Concerning Iran and Other Nonsensical Rantings

[xnull]

The human mind does not function according to the laws of logic. The world outside, reality, does. Certain physical laws that can be relatively well predicted (thanks to scientific research (and therefore cultural evolution)) rule what is and what is not possible in the world "outside", "out there".

I am inclined to agree. Although, as I stated earlier, we design logic after the way that the human mind can think, the human mind has been designed for the purposes of survival, not philosophy. Our minds are powerfully heuristic. We make tradeoffs based on guesses and we tend to favor safety in the our tradeoffs, yet we remain terrible at judging safety besides what is nearby and immediately dangerous to our physical selves. Our minds tend to be filled in with details which do not exist. These things combine to allow wild humans to spot tigers that might be in a bush (and avoid it), and, even if there were no tiger in the bush and there would't be one a hundred times to one, this is a good evolutionary tradeoff. In todays world agnostic or bushes and tigers our evolved heuristics don't apply well.

Taking a step back from instinct, bad guesses, psychosomatic effects and false memories, we have science, which studies the natural world empirically to avoid our intellectual weaknesses. The scientific method has been designed specifically to avoid the erroneous nature of the human mind.

A human being, is, before everything, a combination of different particles. Kvarks, electrons, atoms, molecules, in a certain combination. In essence, a biological, physical agent, which, like everything else, works according to the physical rules of reality. It is essential, in my opinion, that this is understood before any social or moral laws are constructed.

Of course. We have good reason to believe that the human form is consistent with the design of the rest of the natural world. Because we have good reason to believe this, and because this idea implies moral and ethical claims, we should consider them.

Anyhow, a human being does not differentiate, at least in terms of physics, from any other construct of different particles. A rock, a mountain, water, electricity. Everything, in the end, is one. The only difference is FORM. Chemical differences that made possible the evolution of organic matter, the reason why there is "life". It is also WHY we are the only creatures, constructs, certain combinations, that have the ability to think at such an advanced level. A level that allows the possibility of abstract thinking, cultural and scientific progress and, unfortunately, human suffering.

From a physics perspective, the human body does differentiate from a rock/mountain/etc. Thinking/Intelligence is an implicit property of a certain set of mathematical principals. We believe that a form capable of intelligence isn't created often considering the lifespan and mammoth size our universe, although the exact odds are not immediately available to us. This makes forms which are intelligent of interest/unique/special/(not holy).

Nothing in the world has a reason. Nothing is "meant" or "ordered". People often confuse that evolution is something essential. Something that has a reason, a mission to fullfill. This is incorrect. Yes, all organic matter seems to aim to pass their unique (but irrelevant) genetic material to the next generation. Plants, microbes, animals, humans, they all "live" for it. That, itself, is "life". It's what separates organic from non-organic. It is the most powerful motivation of an organic being. Humans do not, in regard to this, have any "special place" in this. Biological evolution is the product of it's composition. The reason why plants and animals and mushrooms and whatever have specially evolved to pass some of their material beyond their own possible lifecycle is because that is how their construct as a whole functions! It's not a matter of choice. Now, I don't really know about biology that much, so I could be wrong.

Have you ever heard of grey goo? The idea that a nanomachine could be built that would take apart neighboring molecules (that are not identical nanomachines) and use the parts to build a replica of itself? The grey goo could tear apart an entire world and float aimlessly in space. Your characterization of biology is much the same as this description, and I think that is is accurate. Like the grey goo nanomachines, there isn't much choice for biological agents - to replicate is part of the function of the arrangements which create it. The function emerges from the form, and the function creates a form distinct but similar to itself. To say there isn't a choice when intelligence is involved might seem wrong, but when an entire species is concerned instead of an individual it seems correct.

Also, maybe there is a reason behind everything, a god, be it the universe or something (someone?) else. But I have no possible way of affirming that. At least none, that would satisfy my logical needs.

This is fair. Yes. There might be. But no explanation satisfies my logical needs. I relate to this. However, I don't try to satisfy any psychological need. I might be wrong in trying to satisfy my need (my need could be wrong and in satisfying it I could be wrong).

