me there, so now I ask, so what? Does my lack of 18th century philosphy somehow deny me the ability to make valid points related to these discussions? Where have I challenged the 18th century philosphers or their statements? As far as I am aware, I am having a discussion with you- not them.

You are attempting to argue with me on a level you aren't even at; how silly is that?

I guess I must be really silly. So what level are you at? How many more levels do I need before I qualify to be at your level?

How do you suppose that you can understand where I'm coming from, or attempt to engage me in a particular fashion, if you aren't even familiar -- as you yourself admit -- with the basis for my viewpoints?

So no one can carry on a legitimate discussion with you unless they have read all of the matieral you have? If what you speak is "reason" and therfore truth, why would it be so hard for me to understand? I limit myself to the text you provide, so I feel I am more than capable of carrying on a conversation. I will understand the basis of your viewpoints when you explain them- that is how most people in the world discuss viewpoints.

I'm familiar with Derrida; how familiar are you with Voltaire, d'Alembert, Rand, Diderot, d'Holbach, etc.?

How familiar should I be? As for Derrida, I am not some sychophant- but the ideas expressed are valid and have merit. It is not the answer in and of it self, it is merely another way with which to view the world.

You make many ASSUMPTIONS regarding me and the basis for my viewpoints -- and this is most likely the difficulty in our communication.

Please, what assumptions have I made that are incorrect?

Are you suggesting I'm "close-minded" because I prefer reason to religion?

No. i am suggesting you are close minded becuase you have already made up your mind that religion is not valid, you therfore will resist listening to any information that would demonstrate otherwise.

Are you "close-minded" because you prefer Derrida deconstructionalism?

No, becuase I don't prefer Derrida deconstructionalism. I prefer what makes sense and is not hypocritical.

Would you ever consider seriously studying 18th-century Enlightenment philosophy, as I have studied Derrida, postmodernist thought, etc.?

If it offered something worthwhile, yes.

Do I HAVE to agree with you?

No. But then I am trying to understand why you don't.

I won't accept your "standard" ala Jacques Derrida's deconstructionalism that "everything is equal" and "nothing is better or worse than anything else" - which is nonsense.

Then you allow and accept the fraility and fallability of human intellect in making judgements. If you allow that there is a "Right" and a "wrong" then it leads to the next question of: "What is "right" what is "wrong"?. Which then leads to everyone fighting over who is the right "right' and who is the wrong "wrong". What Reason is there in that?

*People can choose to have whatever religion they want. I'm all for freedom of religion -- and freedom FROM religion as well. No, I don't believe religion has any validity.

Then why should anyone believe your 18th century "reason" is valid?

Carl G. Jung has validity, religion does not; Jung attempted to make sense of the workings of the human mind via scientific method; religion simply demands to be believed "just because __ says so."

How would you prove via the scientific method that rainbows exsist in a world of blind people?

Palomar · 2002-08-28 15:49:19

*It's been nice chatting with you, Clark.

Read _Animal Farm_ if you haven't yet, check out the histories of nations [including their religious histories, preferably by a secular author], read Voltaire, read Ayn Rand, read Diderot, etc.

Your level of irrationality staggers me. I just hope you can see it for yourself, one day.

You are incapable, at this point, of understanding where I'm coming from and why [which is proven by your relentless barrage of questions in "answer" to my own questions, which is merely a deflective tactic on your part] because you aren't familiar with the material I've read. How, then, can we discuss these matters further? How can you possibly KNOW where I'm coming from and why? It would be like me trying to engage a PhD in engineering in discussion, debate, and argument regarding engineering. How could I possibly do this, when I am unfamiliar with his/her field, courses of study, level of knowledge, etc.?

You make assumptions about my beliefs and viewpoints, you obfuscate, you drench the conversation with more and more and more questions [I wonder if you are really seeking "to learn", as you insist, or if this isn't some sort of game with you]. If you are truly interested in LEARNING, read the material I've suggested. I've read Derrida. Unless, of course, you're afraid to move out of your Comfort Zone.

And what is your point of going on and on and on and on and on and on and on with dozens of questions which get more and more diffuse and scattered, if you're not willing to accept that there could be ANSWERS to begin with? Isn't it foolish to ask questions and then **reject ALL** answers? I think so.

Take care.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-28 16:18:37

There are questions of mine you haven't answered;

Really? Sorry, but which question did I miss? I honestly try to reply to all of your questions. Now, some of the questions you asked in your last post were meaningless- like how familiar am I with various philosphers- my question back to you is to highlight the absurdity of dignifying the question with an answer. You ask how familiar I am with certain philosphers, so i will tell you then it is an irrelevant question whose answer offers nothing and only detracts from the discussion. Where exactly do you get this idea that there is a litmus test regarding knowledge in discussing personal viewpoints pertaing to the subjects we have been talking about?

Read _Animal Farm_ if you haven't yet,

What specifically am I supposed to learn from this book? I have read it, and I fail to see how it supports anything you have been talking about. Aside from the fact that the book is fiction, what else should I be concerned about? maybe you place a certain value in politcal rhetoric couched in a subversive morality tale regarding ideology, but I don't.

