| Author |
Message |
    
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 04:26 pm: | |
Mankind thinks it is the ultimate. At least that is the assumption of the 'theory of evolution.' We do not know whether other life forms think or not. There are artificial intelligence results like the monkey pulling a stool below the hanging banana and reaching it with a stick. Is that proof that the monkey thinks?
Is the human brain different than a computer? If they are similar, then can we say the limitations that apply to computer programs apply to the human brain too? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 07:57 pm: | |
Welcome to this discussion, Mohideen. The task here will be to explore, I hope with some lucidity of reason, what is it that human reason can accomplish, or fails to accomplish. Is the brain different from a computer, you ask? That will be one of the avenues of exploration. I hope all will find this illuminating, as it is reaching down deep into what it is to be a thinking human being. All ideas, in this realm of human reason, are welcome.
Ivan
ps: We decided to archive the other threads, besides them being 'attacked', as they began taking Humancafe in a direction away from the intent of what this site is all about, being a conscious human being. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 08:59 pm: | |
IS REASON A GOOD TOOL?
I'd like to start off with an article I wrote for the "Examined Life Journal" -Vol. II, issue 8 (Winter 2001) but no longer available. It sets the rules of logic as I see it, that it is the 'interconnectivity' of things as they are interrelated, which the mind's 'consciousness' is able to see. The big question is this: Does reason fail us at time? Are there things that are beyond reason, and yet true? I would also like to suggest that we do not explore religion here, which is a personal belief, but look into the reality of things as they are both defined by our minds as well as how they are defined in and of themselves. The aim is to explore where philosophy left off, using philosophical thought, to reach for a greater truth than we had hitherto known. Can this be done? Does reason fail us at some point? I hope we will find out!
By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 21, 2001 - 04:10 am:
The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic
By Ivan D. Alexander
There is an inherent ability of the human mind to connect the dots. This is child's play, but which one of us did not look at stars and see patterns in them, or gaze at clouds to find images? The ancients saw constellations in stars, and we still draw schematics where all the parts are connected into a whole. This is an innate mental logic for us, for we seem to have the ability and desire to assign connections where they seem to fit. We are opportunistic as a species, and if something fits, we find a way to use it.
One such use of our innate ability is our use of reason. What follows what from what? We string along things into groups, compare like with like, seek out cause and effect. This is a natural function for which we pay little attention as to how we did that, so that we are sometimes not aware of the mental process that went into the conclusion. From premises we naturally form meaningful wholes. When I speak a sentence, the grammar that I use to express what I mean to say is a logical arrangement of subject to express what it is I am talking about, a verb to express how this subject will be acted upon or modified, and then the object of what it is that completes my thought. For example: "The cat is on the roof", is a very natural construction any child can do without much thought of the rules employed to express the idea. Only later did we recognize that we were stringing individual ideas together into a whole, logically, so that they would make sense to someone hearing our words. Reason was employed almost unconsciously, though to a thinking person this becomes an object of interest and discovery, that we can think of our thinking. When this is done in an orderly manner, we call it logic. So now if we say "the cat is on the roof and cannot get down", we have taken it to another level, since implied is a logical sequence where the understanding is that the height of the roof is a problem that must be solved, either by the cat or its caretaker. Thus, a natural connection has been made between the cat's dilemma and the height of the roof, though at the time the words were spoken, logic was not on anyone's mind.
The point is that logic is automatic, it is how we see things connected in the world. Once we become aware of this we then become intrigued with what it is we had just done, and it enters into our reasoning consciousness. If something is like something else, is it the same? Or if an event follows from the result of another event, are they the reason why this happened? The sun rises, and night disappears. Wind blows and the sail fills. What are the connections that make things happen? Such and all our thinking seek out the logical sequences of what happens in reality. To say that if a plant is green is to conclude, from prior observation of living and dead plants, that it is alive, is thus an act of logic. To then say that everything that is green is not to say that it is not green, is logic taken to another level, into itself. Now we are looking at logic as it applies to itself, rather than as it applies to our reasoning in the natural world. So we can go from what is an automatic ability of the mind, to see logical connections, to then go into the connections of logic within itself. However, that is a logic game, not to be confused with what the mind does of its own when it reasons logically, which formally is called 'inference'. This inference can be defined as the study of valid inferences to give rules for distinguishing the valid from the invalid. This is what matters in logic, that we can identify a conclusion from premises that are valid, or that have value to us. When this rule is not violated, then things make sense, and we are comfortable with what is concluded. However, when it is violated, such as happens in a magic trick, then we are either amused or puzzled, since the outcome of what were the connections to lead to it were not logical. They did not connect correctly, which is often either a case of where we did not perceive the connections, or they simply were not there. Then, it is automatically illogical, and even a child will know that it is a trick.
So why does this happen? How does the mind know when the connections do not fit? In the formal language of logic, there are conjunctives used to make a statement of logic: 'if' and 'then', 'either or', are tools used to express logical connections: "If the cat is on the roof, then he is unable to get down. Either he is afraid, or he does not want to. Then let us get a ladder to help him." All these are logically connected, since from the fact of the cat being on the roof, we then infer that there may be difficulties involved. But if we were to say instead "if the cat is on the roof, then the ladder is either the reason he cannot or why he does not want to come down", then we would immediately know that something is illogical here. It would take some rather strange mental calisthenics to figure that one out, because the connections would be all wrong, since the ladder is not responsible for the cat not coming down. The mechanics have to fit in a sequence that is logical to us, or it becomes nonsense. If instead we were to say "that there is a cat on the roof and (if) for every cat there is a roof, then all cats are on the roof", we would once again be thrown into confusion. This may be true, but not because of the way it was stated. The reason all cats are on the roof would have to be from some other cause, some set of connections that would make it meaningful to us. Perhaps there are birds on all the roofs, and all the cats climbed up to catch them, for example. What this points to is that for logic to be meaningful the connections have to be such that reason can identify the thought with the reality or, as it may be said, the truth is the all important mark of success as it applies to logic.
As it pertains to logic, this is what is of value to us, that we can identify a truth through its use, though logic may not always succeed. For example, the famous liar paradox, where someone states that all he says is a lie. Does one believe him? So logic can also be self negating, where it trips over itself and is foiled, as is the case in all paradoxes. However, as it applies to reality, most paradoxes can be dismissed as being a mental game, nonsense. Why should I believe a liar in the first place? Self negations are still negations, and only a leap of faith can make them true. This, it seems, is also the puzzle behind most religious beliefs, that it takes a leap of faith to accept a tenet of the religion, even if it is illogical. However, human nature being what it is, there seems to be room for that. Or, as Walt Whitman said: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Is this a variation of the liar paradox, or do we accept his largess on faith? The connections to accept Whitman's statement have to go beyond the conventional and into a category that may be called illogical. Still, one may accept it as truth, though not for reasons of logic. This can be said of God, or the Resurrection, paradoxes in the scriptures, or the manifestation of jewels out of thin air by Sai Baba. In effect, a paradox is a closed loop within logic, since there is no connection between the thought and reality, only a connection between thought and thought. For logic to have value, it has to connect into the world.
Bertrand Russell believed that mathematics is merely logic in another guise. Logic as it applies to natural language is different from logic as it applies to mathematics. Sets, or classes of relationships, can be constructed using mathematical functions to express a language of logical sequences. However, to be meaningful in real terms, this language must have a counterpart in physical reality. There must be a point of contact where the logic of mathematics touches what happens in real life, or it is then only a mental game. We may employ logic in our speech, but that is only expressing our ideas; for those ideas to be real, they must correspond with the reality we are addressing. It is the same with logic, or mathematics. And when they do coincide, when the logical or mathematical model corresponds with reality, then we have something of value, for then we can make a contact, a connection with that reality. Any model we build must have a real application, for if it is to be useful, it must show the connections of how things are. If reality is a vast complex of interconnected parts that interact with each other, then a language that can interpret these connections, or even forecast their outcomes, is of high value. All that we can think of in our minds is nevertheless only valuable if it can be implemented to either understand or manipulate reality. Further, if we take reality as being made up of sets of mathematical operations, logical connections and their respective functions, then to express these functions in a language that is also logical is how we connect with that reality through our minds. This gives us a powerful lever, since then we can manipulate reality around us through the use of that logical expression. In fact, though we may not know all there is to know of gravity, or of energy, or of quantum physics, we can place a probe on course to connect with the planet Mars, 150 million miles away, and then receive back on Earth scientific information from that probe. That is testimony of the power of logic when it touches reality.
The rules that apply to logic may also apply to reality, but not always. Reality is a phenomenon of energy converted into matter that connects with itself at all levels of contact. This may be at the contact of gravitational force, of through electrical and electromagnetic forces, or spatially where two things cannot occupy the same space in time, of through the force of physical contact. Reality may even be connected at levels we have not yet discovered, such as evidenced in quantum physics where we can only estimate where electrons will be at any given time, since we cannot fathom the ways the electrons 'know' where they should be, and thus are relegated to the shortcut of using probabilities instead. According to David Bohm, the electron 'knows' where it is to be in relation to all the other forces that are already present around it. It is only that we cannot yet identify them, since our knowledge is as yet incomplete. And there are even speculations that we may be connected at the subtle levels of mental forces, waves of energy that emanate from our minds. The universe releases its secrets grudgingly, and we are forever challenged to see how those macro and micro connections work within its reality. Surprisingly, we may even be wrong about what we think and have modeled what reality is, and still work with it. I suspect that we are in fact ignorant of what causes gravitational forces, that it may have more to do with the mechanics of planetary bodies right down to their molecular level than with mass. But, like probability, we have invented a shortcut to make up for our lack of understanding and have been able to theorize how gravity works. Yet, even with our erroneous understanding, even if we have all the connections of how gravity works all wrong, we can still measure and manipulate mass within gravitational fields to our purpose. In the end, it is the rules of interconnections, of how reality is interconnected with itself, that define for us reality, and we are then left to either guess right as to what those rules are and use them, or we remain powerless. Logic, and its mathematical language, may nevertheless prove right even if for the wrong reasons.