I use logic and rationality as a tool to experience life (its been a blast so far). I struggle deep down with psychological needs, but know that my needs are irrelevant to the truth. I hold the truth to a higher esteem than my own needs. Not that I'm perfect. I slip all the time.

Because of that, saying that god does not exist is just as much of a "logical illegal move" that saying that god DOES exist.

Your statement is not logically sound.

There will either be a terrorist attack tomorrow, or there won't be. That means there's a 50% chance that there will be a terrorist attack. To say that there will be a terrorist attack is just as erroneous as saying there will not be a terrorist attack!

Simply, we can use other logics than deductive logic, which requires some fundamental true values to start at. We can use inductive logic, where we take our experience and knowledge to come to a good guess.

If the concept of a conscious, thinking god didn't exist, would you infer one from everything that you experience and know? It is good to remain agnostic, especially in areas defined as "unknowable", but certainly you wouldn't suggest that the existence of a god could be guessed well with a coin flip!

We don't have any good reason to believe that there will be a terrorist attack tomorrow. Nor do we have any good reason to believe that a god exists. To the best of our knowledge, no terrorist attack is happening tomorrow. We probably shouldn't evacuate the western part of the United States. To the best of our knowledge, no god exists. [I'll leave out the implications here ;-)]

It is "transcendental", over the boundaries of understanding and possible knowledge, as Wittgenstein would have said. This, of course, applies to ethics and morality. They cannot be taken, at least not, if one want's intellectual satisfaction, as "realistic beings", forces that govern reality in some way. There is no good and no bad. One great mathematician once said: "natural numbers were given by god. Everything else, in mathematics, is made by man". This applies to the relation between man, reality and morality. Everything humankind tries to rule out as "morally incorrect" or "sin", is his own work. Not the word of god. What I TRY to do, is to make opinions about the world around me based on what I SEE, not what I WANT to see, which is what 95% of the world population does. Of course, it is not always possible. As I said, the human mind does not work logically. But one must try, as the best way to make a working enviroment for everyone is understanding how things truly ARE, how they FUNCTON. To make a connection between mind and reality. Everyone is biased. It is only that scientists and philosophers are biased in a WAY, that "forces" them (in a way) to think realistically. When you try to understand how a machine works, you do not look in the surface and make a wild guess about it's mechanisms, or suppose that it works the way you think it MIGHT work. You open it up and study it's mechanisms. Only then can you fix or improve it.

I think you touch on some of my responses in the last section. I like how you separate what man wants to see and what he does see. This disparity is paramount in almost every ethical and moral argument worth its salt.

Yes, the scientists and philosophers utilize the scientific method, which is crafted to eliminate the biases and weaknesses of the human heuristic processes.

It also removes the "want to see" from the process and leaves the "does actually see." This is why scientific inquiry is so applicable to moral conquest.

[xnull]

So, a human being is an animal, an organic construct. There are no scientific grounds in which to say that he is "something else", something "holy". This does not prove, that it isn't so, but nothing in the perceivable world affirms it.

Good. We touch the same ground here. We have no good reason to believe that humans are "holy" and to assume that it is true:
A.) Makes way for humans to believe other similar types of things, and to make other assumptions.
B.) Has strong moral implications we would have to accept. (Keep in mind here that the moral implications are often attached to the particular teaching - the old Christian testament did a lot to encourage massacres, the new Christian testament teaches more Eastern values)

Even "good" but "wrong" morals are unsustainable. For example, some Christian teachings seem to be very morally correct (don't kill your neighbor, fool). This teachings are not taught with "and this implies." They are taken to be true no matter the circumstance. Since times and situations change, and because they will change ever more increasingly quickly because of technological innovation, morals must be attached to reasons. When circumstances change, reasons can be evaluated and ethical decisions can be made.

I will illustrate this with a joke I heard. A young woman and man get married. To celebrate, the young woman cooks the man a pot roast. While cooking the pot roast, she cuts a certain amount off of each side of the pot roast. The husband asks why. She says, "I don't know, my mother always did that."

So they call mom. "Hey mom. Why do you cut the pot roast that way."

"Why, I don't know. Grandma always did that."

So they call grandma. "Hey grandma. Why do you cut the pot roast that way."

"Because my pot is too small."

