At 06:07 AM 11/9/97 +0100, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>David, I agree with you. The "why" questions are imponderable, though.
>If you really think the "why" questions are imponderable, then please
>step out of the way of people attempting to do the impossible.
:-) Poor word choice. The "why" questions can not be definitively
answered in an objective sense, since they refer to an implied intentionality.
One can still psychoanalyze with some success, though. Even so, you're
out of line. [ :-) ] I rationally and with good effect oppose the declaration
of answers to unanswerable questions in the same way that I oppose
the declaration of the invention of a perpetual motion machines.
For similar reasons: one opposes my fundamental understanding of
physics, the other my fundamental understanding of knowledge.
>I don't believe the guesses are non-falsifiable. The "lens of
>interpretation" you mention is an excellent example of the kind
>of faith-based belief I think is avoidable.
Completely? Don't you really mean that it can be minimized?
><faith> is the product of evolution, and definitely serves an adaptive
>purpose. But not for us (people). It serves the meme-complexes that can't
>stand up to critical analysis.
<critical analysis> is the product of evolution, and definitely serves an
adaptive purpose. But not for us. It serves the meme-complexes that
can't find support in faith.
Was that abusive? I don't know. I have agreed that <critical analysis> is
a useful tool that we should encourage people to use. You seem to be
elevating it to a higher position than tool. It is that additional worship
of reason, above all else, that makes me uncomfortable.
>>The BEST view probably is ambigious, accepting both as true at the
>>same time. Faith is useful and faith is a kind of infection. Faith serves
>>us in some contexts and cripples us in others.
>OK, if we can agree that <faith> is not necessarily good, that in fact
>it is a dangerous and parasitic meme, then I'm willing to consider the
>idea that it may be possible to put it to good use. Agreed?
<faith> is a tool. Tools are neither good nor evil. Intentional entities
can put tools to both good and evil purposes. I do not believe that
some tools are intrinsically biased toward good or evil use. As the
Bible tells us, the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose.
If we hold <faith> to be "a dangerous and parasitic meme" then the
same adjectives must be applied with equal weight to <reason>. My
position is that it is the human being, as intentional entity, that is
personally responsible for their actions and beliefs. In using the
concept of memetics to understand the propogation of ideas we
must not let that program, itself, become our god. All memes,
all programs, are equal in their inability to replace that essense
of responsibility which falls on the impled user of the tools.
Reason, and faith, can be our guides...BUT NO MORE.
Humans are above faith. Humans are above reason. It is we who
are the users of the tools, not the converse (in an ideal world ;-) ).
>>The REALISTIC view is to admit that we all live with a woefully
>>incomplete ontology...that each of us entertains a number of a priori
>>axioms of all the types (and more) you have described. Furthemore,
>>we have a tendency to see the axioms we hold as "reasonable assumptions"
>>and the axioms others hold (especially when they conflict with our own)
>>to be "blind faith".
>
>I agree we have a woefully incomplete ontology and that we have
>bad tendencies. I don't see why that means we must take a fatalistic
>view.
My position is only "fatalistic" if you equate the mitigation of <reason>
with death. I have no doubt, based on these conversations, that you
hold this bias. I do not. To contemplate one's intrinsic and inevitable
imperfections and ambiguities is not the prelude to suicide. Unless you
are Javert? :-)
>Don't you think people in general can learn to act more intelligently?
And with greater kindness! Yes, David, the world can be a better place!
But there are many ways of defining intelligent, and none of them are
"strictly rational". ;-) [that sentence is ment to be interpreted in BOTH
possible ways, simultaneously, as an example of an intentional use of
ambiguity to communicate]
>If they can, don't you think that would create a better future?
Of course! What makes you think that <faith> isn't a worthy tool
in this collective endevour? I have <faith> it will succeed, despite
a lot of pessimistic evidence to the contrary.
QED! (he he!) ;-)
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------