The rules of interconnectivity are those dots in space that our mind strives to connect. With each new level of understanding, we approach more closely in our minds the logical system that defines reality as it really is. As each new item of knowledge is worked together with its preexisting predecessor which had proven of value, we approach more closely what is true. From these bodies of knowledge we then assemble how they interconnect into a logical whole which we can tap into for understanding of how things are. That is the beauty of our ability to reason with logic. Look at what computers have helped us achieve. However, like Narcissus, we have fallen in love with our own reflection and come to believe that it is our logic that defines the interconnections of physical existence, and not the other way around. In fact, it is illogical to think so. It is not we who have made order of the universe, rather it is the universe that is ordered, and we are its fortunate spectators. That we can then use our minds to find those connections is a gift for which logic can find no answer, except to say that it is inherent in us to do so. The cat is on the roof, that is the reality, and it is up to us, with our logic, to get it down.
Once we can see reality as an interconnectivity of itself, it is a very small jump to seeing all of existence as an interrelationship of itself. This includes us, for we are in our being totally interconnected into how the universe works within itself. All of life, all living things, are interconnected in this way, into a universe that works such that life can under certain circumstances exist and replicate itself. It may not appear to be logical to think of the interrelationships that span reality like a vast infinite web as the origin of life. Yet, think of this web as being so close to each living thing, that it is an intricate and inextricable part of it. What exists as our personal reality for each one of us alive has been with us from birth, and through our ancestry has been with us from the beginning of life on this planet. It may even be said that such life has preexisted this planet and had thrived on other worlds until it was recycled into the stars that power the planets. We are totally encompassed by this down to the subatomic level, same as we are connected with our being alive in terms of who we are individually. This means that for each living thing, there is a vast infinite web network of existence that had been there from the beginning. What makes this surprisingly exciting is that at least one of the living species which had sprung from this vast interrelated web can look back upon itself with understanding, and wonder: Who am I? What is this all about? I can think of no greater gift bestowed on us by that living web of the universe that had shadowed us from the beginning of time. And if that is not enough, then imagine this: We are conscious of it. The rule of interconnectivity has brought us to this, and that to me is totally logical.
END
If you would like to see additional web sites that deal with logic or interconnectivity, please go to:
Bertrand Russell: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/
David Bohm: http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html
Interrelationship (Habeas Mentem): http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm
I wrote back then: "Once we can see reality as an interconnectivity of itself, it is a very small jump to seeing all of existence as an interrelationship of itself." And in that same article: "The rules of interconnectivity are those dots in space that our mind strives to connect. With each new level of understanding, we approach more closely in our minds the logical system that defines reality as it really is. As each new item of knowledge is worked together with its preexisting predecessor which had proven of value, we approach more closely what is true. From these bodies of knowledge we then assemble how they interconnect into a logical whole which we can tap into for understanding of how things are. That is the beauty of our ability to reason with logic." I'd like to take it from here, but replace "logic" with "reason" and explore where reason serves us, or fails us. In the end, our existence as living and thinking beings, hinges on what it is we believe to be true, and of necessity what choices we make, and then act on those choices. That is the key: What is the end product of all this thinking? What happens in the end? Is reason the right tool?
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 03:31 am: | |
IS REASON UNIQUELY HUMAN?
Do animals reason, for example? Or is this something unique only to humans? We know animal physiology has them uniquely adapted to performing their species specific functions. The woodpecker has an adapted beak for breaking into the bark of trees in search of insects. But on islands where woodpeckers do not exist, the finch had taken its place. By holding a spiky thorn in its beak, it performs the same function, and breaks into the tree's bark in search of insects. The Madagascar lemur in some isolated parts of the island are so well adapted to their species specific functions that they almost no longer resemble the whole species. There is one type of lemur that is nocturnal and resembles more a bat with large ears than its other kin. It also evolved long twig like fingers to retrieve termites from inside a log, a truly unique species of lemur. So physiology largely satisfies the animal's needs to perform its given functions for survival. Reason may play a nearly insignificant role, given that genetic adaptations serve these needs. But what if the genetic adaptations are insufficient? What if the claws, or fangs, or climbing and running skills, do not meet the necessary conditions to gain what the animal wants? Something else has to come into play to fill the need.
I think this is where intelligence comes in. It may be in such rudimentary form that the animal's intelligence is hardly recognizable as such. For example (in Mohideen's above), let's say there is a banana up a tree and a hungry chimp wants it. Easy enough, since the chimp is physiologically designed to climb trees, he goes up and gets it. But what if this banana is suspended from the ceiling in a room with smooth walls? Climbing, for which the chimp was designed, is not an option. Jumping up falls short. But there are 'tools' left behind that the chimp observes and ponders, in his rudimentary intellect. A stick, but not long enough; a chair he can climb, but it's in the wrong place; so what is the solution? How about pushing the chair beneath the banana and then using the stick to knock it down? Simple enough solution for a human mind, but a major intellectual achievement for a brain that was not designed to think in the abstract. And yet, it had been observed in nature many times. Chimps learning from other chimps how to use rocks to break open hard shelled nuts, for example, or employing thin twigs to retrieve termites from inside a log. Sea otters using rocks from the bottom which when placed on their stomachs become anvils on which to break sea urchins or mollusks. But these are identifiable, from a human perspective, feats of intelligence. Somebody reasoned it out, others learned from that intellectual pioneer, maybe if only through imitation, but the concept caught on and became standard practice, which in turn is passed down to the youngsters. Any teachings of any kind, even if only imitative or repetitious, is a use of reason, of intellect, of mind. First you have to observe, then try to understand the principles involved, and then you have to remember it. That is all mind. Learning language is another achievement of reason. Both gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutans, all primates, had successfully learned sign languages, so they could communicate with humans, though not necessarily with each other. There are limits to what their brains were made to process intellectually, and language other than empathetic screeches and coos may not be needed for themselves, but the 'stupid' humans don't understand it, so they must use 'their' language, which is signing with their hands. Dolphins and whales have a singing language, each dialect pod specific and learned by their young, but we have not been able to decipher it. Learning, of any kind, is reason, of sorts. So animals may not be so different, though this 'reason' varies from species to species, than human reason. Solving a problem, making a choice, learning your enemies, knowing your viable food source, recognizing friend from foe within your own species; all these require knowledge and intellect, of some sort. Even insects living in collective communities must make these choices. Bees had been tested for pattern recognition, and they proved very good at it. It is not all hardwired into the brain as once believed, because orphaned animals without proper training die. They need to be taught how to survive.
So problem solving, or thinking and using reason, no matter how rudimentary, may not be a uniquely human phenomenon. When Koko the gorilla first saw a duck, not having a word for what she saw made one up, "water bird," totally sensible description with which we can relate. When Washoe, a female chimp, was sad over another chimp's loss of her baby, she signed "cry". When Koko was bad and broke a sink in her trailer, when asked who did it, she lied: the other gorilla did it! That takes reason, intelligence, even if just to lie. Koko's word for watermelon was "fruit drink," a delightful description. I know from observing animals, my own, is that they are not stupid. They can reason, within the limitations of what they need to reason. Their brains work and kick in where their physiology, their inherent and inherited design, is insufficient. So they make up the difference with their intellect. When my female part-wolf dog wanted her brother away from the food bowl so she can have some, she would come over and seek my affection. Upon stroking her, her brother would get jealous and come over. At that point she would quickly run over to the food bowl, mission accomplished. I had to laugh, because her devious ploy was so transparent to me, if not to him, and it worked. She figured him out! What made humans more interesting in terms of their use of intellect, is that their reason became sophisticated enough, though not universally, to rise to the level where it can examine itself, and think about what it is thinking. I seriously doubt there are philosophers in the animal world, though perhaps there are but are unable to articulate their thoughts. Do animals speculate on the nature of existence, or where we all came from? Probably not. But they can recognize a fallen member of the family, mourn over the death, and even come back to where the known death occurred. This was poignantly illustrated by a family of elephants coming across the bleached bone remains of a known former tribe matriarch. They stopped and with their trunks felt and nuzzled the bones, almost as if remembering who it was. This was reverence, since they did not do this for other bones. Nor is it anthropomorphism, as this behavior was observed in the wild more than once. A female camel will continue to produce milk if the skin of her slaughtered calf is hung close enough for her to smell it. Perhaps this is involuntarily physiological, but it may also be she remembers, which is useful to desert Arabs who need camel milk. The desert dwellers figured it out, and since food is scarce, this became a useful ploy to force the camel to produce milk. So these humans have a higher intelligence than the camel's, but it does not necessarily prove the camel is not intelligent, just handicapped by its physiology makeup, that she does not have to use her reason as much as the humans do. We all use reason, within the limits of what we can reason and when we need to reason, so that reason, or intelligence, in and of itself is not that unique. Humans have more of it, to be sure, we are quicker, but not all humans, as some are severely mentally handicapped. In that case, the animal is smarter than man. All evolved animals have a certain amount of reason, even if only to make a choice on what is food, or to survive a predator, because the stupid ones died off. You would be surprised how clever and sneaky animals can be! And that takes brains.
I think where humans surpass animals is not always in the use of reason but in the ability to conceptualize. We can create stories, and theories, idealize conditions better than real life, dream up realities that don't necessarily exist, and create systems of thought that are self consistent and idealistic. We create ideology, a self contained system of ideas that self describes itself. In short, we philosophize. It is doubtful animals have a need to do this. This uniquely human characteristic is what raises our level of reason beyond what is possible in the animal kingdom, for better or for worse, in that once we create this ideology, we become subject to it, not only objectively but also subjectively. We begin to believe ourselves, because the idea is so elegant and smart, and so self-contained and consistently logical, that we fall prey to our own creation. That is the use of reason reserved for humans, in that it is very unlikely anything like it resembles thoughts produced by the animal world. And there is the power of the human mind over the animal mind, in that we can control what we think, we know why we think it, and then pass this ideology on to others to think like us. It gives us mental control, both of others and ourselves through our beliefs, and ultimately of our environment. But like all great tools of creation, that can be as much a handicap to humans as it is a benefit, which is the issue of this discussion. When does reason work in such a way that it fails us? When the chimp climbed the chair and used a stick to reach for a banana, he at that moment, in however small measure, was controlling his environment. Humans can do this in orders of magnitude greater than any animal. Therein lies our glory, and our downfall. It is not reason that is unique to humans but what this reason can create, which is an articulated and controlling ideology. Humans are archetypal ideologues. And there lies the pit into which we at times cast ourselves, to fail where reason should triumph, which unlike us the animal cannot do. We can use reason against ourselves, to our detriment, and against each other. The human mind had taken reason to such a lofty level that it can also precipitate its own fall, without any awareness it had done this. This makes our human reason unique.