We need to make ethical decisions based on observations or else we risk making bad decisions.

However, as evolution has progressed, a higher level of thought was achieved. Abstract thinking doesn't really serve any biological purpose. It is an evolutionary ERROR. Like the tailbone or some other useless feature. Acytually, no, unlike the tailbone, as it is a reminisence of something useless, whereas human intelligence is an OVER-developed quality. Humans do not need it to procreate or defend themselves, which are much more basic instincts, not needing such high levels of intelligence.

I have heard several scientific explanations for how humans developed their cognitive abilities. The best I've heard have been good combinations of the others. I suppose though, that it would be correct to say that this greater intelligence was created in error (when considering survival as an end goal). But maybe not. Maybe we should call it a "fluke" instead of an "error," since error would seem to imply that we do a bad job surviving (and we obviously excel at it).

This allowed our intelligence to develop like with no no other animal. As a result, millions of years later, we have cultural evolution and all it's bittersweet fruits: art, science, politics, philosophy etc.

Why bittersweet?

But intelligence is not NECESSARY. You see, the nonexistent "goal" of biological evolution is that our geneseed survives, not that we are happy. Animals have to have a life only bearable enough so that they don't kill themselves. Which I don't know if it's possible for any other species than humans. But that is exactly what humans aim at, thanks to our intellectual capacity. We aim at PROGRESS. At abstract things like happiness and the "good" style of life. That's what cultural progress aims at. Cultural evolution is the result of something, that has developed to a level, that it serves a purpose other than it's original one.

It's hard to use a broad term like "progress" here. It's one of those ambiguous terms. Progress could very well mean happiness or survival or creativity or whatever. I suppose, though, thinking through everything that has been said, that progress is what humanity is after, even though it isn't defined. Everyone is after progress, and as a whole we are still undecided on what that is.

A good friend of mine said something to me that really stuck. He told me that it isn't the progress that really mattered to us. We like the process of making progress. The process is what is good. It's why "it's always greener on the other side." The act of pursuit to the other side is what is actually good, not the other side itself. And it's why everyone with different ideals of progress all cling to it the same way and with the same umph.

Humans are, in a way, ALIENATED from reality.

Through sensory input and be being ultimately alone, on a cognitive level, in the universe... I would have to agree with you. The human condition.

There is NO such thing as a perfect political system.

This is true. We have to work with people. They seem to ruin every political system we make. ;-)

The human basic instincts are reflected in any road we take, be it communism or capitalism or whatever. Human nature and the subconcious desire to rule of some and the subconcious desire to be ruled of others is what will always warp a society that has it's leaders making decisions by themselves.

I would avoid these sweeping claims myself.

Other than the broad sweeping claims, you bump into a good point. Whichever political system we choose must work well with our instincts and both our personal and collective pursuits. The system has to realize the faults of humans, not just their ideals.

Democracy doesn't work (or if it does, badly) exactly because of the reasons apotheosis mentioned. Any ignorant moron can vote without having the slightes idea of how things actually work or are. Also, the candidates which have the most money and the most nice things to say are usually the most likely winners. This can be remedied with good education, but cannot be completely fixed, as in the end, most of mankind is and will always be morons. And not because the majority of people are stupid, but because even the intelligent ones do not either care or don't want to. There's nothing really unnatural with it, it's just how we function. There are biological and evolutionary reasons behind EVERY decision a person makes. However, due to our high intelligence, man can pick a way of act that is not "logical" or "purposeful" in terms of why humans exist (as a biological being, an animal).

I will reserve my comments on this paragraph...

[Ryan_DuBois]

Oh my goodness. Long posts.

Anyway, here's a little more detail on how I feel about math and logic:

Mathematics is when you use logic to find out things about numbers. For example, that one popular proof that sqrt(2) is irrational uses the logic that a fraction cannot both be simplified and have a numerator and denominator both with a factor of 2.

Logic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with quantities. I wouldn't consider the fact that not the case that not the case that Joe picked an apple means Joe picked an apple mathematical (except for counting the negations). I wouldn't consider the fact that if all dogs are cats and all cats are rats, then all dogs are rats mathematical, either.