Yes yes, religion, opiate of the masses- damn those sheep for believeing in something. Religion is not bad, religion is not invalid. Religion is a defined system of belief that makes sense of the world. Science is a defined system of belief that makes sense of the world. Yes, they both go about doing things differently- but the structure itself- the concept itself- the idea of science is the same as the idea of religion. What you are doing by claiming that religion has no validity is nothing more than claiming your God is the correct one (being Reason) and all others are ignorant savages, poor and misguided. If you hold that the belief in a religion is not valid, you are claiming that a majority of the human population engages in an invalid system by which to understand the world. I don't think you mean to be this arrogant, but that's effectively where your stance leads.

check out the histories of nations [including their religious histories, preferably by a secular author],

Which nations? Why don't you name a war that was based only on religious grounds.

Your level of irrationality staggers me. I just hope you can see it for yourself, one day.

Irrational? What have I said that is irrational? Oh, I get it, you have now categorized me. This might really be the reason you can't understand me- you are no longer listening to me, but listening to a charcterization of me.

You claim I "imply" I don't believe in relaity, to which I point out that i have repeatadly reaffirmed my belief in relaity- and I have even asked that you show evidence of your claims- to which you sheepishly admit does not exsist. You have claimed I have called you names directly when i have not- again, I asked you for evidence, yet you can provide none. You have been hostile to posts that I have made unrelated to you. I am not being irrational Cindy.

You are incapable, at this point, of understanding where I'm coming from and why [which is proven by your relentless barrage of questions in "answer" to my own questions, which is merely a deflective tactic on your part] because you aren't familiar with the material I've read.

I am not deflecting, all of my questions are legitimately asked in order to better understand your reasoning or to show you the contradictions in your reasoning. It would seem EVERYONE is incapable of understanding you since the requirement is to be familiar with the material you have read. Nice way to maintain YOUR comfort zone.

How, then, can we discuss these matters further? How can you possibly KNOW where I'm coming from and why?

Dare I say... ASK A QUESTION? Oh wait, that's just me being diversionary and deflective... so I can't ask questions to better understand....

Why do you have such a hard time answering my questions?

How could I possibly do this, when I am unfamiliar with his/her field, courses of study, level of knowledge, etc.?

You could ask questions... really Cindy, didn't "reason" teach you anything?

And what is your point of going on and on and on and on and on and on and on with dozens of questions which get more and more diffuse and scattered, if you're not willing to accept that there could be ANSWERS to begin with?

I do accept that there are answers. However, I have rejected most of the "answers" becuase the reasoning is unsound. If the foundation does not hold, the house will crumble.

Isn't it foolish to ask questions and then **reject ALL** answers? I think so.

What "answer" have you given? You have a viewpoint based on an interpretation of information which you take to be an "answer". I question the interpretation of the information- if it is a vlaid and reliable interpretation then the logic shoudl be sound to support the reasoning.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Palomar · 2002-08-30 15:59:12

*This isn't an easy thing for me to do, but since my conscience has been "after me" throughout the day, I do want to formally apologize to persons of religious persuasions who are members of either the Mars Society or this message board.

Some things are best left unsaid. I have opinions and viewpoints which are diametrically opposed to religious sentiment. While I don't apologize for my opinions and viewpoints [as they are my right] in and of themselves, I do feel I went beyond the point in expressing my disdain and disregard for religion, and said some things I should not have said -- for that, I apologize.

Clark is right in one respect: Various religions have served, in certain capacities, to educate people [even in a secular fashion], helping to feed/clothe the poor, etc. And, yes, some of the strengths in our societies and attitudes [positive] that I appreciate in others can be linked to religious sentiment/beliefs. I do realize [believe it or not!] that not all religious people are blind-eyed raving fanatics. I, too, have met many highly efficient, kind, broad-minded, responsible, considerate, etc., people who hold deep religious sentiments. It would be wrong of me to not give credit where it's due.

Thanks for hearing me out.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-08-26 21:37:47

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#27 2002-08-27 05:31:14

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#28 2002-08-27 09:40:36

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#29 2002-08-27 09:45:56

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#30 2002-08-27 10:18:14

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#31 2002-08-27 10:28:36

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#32 2002-08-27 10:35:39

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#33 2002-08-27 10:53:10

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#34 2002-08-27 11:13:42

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#35 2002-08-27 11:19:26

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#36 2002-08-27 11:40:22

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#37 2002-08-27 11:45:47

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#38 2002-08-27 11:56:38

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#39 2002-08-27 13:50:31

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#40 2002-08-27 14:39:03

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#41 2002-08-27 15:35:11

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#42 2002-08-27 22:27:46

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#43 2002-08-28 10:36:20

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#44 2002-08-28 12:26:02

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#45 2002-08-28 13:27:06

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#46 2002-08-28 14:54:27

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#47 2002-08-28 15:49:19

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#48 2002-08-28 16:18:37

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#49 2002-08-30 15:59:12

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

Board footer