I think this is where civilization on Earth is today, that we are smart enough to make ourselves unsmart... Still to be pondered, more to follow.
Ivan |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 09:33 am: | |
I am for one glad that you opened this line of discussion up Ivan and shifted the focus to a discussion of reason and consciousness.
I have attached a link to a center that is involved in the study oc consciousness from the scientific perspective.
I would propose that we limit this discussion to a discourse on the study of consciousness and divorce it from a discussion of religon. The passions of religion have colored all our other discussions and opened them to attack.
With regards to the human mind, I think a point of discussion relevent to this thread is how can the human mind perfom intuitive leaps that computers can not match?
I myself have been trying to expalin how I can trisect angles with compass and ruler, yet can not see the math behind them. The ancient Greeks believed that geometry existed seperate from consciousness and that certain shapes were coded into the fabric of creation and that by studying geometry we could grasp the fundamental nature of the universe.
Autism, and idiot savants have been studied for decades and we are still faced with a mystery of how they do what they do and whether it is the result of an organic difference in the brain or something else. With Newton, Einstien and a host of other great thinkers now thought to have suffered from of Autism the link to an organic difference in their brains is a highly provocative one.
One study put an autistic genius with numbers in front of a computer to process data.His ability to determine data artifacts and relationships was increased by orders of magnitudes, pressing the computer to its limits of capability in terms of being able to support him.
I myself tried to demonstrate a relationship between my ablity to process data and make accurate predictions in terms of storm tracks, storm effects and earthquakes. In all I saw a pattern in the data that troubled me prior to the events occurring but could not rationalize it because the data was incomplete and had to make and intuitive leap with even the compass and ruler to solve the problem. That leap took me into areas I am still pondering.
It is one of the things that made me a great code breaker and analyst.
The human mind supported by the computer magnifies, in my opinion, the ability of the human to make analytic leaps. The issue as I see it is what allows humans to do that?
Just some thoughts
Ed Chesky |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 09:34 am: | |
http://www.mindscience.org/research/consciousness.html |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 12:03 pm: | |
I would also like to suggest that we do not explore religion here, which is a personal belief, but look into the reality of things as they are both defined by our minds as well as how they are defined in and of themselves.
…
Self negations are still negations, and only a leap of faith can make them true. This, it seems, is also the puzzle behind most religious beliefs, that it takes a leap of faith to accept a tenet of the religion, even if it is illogical. However, human nature being what it is, there seems to be room for that.
…
The connections … have to go beyond the conventional and into a category that may be called illogical. Still, one may accept it as truth, though not for reasons of logic. This can be said of God, or the Resurrection, paradoxes in the scriptures, or the manifestation of jewels out of thin air by Sai Baba.
Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 05:59 pm: Ivan
I have masked out some parts in the above quote just to amplify my concern. On the one end you state that we shall not explore religion as it is a matter of personal belief. However in a subsequent passage you claim that religion is illogical. At least it sounds so to me.
Such a constraint that ‘we do not discuss religion which is illogical’ goes against the free flow of thoughts of a religious person. Don’t you think it would be better to leave religion out, and not concern ourselves whether it is logical or illogical? Let us not comment on religion at all. Do you agree? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 05:15 pm: | |
quote:Such a constraint that ‘we do not discuss religion which is illogical’ goes against the free flow of thoughts of a religious person. Don’t you think it would be better to leave religion out, and not concern ourselves whether it is logical or illogical? Let us not comment on religion at all. Do you agree?
You misunderstood me, Mohideen. I do not wish to see religious text brought into the line of reason, as this is quoting from someone's belief system, dear to him/her but not adding value to our sense of reasonable discussion. You can mention the word "religion" without bringing in religious arguments to your reasonable arguments. The word itself is not taboo, only the use of religious rethoric is outside the bounds of reason. You can believe what you will, as a free human being, but you cannot override a reasonable argument with religious dogma. That was my point. Otherwise, you can express any line of reason you wish, provided you can back it up with reason, for better or for worse, even talk about "religion" in the third person. What is not courted is to use religious dogma in one's argument, if you get that. I.e., I don't care what Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or any other religious figure had to say about it. What I want is what is it YOU have to say about.
Got it? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 05:39 pm: | |
I don't care what Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or any other religious figure had to say about it.
Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 02:15 pm: Ivan
How timely! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13938637/
===
The Red Sea is parting again, but this time Moses doesn’t have a hand in it.
=== |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 06:32 pm: | |
With regards to the Red Sea spreading,
If you check my earlier posts about the the Red Sea and earthquakes I was concerned about events in the area in question.
Data on it was lacking and I left the issue. What was captured by the satellights is the first recorded major crustal seperation,it was preceded by a series of earthquakes.
In some ways it is similar to the sea floor event that caused the great tidal wave.
I would at this conjure be interested in seeing the data on the shifts on both sides of the fault line in the Red Sea. With a shift of that magnitude I would be concerned about stress being transfered to other fault systems in the region.
But again without data I can not see a pattern in the events. I suspected that stress was building and raised in an earlier post about anomolies in the Red Sea area.
This data tend to confirm my fears about what was going to happen and raised concern about follow on events.
As to what this means in terms of Human Conciousness, it goes back to the issue I raised about making intuitive leaps based on incomplete data sets, seeing a pattern and then making a prediction. Something that computers lack the ability to do.
Again, I would suggest that the subject of the ability to make intuitive judgments is key to human conciousness and something that a computer based on pure logic is incapable of doing.
Ed Chesky |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 06:44 pm: | |
ON PATTERN RECOGNITION
The ability to recognize and remember patterns is somehow innate to all living species, presumably a function of their brain, no matter how primitive or advanced. The Wikipedia has this to say on 'Pattern Recognition":
"Pattern recognition aims to classify data (patterns) based on either a priori knowledge or on statistical information extracted from the patterns. The patterns to be classified are usually groups of measurements or observations, defining points in an appropriate multidimensional space."
For us humans, simple patterns like geometric shapes offer instant recognition. I 'know' what a triangle or circle is innately, and can recognize the shape no matter what size it is, or how it is presented. The great pyramid of Gizah is an instant triangular faced shape, the full moon is a circle, etc. We developed geometry to define these shapes as relationships of lines and angles, or areas, which is a 'pattern recognition' easily learned. These geometric pattern relationships can be formalized into algebraic equations that, once learned, lend themselves to the same pattern recognition. Taking this to higher complexities, in Relativity or Quantum equations, to anyone who knows those equations, though the patterns are complex, can easily identify what they are, though they are now far abstracted from their original algebraic derivations. The human mind, with training, can recognize these complex patterns, so when an error in the math shows up, it jumps out at you. The animal mind works with simpler patterns, though the same principle is at work. Bees recognize territorial markers so they can not only return to where they were but also communicate these markers, through of bee-like dance, to the other bees. Migrating animals recognize landscape patterns, so they recall the route, and some birds navigate by the stars. Humans have taken this principle to another level, where we can teach pattern recognition to machines, as a form of artificial intelligence. Wiki's further states:
"Structural pattern recognition is based on the structural interrelationships of features. A wide range of algorithms can be applied for pattern recognition, from very simple Bayesian classifiers to much more powerful neural networks.
Holographic associative memory is another type of pattern matching scheme where a target small patterns can be searched from a large set of learned patterns based on cognitive meta-weight.
Typical applications are automatic speech recognition, classification of text into several categories (e.g. spam/non-spam email messages), the automatic recognition of handwritten postal codes on postal envelopes, or the automatic recognition of images of human faces."
So machines, at least computing machines, can recognize patterns from junk emails to faces, which is a rather useful tool. Artificial 'intelligence' is essentially that, an artificial process used to spot patterns, or statistically cognitive patterns, such as speech recognition, so they can do useful work. Are they actually intelligent when they do this? Is pattern recognition a real cognitive function? Or are perhaps the 'interrelationships' recognized the patterns that are in some way 'intelligent'? I think these are the issues that need to be explored if we are to look into human reason. The machine is programmed to find 'intelligence' so that it appears intelligent artificially, but in and of itself, it may not possess any meaningful intelligence. Its ability to reason is a pattern recognition function using derived algorithms, but not something innately creative wihin the machine. It can only do what it had been programmed to do, and never rise above that program, which is the artificial-intelligence's limitation. To make the machine evolve in its intelligence, you have to change the program. Living things, given they have a genetic makeup that can change with successive inputs from their environment have an advantage over machines, in that they can evolve, perhaps over generations if not immediately, to respond to changing circumstances. If they do not, they perish. Humans have taken this one step further, where we can think and reason out the changing circumstances immediately, or within a short time, to address intelligently what faces us in our responses. So what started as simple pattern recognition, as a cognitive function of intelligence, has taken us all the way to reasoned responses using sophisticated computing tools to solve any given problem. Can machines be programmed to do that? To some degree, but there comes a mechanical limitation in that the machine cannot transcend its programs. Unlike machines, most living things, and certainly human minds, can and do transcend all the past knowledge to create new knowledge. This is taking pattern recognition to a new level.
Mentioned above (by Ed) are some autistic savants who can do computations at computer speeds, though they do not necessarily understand how they do this. Intuitive leaps are in the same pattern, where we can suddenly find an answer to a problem, correctly, without being aware of how this happened, and only in reverse order backtrack to how this solution fits. For the present, these are mysterious elements of mind which we do not yet understand, but with the tool of reason, we may in fact someday understand why this happens. This intuitive leap may happen in the animal world, but it simply is impossible in the machine world, which makes us inherently different, since the machine is stuck within the parameters of its programing. What humans, and perhaps some animals, can do is leap beyond the logic, and thus function outside the parameters of all that had been known before. This is a creative process. When Mozart wrote music, it flowed almost effortlessly. Where did that kind of intuitive inspiration come from? It was as if his pattern recognition of music was somehow inborn in him. Some jazz musicians are like that, where no two performances would ever be exactly the same, as they create each piece anew, a kind of dialogue within themselves and ... and what? There's the puzzle. What is it in human intelligence that can so far vault over any preconceived ideas, or knowns, to create something new? It all started with the simple mental process of reasoning using pattern recognition, but then it surpasses it, transcends what it should be limited to within its inherent knowledge, and surpass it, sometimes spectacularly. That is mind, reason, creation, transcendence, that makes humans unique. But when this creative process is locked within an ideological set of parameters, something happens to the mind. It begins to regress. The creative process stops. When self defined parameters of ideology prevent the mind from transcending all the stated 'kowns' the thinking comes to a screeching halt. I think something like this is happening in the astrophysical sciences, and perhaps also in particle physics, where for the past hundred years the evolution of that 'ideology' seems to have reached an impasse they cannot vault over, as if stuck within the vortex of their own ideology. This makes it interesting, because here is an example, perhaps, of where the mind has bound itself up with such complexity that it in effect gets short circuited, like a machine. Looking deeper into space, or smashing atoms with more energy, does not seem to yield any new results. Why does this happen? If pattern recognition is the elemental process for basic intelligence, is there some point of achievement where this recognition starts to fail? Reason fails here? I think there is a mental trap here that needs to be looked into.