I would consider the idea that since all even numbers greater than 2 have a factor of 2 and and all numbers with a factor of 2 are composite, then all even numbers greater than 2 are compisite mathematical because it's related to quantity. It uses logic to deduce something about numbers.

Do you agree? Do you at least see where I'm coming from?

[ChubbyTeletubby]

Wow.

No time to read all of....that. Right now.

What I was trying to say, folks, was simple;

Greed is the natural state of humans...

Capitalism, therefore, is just an extension of that. Not perfect, by any means, but the best system we have. The ONLY system that works, because GREED is the ONLY motivating factor in humans. Don't fool yourself. The emotional high you get off being 'intellectual' is just an extension of greed.

Greed is greed. Not good, OR evil.

Capitalism, therefore, is not inherently evil. And it works. Not pure, unadulterated capitalism -mind you - but a blasphemous fusion of it and (actual)communism.

Democracy is basically a consensus. And as people have a 'herd mentality', it's best to have a democratic REPUBLIC.

Not pure democracy.

By 'logic' I meant rational, objective thought. Which is possible, even without schooling. Trust me. By 'love' I meant that basic fundamental divine spark that lives in all of us.

Ya'll need to tone it down. Mikael, xnull...you guys are bright. No doubt. But stop over complicating it.

jesus christ.

More later, once I've had time to read your incredibly verbose posts.

EDIT: And happy 4th even though I'm stuck in butt fuck colorado where only folks who go to nebraska or kansas can get good fireworks.

Fucking wildfire starters. One spoiled apple...

EDIT #2: And trust me I know that 'culture' is as much a part of being human as is taking a shit. I guess 'Western' culture is a major influence on my views. But not really. But mostly.

And I admit I fucking hate arabs and would not shed a tear if every God damn Arab/persian/Ha-la-la-la chanting mother fucker died. I know they hate each other, too. I just wouldn't shed a tear if every arab and african and asian went the way of the dinosaurs.

Really.

So much for objectivism.

Hmmm.

I really would celebrate if they all just died right now. And maybe a frenchman or two.

And maybe a couple Americans.

And Canadians.

And maybe everyone.

Toss in a few more frenchman.

And me too.

Damn.

[xnull]

Ryan.

Suppose for a minute that I have a problem. I have a set of dogs and a set of children. The cardinality of both sets is the same. For each child in the set of children, (s)he has a preferences on types breeds of dogs that (s)he likes. Find me pairing of children and dogs such that all children are happy or prove to me that such a task is impossible given the two input sets.

You would be hard pressed to dispute that the above problem wasn't mathematical and at the same time you would be hard pressed to argue that the problem was "about numbers".

I could list hundreds of problems like this. But I don't need to. Is geometry not mathematics? Granted, geometry is studied by the interaction of quantities, but does that make geometry "about numbers?" Geometry is the study of form and structure and numbers are involved only because they happen to be a useful way to describe the form and structure.

I can see where you are coming from, but I simply can't agree. Perhaps this is because I am not a pure mathematician - I work with computability and often do work analyzing structure without strictly using numbers.




Chubby.

I think most people here agree with you about Capitolism. I myself have thought of Capitolism this way increasingly over the past couple years.

I am not intellectual because I find identity in it. The best thing I can do is say it plainly and cross my fingers: The truth is more important than I am.

[Ryan_DuBois]

I don't know whether I'd consider that first problem mathematical; it is tough to decide with that one. But you can also find problems, which clearly require logic, that don't seem to involve mathematics... like Knights and Knaves puzzles. They definitely require logic, but I don't think many people would call them "mathematical".

I guess it's a pointless argument, though. I just like distinguishing between the two, myself.

[Usoki]

I'd have to agree with Yazz over xnull. Logic and Mathematics are different. You do have a problem. And you can use math to solve it. But you don't have to. If I have two pieces of wood at a right angle, and I need to find the length of the hypontenuse so I can cut my board to the appropriate length, I'm not going to use pyag's to find that length. I'm going to take my tape measure and just measure the damn thing. Screw trig. I'm all for modular math, group theory, and all that other stuff... but there's not much of a point in it beyond the fact that it holds true, and is inter-related. Sometimes...mmm, no, I think that's a part of a different rant. Carry on.