... More to ponder, will do more later.
Ivan
ps:  Mohideen, that's very good about the parting Red Sea! Of course, that is a cause-and-effect scenario, not magic or miraculous.
pps: Ed, I hadn't seen your post while working on mine, but we seem to be on the same intuitive 'wavelength'! |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 01:17 am: | |
The human mind had taken reason to such a lofty level that it can also precipitate its own fall, without any awareness it had done this.
Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 12:31 am: Ivan
What is success? What is failure? Is it not possible that failure in one perspective itself is success in other perspective? In particular, when a failure leads to a better design to overcome that failure was the first failure a failure or a stepping stone to next success? Put another way, can we call any result a failure if there is more life available? More life might be available to the failed mind or to another observing mind to overcome that failure. The question I raise is what is the objective function against which reason has to be tested? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 01:26 am: | |
quote:The question I raise is what is the objective function against which reason has to be tested?
Successful ideas have predictive capability. Failing ideas do not have this same predicitive capability. That's from the objective perspective. From a subjective perspective, it belongs to the observing mind, whether or not it is success or failure. But objectively, even for a subjective mind, if an expected result fails, then it is failure. Objectively, we test our reason against reality. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:29 am: | |
Successful ideas have predictive capability. Failing ideas do not have this same predicitive capability.
Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:26 pm: Ivan
From http://www.graceproducts.com/edison/life.html
===
Edison is quoted as saying it would take a matter of a few weeks to invent the bulb. In reality, it would take him almost two years of failed attempts, new discoveries and prototypes before he would find success. It is said he tried over 6,000 different carbonized plant fibers, looking for a carbon filament for his light bulb.
===
Was Edison successful? He possibly failed 5,999 times before he located the correct filament.
Predictive capability could be associated with phenomena that have theories behind them. Many aspects of life are so complex that it would be unreasonable to expect a theory. Such aspects are amenable to trial and error only. The moment we resort to trial and error, there is no predictive capability. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 12:29 pm: | |
http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/article.aspx?contentID=4024039&s=bibendum2006
===
Biomimetics is an interdisciplinary subject which combines engineering science, architecture and mathematics. The basic principle is to make nature's problem solutions usable for man. The reason is simple: Nature, through billions of years of trial and error, has produced effective solutions to innumerable complex real-world problems.
===
Notice that ‘trial and error’ is part of nature. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 12:59 pm: | |
quote:Notice that ‘trial and error’ is part of nature.
True, but 'trial and error' is not theory. The theory, or ideology, is what is tested. If the results are failure, then the theory must be reexamined. Trial and error is part of the 'testing' process. One cannot confuse the two.
When Edison finally discovered the right material for a light bulb, it vindicated the theory, but not before many tests for it. If he had insisted stubbornly that only camel hair will work as filament, and continued with this theory without testing it, or in testing finding that it fails repeatedly, Edison would not be the scientific inventor he proved to be. Reality is always the final judge of any man made theory. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 09:20 pm: | |
Should theory precede the experiment? In ‘trial and error’ we attempt different approaches and we do succeed after a number of trials. During these trials we collect ‘facts’. Considering the development of the bulb, those materials that burnt away give a number of facts indicating that such materials are not suitable. Once we do find a material that works, we have another fact. At this point in time, we simply have a collection of facts. We do not have a theory. Yes analyzing the facts collected so far we formulate a theory and from the theory design experiments that further test the theory. This development has the experiment preceding the theory. Is there any role for such pioneering experiments in our discussion?
I would like to suggest that an experiment that is repeatable carries more weight than theory. With the aid of computers, we do resort to simulation. In particular simulation is extremely useful in studying the behavior of a group of interacting objects when the objects are simple. Can we then say simulation could replace experiments? This particular paper indicates otherwise.
http://www.siam.org/pdf/news/951.pdf
I believe failures in pioneering experiments are valuable. In that sense even a theory that fails has value. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 09:46 pm: | |
WHEN IDEOLOGY ABROGATES REASON
The mind must make sense. This is a truism based upon what the mind is designed to do, to understand. Reason is the mechanism by which the mind reaches this understanding, through pattern recognition and logical thought, consistent ideas, and by testing itself against reality. If an expected reasoned idea works, then it is real; if not, then it is false. Theories are storytelling. We assemble reasoned ideas into a story, which we call theory, and then test that theory against reality. If it works, then it is real, or at least hypothesized to be real. The value of theory is in its predictability power, so that if a given outcome is expected from a theoretical application of theory, then the theory is judged to be valid. It will remain valid until it is proven otherwise, in which case a better story will be told as a new theory. Most often, new theory is built up upon the successes of preceding theory, but not always. In some cases, the old theory must be abandoned completely. An example of this was that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the sun, planets and moons, and stars went around it. We now know with the Copernican revolution that this was false, and in fact the Earth is but one more planet circling the sun. This was scientific theory at work, which displaced a belief-based theory preceding it. In effect it was an ideology, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, tested against reality, and it failed. Reality said that Copernicus was right, and that his reasoned idea, his theory, was a more understandable story. It made better sense.
So what happens when an ideology is so well reasoned, so self consistent in its complexity, that it creates a complete whole unassailable? If it is so watertight that to argue outside it, especially by someone outside this ideology, is virtually a form of heresy, or condemnation of oneself. For example, when Marx used his socio-economic reasoning to show 'scientifically' how history is a progression of class warfare, as he detailed it in "Das Kapital", it became virtually unassailable, since all things in a sociological and historic context were explained within this self-enclosed ideology. Any argument against any one point within this Marxist theory would immediately generate a response by its adherents of what Marx said. (I know this for a fact, because in my market-economics dissertation, I was continually posed the question "but what about Marx?" by my Marxist professors, which was easily overcome because my thesis was in how the mechanics of the market system operate, in terms of cost of risk, and thus that specific issue was never addressed by Marx. They graduated me with a "good riddance" attitude. Today market based economics are accepted worldwide, but not so in 1975.) Something equivalent takes place in arguing against Einstein's theory of Relativity. Because the theory is so mathematically elegant and all inclusive, so self consistent, that to argue against it is to encounter near violent attacks from its adherents, usually with the admonition that one does not understand it well enough, that it takes years of study of the mathematics involved. In fact, it takes an act of faith in Einsein's first two postulates: that there are no preferred reference frames, and that light is a constant. (I can prove that the first postulate is wrong, since only the observer's reference frame is valid; while I am not sure about the second postulate, since it is impossible to measure it at some distance from our galaxy to prove that it is universally the same.) But if these two postulates are wrong, then the whole ideological structure comes apart. To true adherents of Einstein, some who had spent a lifetime to (almost) understand it, these postulates are taken as an article of faith. The fact that more and more evidence is coming in from space observations that something is not right with Einstein's theory, is most often ignored, called "puzzling", and dismissed in favor of all the things Einstein proved right. Einstein's predictive ability proves him right. So the Mercury precession, as described by General Relativity, or the bending of light around massive cosmic objects, keeps reinforcing their faith, that he was right, while the other things, like the lack of time dilation in Gamma-ray bursts, or failure to find gravitons, merely means the research is incomplete. (In fact, time dilation is explainable easily through redshift of electromagnetic wavelenght, as the 'information' will take longer to register, so time delayed.) From the true adherents, it can be no other way. However, all these 'predicted' results can be explained by alternative ideas, though to do so would mean Einstein was wrong. That cannot be, since the theory is so elegant and perfect, that the idea it might be wrong simply cannot be acceptable, to the true adherents. In Marx, the fact that communism failed so spectacularly to deliver what it had promised in no manner swayed the true adherents, merely gets dismissed as 'true communism' never having been put in practice. What does this mean? Why am I bringing this up?
What is so intriguing about man made ideology is that at some point, when it becomes totally accepted, it begins to define reality only within its own context. For example, studies of cosmology using Einstein's Relativity demand that all such studies are done within their "domain of applicability", which means using the math that describes the theory. This is a fail safe way of insuring that criticism outside the ideology is checked right off, and it must be criticized only within its domain. It is the same with Marxism, where to bring in outside ideas is not allowed, since then it challenges the theory. All in a socio-economic context must be seen within the framework of 'class struggle' or else it is false. In effect, what is happening is that the whole, the whole theory, the whole ideology, is now defining all the elements within itself in terms of itself. It takes on a reality of its own, one that is not to be challenged by the reality that exists outside its "domain of applicability". In short, it becomes unfalsifiable as a theory, and can only be tested within the theories framework. If evidence comes in that the theory is not working, its adherents will dismiss this with the idea that their theory, or ideology, has not yet been fully implemented. That is dogma. And once this dogma is fully seated in peoples minds, it is very difficult to unseat. So anyone trying to show a new idea, perhaps how the all inclusive ideology does not connect well with a reality outside it, then finds it virtually impossible to challenge it, without invoking condemnation, silence, or other subtle punishments, for having challenged an ideology believed perfect. Surprisingly, within this ideology is also the challenge to improve on it, to write something better, but in reality this is merely a warning to not tamper with it, under some penalty for even trying. All things within an ideological whole must then be interpreted within the context of framework of that ideology. In effect, this is when a man made ideology abrogates reality, since it is now considered superior to mere real facts.
So what happens to reason? In my personal experience with studying market-ecomics, I showed how the market system had always existed, if perhaps not more complex than simple village barter, and only later formalized into arms length exchange. But this 'reality' did not fit in well with Marxist ideology, so it was dismissed. In the case of Einstein's ideology, there is growing evidence, and a growing chorus of scientists, who say that his idea on gravity is incomplete, or outright wrong. There is always a greater reality at work, one which if taken as its own 'ideology' system is already at work in defining everyone of its internal functions. Reality is already structured to operate independently of our ideology, so it predates human theories, and it in fact functions on its own perfectly well, why we call it "reality." But if a reasonable person brings this up, that the reality of things is different from the 'perfectly reasoned' ideology trying to interpret this reality, that reason is abrogated by the ideology in question, they get silenced. The ideology is safeguarded from such critique by its own internal design, that only within its "domain of applicability" can it be criticized. Of course, given this restriction, it is virtually impossible to prove the ideology wrong. But given reason to doubt it, and then to find evidence where the ideology is failing, there is room to work outside its self defined framework, and come up with new ideas. But if the ideology abrogates reason, this is forbidden. Then, reason itself is called into question, for even attempting to question the ideology. To a reasonable man or woman, this is maddening, because it is so unreal.
Reason demands that it be understood. However, if reason itself was used to construct an ideology that is 'understandable' at each step of the way, then we find ourselves in the odd position where the ideology, reasonable throughout, is now taking the place of reason. It may no longer be understandable, but it must prevail in its authority position over all those who dare question it. So ideology takes on a life of its own, as a surrogate 'reality', to which all must defer, even if the results, glaring failures in real life, point to there being something terribly wrong. The very complex epicycles within epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy was totally reasonable and self consistent, but it was also very wrong. Reality was something else instead. But the adherents of this ideology could not see it, and even punished any who dared question it, with the full force religious force of dogma, sometimes with death. (Giordano Bruno was executed by burning at the stake for being, amongst other 'sins', a Copernican. Galileo was shown the Inquisition's instruments of torture and recanted, though he was right. Copernicus wanted to die of natural causes, so did not want his cosmological theory published until after his death.) So reality is abrogated, and so is reason abrogated, by an accepted ideology, especially if this ideology has the power to punish those who dare go disagree. In the sciences, this punishment means forced silence, where a challenger will not be published, or his or her research funding dries up. This is why there is so little work being done outside the accepted doctrines of a relativistic universe theory in cosmology, or particle physics. (In fact, atom physics may be much simpler than the Standard Model made it out to be, with eighteen-plus 'basic' particles, if gravity is understood.) Such work would challenge the accepted 'dogmas' of science. In the good old Soviet days of Marxism, to challenge the ideology was a one way ticket to Siberia, and the Gulag. In some religions (I don't want to mention names) any challenge to the dogma means severe punishment, or death. So what happens to reason? If it demands to be understood, but is not allowed to express itself, it is made to become suspect, pushed off to the side with silence or punishment, and eventually it dies.
When ideology abrogates reason, reason stops making sense, and it dies. The reality result is that people stop thinking, become suspicious of reason, and their reality is doomed. Reality is kept out, and ideology triumphs, under threats of penalty. This is surprising that it even happens in Science, since science by its very nature is supposed to be immune from such dogma. But it happens even there, where ideology abrogates. When human beings stop using their minds, their world atrophies into a socio-economic, artistic, and scientific stagnation. This is why Marxism failed in the end, and why Einstein's theories are now, one hundred years later, in danger of failing too. Ideology cannot abrogate reason, or reason fails the test of reality. How can that be? How can reason fail like this? Is there something in human nature that is the cause?
... More on this later, hopefully, with some enlightenment of how this impacts human consciousness.
Ivan |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 06:38 am: | |
One reason for ‘failure of reason’:
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-2 4T093751Z_01_L23881357_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-TRADE-TALKS-COL.XML
===
The diplomat spoke after a day of negotiations on Sunday between the so-called Group of Six countries -- the European Union, the United States, Japan, India, Brazil and Australia -- representing key sections of the global trading community.
The Round, officially aimed at boosting the development of poorer nations, was launched in the capital of Qatar at the end of 2001, but has long been stalled over farm subsidies and import tariffs and how to lower duties on industrial goods.
Diplomats and trade officials say the Sunday talks -- called after the Group of Eight industrial nations last week charged WTO chief Pascal Lamy to try to find a solution -- remained blocked over agriculture and never got onto the goods dossier.
===
One reason for the ‘failure of reason’ is lack of fairness! |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 07:49 pm: | |
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 02:21 pm:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=RD03096
===
The human Y chromosome is running out of time. In the last 300 million years, it has lost 1393 of its original 1438 genes, and at this rate it will lose the last 45 in a mere 10 million years.
===
For a person with an average life expectancy of about 80 years, 10 million years is infinity. Still there are recent discoveries to extend this period of the survival of the Y chromosome.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04101.html
===
These findings contradict the model of the human Y chromosome's impending demise, and instead provide empirical support for mathematical models of sex chromosome evolution that predict a slowing of the rate of gene decay as Y chromosomes evolve.
===
With the slowing of the rate of decay, the model is not linear but an exponential decay like the decay of the voltage of a capacitor discharging across a constant resistance. Given that 300 million years ago the Y chromosome had 1,438 genes and that now it has just 45 genes, the time constant is slightly more than 86.596429 million years. The existing 45 genes shall decay to just one gene in another 629.64 million years. After that the only gene has to vanish.
We are looking at the demise of the Y chromosome in a time of 10 million to approximately 630 million years. That is mankind as we know cannot survive forever. Further until then, the Y chromosome is unstable and thus mankind is unstable.
The question is: In an unstable world could reason be predictive? In a stable world, reason has some chance of being predictive. In an unstable world, what chance? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 07:54 pm: | |
Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 05:59 pm: Ivan
This is what matters in logic, that we can identify a conclusion from premises that are valid, or that have value to us. When this rule is not violated, then things make sense, and we are comfortable with what is concluded. However, when it is violated, such as happens in a magic trick, then we are either amused or puzzled, since the outcome of what were the connections to lead to it were not logical. They did not connect correctly, which is often either a case of where we did not perceive the connections, or they simply were not there. Then, it is automatically illogical, and even a child will know that it is a trick.
We arrive at conclusions from premises that are valid, or have value to us. Do you permit use of false premises that are of value to us? Don’t we desire every input to our process of arriving at a conclusion to be valid?
… "If the cat is on the roof, then he is unable to get down. Either he is afraid, or he does not want to. Then let us get a ladder to help him." All these are logically connected, since from the fact of the cat being on the roof, we then infer that there may be difficulties involved. But if we were to say instead "if the cat is on the roof, then the ladder is either the reason he cannot or why he does not want to come down", then we would immediately know that something is illogical here. It would take some rather strange mental calisthenics to figure that one out, because the connections would be all wrong, since the ladder is not responsible for the cat not coming down.
A cat normally jumps up from the ground wherever he wants to go. It is natural to expect that the cat knows it can jump down from a height he jumped up. However, once a ladder is available, the cat simply looks at the next step on the ladder and continues climbing to the roof. Having climbed the roof, the cat looks down and realizes the height is too much for him to jump down. If that is so, the provision of the ladder to climb up instead of jump up was indeed a mistake. I could give a current example: The farmer saves a part of the yield as seed and plants the seed in the next season. Over a number of yields the seed develops the necessary resistance to the local diseases. Instead today we intervene, produce genetically modified seeds, give them to the farmer breaking his link with nature, and then he is stuck with the genetically modified seed. This is because he did not use his seed from the earlier harvest and consumed all of them. We gave the ladder of genetically improved seeds and made the farmer reach a position from which he cannot back down. If we blame the ladder, the genetic technology, are we wrong?
… What this points to is that for logic to be meaningful the connections have to be such that reason can identify the thought with the reality or, as it may be said, the truth is the all important mark of success as it applies to logic.
In control systems we are taught to use observables to control non-observables. A simple example could be the fever suffered by a patient and the level of infection suffered by his body. Which is the reality: the infection or the fever? Remember that we are in touch with the fever only.
… However, as it applies to reality, most paradoxes can be dismissed as being a mental game, nonsense.
The ‘Halting Problem’ is a paradox in computer programming. However it is not nonsense as it helps us to avoid taking up problems that would simply consume our resources and not give any benefit.
… This, it seems, is also the puzzle behind most religious beliefs, that it takes a leap of faith to accept a tenet of the religion, even if it is illogical.
It is not right to treat all religions as illogical. We might have difficulties accepting basic tenets of a religion like Hell, Heaven. However once that is taken as a fact, say assumed fact; the religion might sound logical to some. I feel constrained to state that I know of at least one religion which is logical.
… Or, as Walt Whitman said: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Is this a variation of the liar paradox, or do we accept his largess on faith? The connections to accept Whitman's statement have to go beyond the conventional and into a category that may be called illogical. Still, one may accept it as truth, though not for reasons of logic. This can be said of God, or the Resurrection, paradoxes in the scriptures, or the manifestation of jewels out of thin air by Sai Baba.
What if Sai Baba does produce jewels out of thin air? What if in his congregation he gives such jewels away? Just because he has a technique of producing jewels from thin air we do not know, can we call him a magician?
… For logic to have value, it has to connect into the world.
Are we talking of the ‘physical world’? Can anyone prove that he has a mind? What is the physical manifestation of the mind?
… Any model we build must have a real application, for if it is to be useful, it must show the connections of how things are.
What about the ‘game industry’? Is keeping a kid occupied in a fantasy world a real application?
… All that we can think of in our minds is nevertheless only valuable if it can be implemented to either understand or manipulate reality.
What about thoughts those bring peace to the mind of the person? These thoughts and even the peace of mind the person feels are within him. How does one know whether it is real or imaginary?
… we are then left to either guess right as to what those rules are and use them, or we remain powerless.
How does one guess right? A guess is equally probable to be wrong too. We must be prepared to accept failure; learn from failure; and proceed. We need not remain powerless.
… I can think of no greater gift bestowed on us by that living web of the universe that had shadowed us from the beginning of time.
What is this ‘living web of the universe’? Is it another label for what the religions call ‘God’? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 08:10 pm: | |
quote:What about thoughts those bring peace to the mind of the person? These thoughts and even the peace of mind the person feels are within him. How does one know whether it is real or imaginary?
We can feel peace in ourselves if we like, but if reality conditions are not peaceful, say a tiger is stalking you, then feeling peace will not stop him from turning you into his next meal. Reality is always the final arbiter.
quote:What is this ‘living web of the universe’? Is it another label for what the religions call ‘God’?
Possibly, but not necessarily, as the word "God" can have many meanings for different people, so I avoid using it if I can. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 08:35 pm: | |
Mohideen, I said: "… What this points to is that for logic to be meaningful the connections have to be such that reason can identify the thought with the reality or, as it may be said, the truth is the all important mark of success as it applies to logic. To which you answered:
"In control systems we are taught to use observables to control non-observables. A simple example could be the fever suffered by a patient and the level of infection suffered by his body. Which is the reality: the infection or the fever? Remember that we are in touch with the fever only."
The distinction between these two lines of thought is that in your example, you are giving two examples of the same condition, a person who is ill with fever. Is this due to infection, of virus, or some metabolic dysfunction? In mine, I claim we use logical reasoning to come to a meaningful conclusion, which is the "mark of success" I talk about, when we come to the right conclusion. You know you got it right when you can treat the patient successfully and his or her fever declines, and they become well again. Once that happens, then you can assume reasonably that you got closer to the truth, even if not proven as such. It could be the patient recovered despite the treatment, for example, so the diagnosis was unimportant. But this is different from your distinction of whether the fever or the infection is the reality, as they're both the same condition. The reality here, what we reasonably try to identify, is the condition, which embodies both fever and infection, rather than either one separately. Why would you separate the two from each other? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 09:08 pm: | |
In yours, Mohideen, you answered:
"It is not right to treat all religions as illogical. We might have difficulties accepting basic tenets of a religion like Hell, Heaven. However once that is taken as a fact, say assumed fact; the religion might sound logical to some. I feel constrained to state that I know of at least one religion which is logical." ... which was in answer to mine:
""… This, it seems, is also the puzzle behind most religious beliefs, that it takes a leap of faith to accept a tenet of the religion, even if it is illogical."
I don't see how we disagree here, except that you are more willing to take "a leap of faith" than I am inclined to do. You've accepted one religion's 'logic' while others may be disinclined to come to the same conclusion. But this also handily illustrates my point above, regarding 'ideology abrogating reason', where your acceptance of one religious ideology makes you suspect any further investigation of the premises on which you based your acceptance, and thus accept it as fact. Once you're there, there is no turning back, not unless you were to disavow your basic tenets accepted on faith. So you're now in a bind, because since you accepted the ideology as logical, you are stuck with it, and cannot reasonably turn away from it. In effect, it now holds you captive to it, so it abrogated your reason. My point exactly! Your ideology abrogates reason. Then, whether or not your acceptance of your premises is logical or not needs to be tested against reality. But how would you do that, in some falsifiable manner? If you cannot, then you must accept that you accepted what you call 'logical' simply on faith. That was my point exacttly.
Ivan |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 09:47 pm: | |
Ivan I have attached a link that discusses the issue of visulization of multidimensional space.
As seen from the perspective of a two dimensional being.
http://www.astro.washington.edu/labs/clearinghouse/labs/Curvature/curvature.html
When we talk about conciousness I think it important to discuss how we are able to percieve our version of reality and what we can see and not see and what other realities may look like
Ed |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 01:56 am: | |
THINK DIFFERENT!
There is something in us that rebels at formalism. We strive to see things different, looked at them from another point of view, sometimes against tradition, or authority. There is something in the human spirit that defies convention, even classification, or even reasoned description, that makes each one of us a unique person, different from every other. We know inside that we are, if not who we are, as a definition of our identity locked inside our body and brain. There is a person there, you, me, all and each unique.
Most of us will go through life without ever reaching for that person different, and conform as best we can to the conventions demanded of us, imposed on us, by the presence of allness, of everyone around us. Culture, knowledge, tradition, will do what ever it can to keep us here, from looking over that next hill, and force us to find contentment within what is safely known. Is this not the lot of most persons alive, to be what they are expected to be? But there is something rebellious, if early wrenched out of us while still in our vulnerable youth, that would dare to break the glass, the cage into which we are formed through school, through parents, friends, loved ones, priests, all doing their best to keep us reigned in. But sometimes, not all but some of us, will take a different path, one unknown and risky, and dare to think different. Not always in rebellion, but quietly, like passing through without leaving a wake, and yet something in the world had changed. This something special, able in each human being, is what we are made of. We are a person, unique and different, though the world would rather that it were not so, that we did not know this, make us all the same, in conformity.
I bring this up because this is the window into our consciousness. No machine can ever have this ability, to know itself, to know who you are. Animals may have it in some small quantity, but it is almost insignificant. To answer to a name, to escape when caged, are small measures of this special difference, but animals are not cognizant of this thing within themselves. Humans, on the other hand, have the potential, the mental capacity of awareness, that is truly a unique gift for us. It is a matter of will. Yet, most will never know it, burry it into the crumbling concerns of everyday life, and fail to grasp that awesome power they have in themselves, to be. Who are we? What is this all about? These answers can never come from textbooks, nor from algorithms, nor from clinical studies of the brain, nor from computer simulations, nor reason; because these things are spiritual in nature. We transcend all the known things, all reason, for we are beings within a Who personality that defies description. That is what being different means, to be Who we are. It is to not lose it to the pressures of everyday life, and all who would take it away, They are afraid of it, but do not be. It is your greatest power. That is consciousness in your human form.
The greatness of being human is this, that no one can truly ever take it away from you if you do not let them. We all know an inner "I am" that is uniquely a definition of ourselves, unlike that of anybody else's. It is unreasonable, sometimes irrational, even comical, but it is what makes us free beings. That freedom is a major threat to others, and they will work hard to take it away. They cannot, it is impossible, because in that freedom is our direct link with something so far beyond reason that it is virtually indescribable. And when we connect with it, no matter how small and insignificant we may feel, no matter how unimportant a being we may appear to others, we are great. That being, that Who, reaches out into the universe so far away, that even being totally still, we move the world. Think different, and you have a power none could ever take away from you. They will try, but they will fail. Your identity in Who you are is something bigger than any human power can ever understand. That is your connection to the greatest Being this universe produced, by whatever name you will call it. This is totally subjective, there is no objective measure for it, it is impossible to bottle it and put on a shelf. It is beyond reason. But it is the greatest power of the universe inside you. The only way to surrender it is to fall under the oppression of others, where they will suppress you, where you lose your freedom, and your identity; thus you lose your You. Those who do not know this inner being within themselves will do whatever they can, move heaven and earth, to take it away from you. Never let them. Be free, always. Dare to be unreasonable, dare to fight back no matter the odds. This is the true inner core of your being, that what is your greatest gift from All that is, your Who.
Who you are is the Allness of all being locked into one body, you. Grasp it with courage, do not fear it, and the world will move around you, though you will never see how, nor know why. It is beyond the rational mind, beyond reason, and instead it works at the greatest level of mind produced by all of existence. Be daring, be artistic, be creative. That is Who you are. And it is a secret. In a world of human beings still struggling to awaken, to come to understand Who they are, we find a world still more in love with reason than our greater spiritual being. Reason is good, it is useful, but it is not the All, it can never be. We are spiritual beings, and our planetary slumber is but a necessary passing phase. Your freedom is the best kept secret on Earth. Break this secret, and the world wakes into full consciousness. And when that time comes, it will be awesome.
It's okay. Think different. Be powerful, because this is Who you are. You are a Free human being as the universe made you.
... I hope to have more, later.
Ivan
ps: Thanks Ed, I'll take a look at your link. When I think of consciousness, I think of Thoreau, or Emmerson, or Whitman, real human beings who could look beyond our mortal realm. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 04:52 am: | |
Ivan I have attached a link that discusses the issue of visulization of multidimensional space.
Ed
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 06:47 pm:
It is an interesting link indeed. Are there more pictures? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:35 pm: | |
Be daring, be artistic, be creative. That is Who you are.
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:56 pm: Ivan
Individuality is good. How much could an individual achieve? It is normally accepted that groups – cohesive groups - achieve more than individuals. How many persons form a group? Shall we say just large enough to have at least one new behavior emerge?
Do we have any guidelines? From http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=574 we find:
===
First, Saykally and his team studied one water molecule and determined all of the properties of the single molecule. Then the group proceeded to examine two molecules and looked at every possible way that the two molecules could interact.
The researchers continued to work with water clusters until they understood the interactions between six water molecules - a structure complex enough to call it a "water drop."
Interactions between two, three, four and five water molecules do not form a drop by themselves because all of these interactions result in planar clusters, but interactions between six molecules form a "chamber," which makes the six-molecule interaction the "world's smallest drop of water."
===
Six water molecules create a new property – a three dimensional structure called a drop. How many minds would produce a new behavior? What happens when so many minds interact? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:44 pm: | |
http://www.dailycal.org/column.php
===
Where Is My Mind?
Monday, July 24th, 2006
Though many conspiracy theories are undoubtedly farfetched, the logic used to generate these theories can easily be compared to the same logic used to justify any religious doctrine. And while religion is accepted as a mainstream ideology, conspiracy theories get a disapproving eye. At the very least, we should practice equal-opportunity skepticism.
===
How is that? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 06:30 pm: | |
Mohideen, RE yours:
quote:Individuality is good. How much could an individual achieve? It is normally accepted that groups – cohesive groups - achieve more than individuals. How many persons form a group? Shall we say just large enough to have at least one new behavior emerge?
This is why human beings can come to agreement, so they can work together. Agreement implies respect for the other, trust. This respect can only be accomplished with a conscious awareness of the other, hence, a conscious mind. No problem with group action, if it is in agreement. The problem is when it is forced through coercions. Then, we have a problem.
Re your other:
quote:And while religion is accepted as a mainstream ideology, conspiracy theories get a disapproving eye. At the very least, we should practice equal-opportunity skepticism.
I don't know if I understand this author's point, but it would seem to me that a healthy skepticism could apply to some tenets of religion as well, especially those injurious to our freedoms. The major problem with conspiracy theories is that for the most part they are stupid. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 08:36 pm: | |
AGREEMENT, COERCION, AND FREEDOM
Let me create a table to illustrate what it is I mean by these terms. I will use words to illustrate, but not name any one religion (though several could fit this model) so only treating it in theoretical terms. Here are the rules of the 'game':
| Coercion | Agreement | Freedom | | "house of war" | "house of peace" | "house of freedom" | | the art of war | the art of agreement | the art of peace | | coercion rules | agreement rules | coercion only to stop coercion | | conflict never ending | fair agreement with others | respect for others | | abrogates good will | survives because of goodwill | engenders goodwill | | more human suffering | safety from coercive suffering | human happiness pursuits | | destroys agreement | destroyed by coercion | respects Who you are |
Now, the rules are set, so what follows? If coercion may only be used to stop coercion, to protect the innocent against failed agreements, then it is totally inconsistent to use coercive force, such as deceit or violence, to bring about agreements. If coercion is used to create 'peace' then peace is simply impossible. Freedom is when you are free from coercions, do not coerce others, and are never forced into agreement by coercions. So to have the "house of peace" by invoking "the house of war" is a destructively grievous contradiction. To protect from this contradiction is invoked instead the "house of freedom" so that all people are protected from coercions in their freely accepted agreements, with respect for the individual, the Who you are. So if anyone invokes coercive "house of war" to bring about a desired "house of peace" they break the mandatory rule of the "house of freedom", that coercion may not be used to force another into agreement, or in how they believe, by any Deity. If coercion is used here, peace is impossible, and freedom is abrogated. Such belief is then null and void, a forced upon grievous and cardinal sin. Only voluntary agreements of our own free will are valid.
So the art of agreement is now raised above the art of war, and peace can result, if human beings obey these rules of freedom. Belief can only come by agreement, and no man may force a belief on another by coercive force. Coercion can never be used to abrogate human agreements. This is a cardinal rule for humanity, not to be abrogated by anyone.
Ivan |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 06:54 am: | |
The problem is when it is forced through coercions. Then, we have a problem.
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 03:30 pm: Ivan
Who decides regarding the presence or absence of coercion: members of the group or others? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 09:39 am: | |
quote:Who decides regarding the presence or absence of coercion: members of the group or others?
Who decides what is an agreement? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 01:49 pm: | |
Who decides what is an agreement?
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 06:39 am: Ivan
I would love to be educated. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 06:58 pm: | |
Mohideen, your request to be educated on "who decides what is an agreement" is beyond the capabilities of this board. Roll back the human clock about 6 million years, and start there. I suggest you do your own research on this matter.
I'd suggest the following: Man sees other man with food and clubs him (coercion) to take food. Or, man sees other man with food, asks if can have some, the other (agrees) to share it. Start there, and work it forward about 6 million years, and you'll get the idea. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 07:12 pm: | |
Dictionary definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/
Agreement: a·gree·ment P Pronunciation Key (-grmnt)
n.
1 The act of agreeing.
2 Harmony of opinion; accord.
3 An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant.
4 Law.
a A properly executed and legally binding contract.
b The writing or document embodying this contract.
5 Grammar. Correspondence in gender, number, case, or person between words."
Coercion: co·erce P Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1 To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2 To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3 To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
I hope this helps... |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:16 pm: | |
Man sees other man with food and clubs him (coercion) to take food. Or, man sees other man with food, asks if can have some, the other (agrees) to share it.
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 03:58 pm: Ivan
Good. The man with the club asks for sharing the food. The man with food shares the food. Afterwards the man who shared his food tells another man, after the man with the club had gone away, that he shared the food as he was afraid he might be clubbed if he did not share the food.
The question is: Did the man with the club coerce by approaching with the club? Should the man who owned the club kept the club away and approached for food? Does the mere presence of a weapon of coercion lead to coercion? |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:19 pm: | |
It looks like some robot seems to eat away some of my posts. Do we desire not to look at examples from current human behavior as part of our discussion? If so it might please be spelt explicitly. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:30 pm: | |
quote:It looks like some robot seems to eat away some of my posts. Do we desire not to look at examples from current human behavior as part of our discussion?
Mohideen, if you bring in side issues that are not relevant to this discussion, like the 'lack of fairness' economic issues, they will be split off into a separate discussion. That's what happened to your earlier posts, showing how 'unfair' were economic conditions in India, China, WTO, etc. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:39 pm: | |
I see that another thread was started on 'lack of fairness'. This comment and my preceeding comment at 5:19 pm could be deleted. Sorry for the confusion. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:43 pm: | |
quote:Good. The man with the club asks for sharing the food. The man with food shares the food. Afterwards the man who shared his food tells another man, after the man with the club had gone away, that he shared the food as he was afraid he might be clubbed if he did not share the food.
The question is: Did the man with the club coerce by approaching with the club? Should the man who owned the club kept the club away and approached for food? Does the mere presence of a weapon of coercion lead to coercion?
This issue here is "intimidation"? If so, was this initimidation overt or assumed? Was the individual who felt 'threatened' by the presence of the club in agreement with the (possible) threat? Was there communications between them in advance as to whether or not an agreement was possible? Or did the man with the club tell him right off that if he didn't give him the food, he would feel that stick on his head? There are a lot of variables here, some of which are coercive, some not. Your illustration is potentially evasive in that it does not give us enough clues to know whether or not there was a coercion done or not. What did the person who felt intimidated, if he was intimidated, feel about it? Was sharing offered before such felt intimidation or afterwards? The point is this: If there was an 'agreement' made under threat of intimidation or violence, then it was a "coercion." But if both parties, in goodwill, agreed to something jointly, then it was an "agreement." Your example did not give enough information for any party ouside their exchange to know if it was done by agreement or due to coercion. Like I said earlier, it is "the art of agreement," to which there is no simple solution. But any person wronged by force, by coercion, by intimidation or deceit, he or she will know it, if they have half a brain. But when there is coercion, it must be dealt with, though the problem is complex. Now you know why these issues often end up in court! ... or on the battlefield. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:56 pm: | |
BTW, there are terms in our human vocabulary like "please" or "may I?" or "by your leave" which are meant to diffuse coercion a priori, followed by terms like "thank you" or "my peasure" which are meant to signal that the agreement is acceptable. Go back a million years, and you are bound to find the same principle at work, even for men carrying clubs or spears. Perhaps in our 'advanced' stage of civilization we forgot about this? I remember in my travels that there were societies where the word for "thank you" was almost non existent. In India they used "thanebat" if I remember correctly, but the Nepalese who had no such indigenous word, though they were very sweet people nevertheless, also used the same Indian word. How about "namaste?" Common politeness, and respect, go a long way towards helping form agreement. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:33 pm: | |
Mohideen, why do you think we shake hands? Who knows how far back this goes, who were the first to "shake" on it, whether in greeting or to seal a deal. But this is one more example of human beings approaching each other without intent of coercion. However, if while shaking hands one of the two pulls out a knife and stabs the other, that is devious and most definitely coercive. I hope you don't have too much trouble reasoning this out. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:12 am: | |
BTW, there are terms in our human vocabulary like "please" or "may I?" or "by your leave" which are meant to diffuse coercion a priori, followed by terms like "thank you" or "my peasure" which are meant to signal that the agreement is acceptable.
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 05:56 pm: Ivan
Let us assume that there was a conversation as below:
Hungry man: Hello! I am dying of starvation. Could you help me with some food?
Food man: Sure, what is it that you carry?
Hungry man: Oh! That is a club. I use it to hunt. Unfortunately I did not find even one animal to hunt the whole day. So I am dying of hunger.
Food man: Please share my food.
Both eat the food together. After eating,
Hunger satiated man: Thank You.
Food giver: You are welcome.
Now the one who had the food meets his friend.
Friend: Hello dear, do you have any food with you?
Food giver: Well, I had food. A stranger requested food as he was dying of hunger, and so I ate the food along with him.
Friend: Why didn’t you delay until I could have joined you.
Food giver: You see he was carrying a club …
Friend: Oh! You were afraid he might club you if you didn’t feed him?
Food giver: Well, I don’t know. Now that you mention it, I might have been in my subconscious mind.
Now, let me repeat the question:
The question is: Did the man with the club coerce by approaching with the club? Should the man who owned the club kept the club away and approached for food? Does the mere presence of a weapon of coercion lead to coercion? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 08:37 pm: | |
quote:Now, let me repeat the question:
The question is: Did the man with the club coerce by approaching with the club? Should the man who owned the club kept the club away and approached for food? Does the mere presence of a weapon of coercion lead to coercion?
Well, this new illustration fleshes it out some, so I think I can now answer. In my opinion, and I'm not a legal expert, I would say that under the above circumstances and exchange, there was no threat given, nor implied. The man who shared his food was a good man. His friend who came later was out of luck, for being too late. We cannot control the circumstances of who will come to us with need of help, and if we do help, it is usually 'first come first served.' The man who got the food even thanked the giver. This scenario is fine, as is, with no coercion.
I suppose if the giver was suffering some paranoia, then perhaps some sort of 'coercion' could be implied, but it was then all in his head, perhaps not real. Remember, reality is always the final arbiter. No coercion took place, as the man agreed to give the other some food. Usually, this is a good thing, to feed the hungry, or any humanitarian aid. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:36 am: | |
I suppose if the giver was suffering some paranoia, then perhaps some sort of 'coercion' could be implied, but it was then all in his head, perhaps not real. Remember, reality is always the final arbiter.
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 05:37 pm: Ivan
True reality is the final arbiter. So we agree that the presence of a weapon of coercion by itself does not lead to coercion. Do we? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:03 am: | |
Relevent to this discussion I have attached a link to an article that discusses the use of coercion during interrogations and the legal implications of it. The article maintains that use of coercion to include psychological coercion that causes a psychological shock to the mind of the person being interrogated may result in violations of the Geneva Conventions. It also goes further to state that under the War Crimes Act of 1996 that abuse or actions resulting in the death of a prisoner being held or interrogated may result in capital charges being brought by the United States government against those involved in it.
As your discussion of coercion procedes I think it relevent to include this information as part of the debate. The issue of coercion by individuals or the state is still very real and the implications of its use are highly controversial.
Detainee abuse charges feared
Bush administration seeks shield from 1996 War Crimes Act
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14067214/
I have also included a link that talks to the issue of the use of psychologists in interrogations. The use of psychological warfare or use of psychological shock technigues designed to attack the conciousness of the person being interrogated, based on exploitation of the person's phobia's or fears is seen as being unethical from the APA's perspective and as constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
While limited now just to military interrogation techniques. This action sets a precident for coercive behavior of this nature in society. It is possible that this type of behavior on the part of employeers dealing with employees or coworkers or people in society that intentionally attempt to use coercive pyschological techniques could be subject to formal sanctions under the law.
Food for thought.
APA COUNCIL ENDORSES ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS PARTICIPATING IN NATIONAL SECURITY- RELATED INVESTIGATIONS AND INTERROGATIONS
http://www.apa.org/releases/natsec0805.html
Ed Chesky |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:27 am: | |
quote:True reality is the final arbiter. So we agree that the presence of a weapon of coercion by itself does not lead to coercion. Do we?
Have you thought of the presence of a weapon as a deterent to coercion? This was the Kissenger doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) that kept the two super powers from anihilating each other with nuclear missiles. It worked then, though both had enough weapons to kill all life on Earth, and it was a reasonable strategy for reasonable people. Will it work now, if the new acquirers of nukes are unreasonable? Think about it. We may be entering the most dangerously irrational stage of human history, in juxtaposition to the greatest awareness of mind, now that the world is connected through communications as never before. Strange, isn't it, that just as we come into the greatest power of mind, there is this conflict shaping up, to kill mind. The Nazi hatemongers, or Cult of Assassins, or Bolshevik death squads would have been made proud. When will the world mature beyond these extreme coercive attitudes? Is there hope, that with reason we can do and be better? We have better weapons to kill than ever before. Is it not time to address this issue before it leads to extreme coercion? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 01:06 am: | |
WHAT IS AN IDEA? WHAT IS REALITY?
"Idea", what an interesting twist of mind, to come up with an idea. Is it real? What is it? Is it some figment of our imagination? Dare we believe it? Where did this idea of an idea come from?
Something flashes into our mind and we have an idea. We can string this idea onto another idea, like in storytelling, where there is some sort of ending that delights us, or scares us, or makes us ponder the idea of what the story was all about. The ancient, such as Plato, thought the universe was made of ideas, in some supreme metaphysical form, of which we only witnessed here in our existence their imperfect forms. Geometry was an idea of perfection, something rarely encountered in the real world. Kant thought of ideas as impressions, something not quite as developed and elegant as concepts. Interesting ideas, but not very useful. Locke thought of ideas as that mental process that yields the object of understanding when a person thinks. At least this has some connection to something more than mere imaginings in the mind. Locke's idea is that ideas connect somehow to reality, that they can be 'objective' ideas, as opposed to merely subjective ideas. Where the subjective can tell itself a story, the objective idea can tell the story of something outside itself. Now it becomes interesting, though we still do not know if an idea is real, or just a figment of our imagination.
Let's play a game of pretend. Let's make believe that anything we can think, no matter how outlandish, is real. So if I believe that I will find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and I go there, there it is, a pot of gold. Or if I think that by wishing really hard, concentrate on it, I can walk through walls. What happens when I try this? First, there is no end of the rainbow, since it is an optical effect caused by certain conditions of light and moisture. I would soon discover the reality of it, that the more I follow the rainbow, the more it moves away, and ultimately disappears. My believe is shattered, because reality had its own laws, which my idea of the rainbow did not match. I could try walking through walls all I want, but it will not happen, unless I break a hole through it, or use the door. Reality does not want to play pretend with us, but has very specific requirements of what may or may not be real. My ideas are just that, my ideas, and they have no power to change reality for me. That is the truth.
Earlier I had shown how intelligence is in essence pattern recognition. We understand things both visually and conceptually, though the conceptual is only a more complex version of our other impressions of reality. Conceptually, we form some sort of pattern of how things are connected. I had also said that the rules of interconnectivity, how things connect both physically and in our understanding's patterns of ideas, have to be logical. By extension, they are rational, in that they try to reflect some logical order that is also found in how is ordered the reality we inhabit. So pretending, believing whatever we choose to believe, is still merely an internal effect, which may or may not connect realistically to what actually is. Reality has its own rules of connectivity, how things work and how they are, and all our ideas, or concepts can do is find out what these rules are. Once we do, we can then exchange with reality the same cause and effects that reality uses already. So if I think I can move a large stone with the push of my finger, it may or may not happen. If the stone is precariously balanced, then perhaps I can. But if this stone is well embedded, then it may take a great deal more force to move it than I can ever muster in my finger. Reality defines this for me, and it does not take an engineering degree to know almost intuitively what is possible and what is not. This checks the mind's ideas. Either the is real. so it is true, or it is fantasy, which makes it fiction. Both can be highly intelligent, meaning the patterns involved can be complex, well reasoned, and even beautiful. But they may not be real. Reality will define whether these ideas, or patterns of intelligence, are true or not.
There is a natural progression here, which allows us to take it to the next step, logically. If reality already has its patterns arranged in some intelligent order, then there is a reasonable chance that my intelligence can identify the patterns correctly. When that happens, I gain a real understanding, and perhaps the information I garner from this understanding is somehow connected to reality. The test for this, scientifically, is that if I have a concept and it allows me to predict a cause and effect, then it passes the test of reality. It also passes the test of reason, that I reasonably understood something to be true. But if my concepts, or ideas, are perpetually wrong and I am frustrated by their failures to gain any meaningful response from reality, then I must assume they are wrong. At least wrong in the sense of being true or not true. But I can nevertheless amuse myself with unreasonable, or irrational ideas, just like in story telling. I might find the story amusing, or comical so it makes me laugh, like a good joke, but it may not have any applications beyond my own amusement. So reality already has its own intelligence built in, patterns that are recognizable by our intelligence, but which continue to operate really on their own regardless of whether or not we understand them. So in real life, if I truly really honestly believe in something, deep in my heart, but the reality keeps failing me, then I have to come to grips with the fact that perhaps my belief is somehow wrong, or at least flawed. This natural progression then means, per force, that reality is intelligent, and it is up to me to find that intelligence within the scope of my ideas and understanding.
On a social scale, if I believe something to be true, that it is universal and everyone should believe as I do, but the reality is perpetually failing me, then should I not reexamine what is my belief? Reality is telling me something, that what I believe as true is not true, or at least it is flawed somehow. So if I pray deep in my heart for all humanity to live harmoniously in peace, because I had come to understand something logically to be true of what I believe in, but the reality is frustrating because all who believe as I do live in constant disharmony and conflict, then I have to accept from reality that maybe my idea, logical that it may appear to me, is but a story, and not real. I have not yet connected correctly with what reality is all about, as is defined our social reality, since the effect of my belief always yields something totally different. In economics, for example, the communist Marxist ideal was supposed to yield great benefits to society, but in reality, wherever these ideals were implemented, the opposite happened, and poverty resulted instead. If a philosophy of life, which is supposed to bring out the best in human beings, yields instead constant corruption, deceit, and ultimately enslavement to those more powerful than us, then its reality must be called into question. Something is wrong. If a woman from a poor eastern European country is promised a good job in some western country, but finds instead she had been lied to, and now is forced to work as a sex slave, her reality had just been altered. She assumed the other person was telling her the truth, and now she is captive within a lie, and beaten if she tries to either find the truth, or escape from the lie. She is trapped, but in the end the truth is that she is a sex slave. This is an example of one. Now imagine a whole society violated like this, lied to, but believing they are being told the truth. What are the results? Are they happy, walking around smiling like people do on a California beach on a nice day? (I just came back from the beach at sunset, and people were really smiling!) Or are they dour and unhappy, looking for an excuse to accuse someone else of their unhappiness, maybe even looking for a fight. Something in their lives is wrong. And when it happens on a mass social scale, you get a whole society of people who are basically suffering, unhappy, even ready to fight or die. Their reality was not real, and so it fails to materialize as expected. Can they change it? Of course, but that would require a reexamination of what it is they believe in. In the former Soviet block countries, this happened, and eastern Europe is only now beginning to enjoy their new found freedoms from communism. It is not perfect, the process takes time, if only to implement a functioning system of inter-human exchange, a market system based on agreements. But in having turned away from an idea that was wrong, could not work, and now are in the process of rediscovering their own social truths, and social identity, they are on the road to recovery. Their future now has hope, while when they were lied to, the future had no hope. This affliction of unrealistic thinking unfortunately affects much of the world's dysfunctional societies, from Africa to South America, to Russia and Ukraine, or the Arab world.
If the people believe in bad ideas, their societies will look bad. What are bad ideas? Usually they boil down to where people are lied to, they are forced to live by corrupt practices, corrupt laws and officials, even from their neighbors, where theft is normal, and pay offs, or 'baksheesh' is normal. Things don't work because somebody has the power to coerce another, and stop them unreasonably. Then all human contacts become corrupted by these coercive practices, nothing gets done, agreements are violated, poverty sets in, and people suffer unnecessarily. This is not due to some natural calamity, or because of some ancient wrong committed, such as colonialism in the past century, but it is because they now believe in the wrong things. Why is it some former colonies are thriving, like Malaysia or South Africa, while others, like DR Congo or Uganda are horrors? When reality is abrogated with wrong beliefs, then any expectations we had from our agreements are frustrated, in that they fail to materialize in our lives. The universe is a hard task master, in that it does not care for us, anymore than it cares for whatever stories we will to tell ourselves. We are free to believe what we will. But reality only operates at the level of truth. Anything else, no matter how brilliant it may be, or how appealing, it is human fantasy. But this can change very quickly, once people wake up to this fact. Look at what makes successful societies work, and you get the idea. It is not because the rich are stealing from the poor, that's in the poor societies; but rather it is where the rich can remain rich while the poor do not have to stay poor, which is a market system built on truthful and honest principles. Lies and violence are coercive, and they never let us get ahead. For society to work, in this reality of the universe, you need to honor agreements with truth. You have to be good for your word. Lies destroy truth.
Good ideas are those that work. Bad ideas are those that either do not work, or they work poorly. That is reality, Being human beings with intelligence, with a mind, we then have to choose which ideas we will follow, good or bad. Look around you and what do you see? Is this what you had chosen, or is it something entirely different from what you expected? Reality is giving you the answer all the time. You then have to choose. If you are an intelligent being, you can choose, to the best of your ability. That's called excellence. And when it works, it is great. That power of excellence is in you. Choose.
Ivan |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 10:41 am: | |
Very well said Ivan,
What constitutes reality has been a question that has long puzzled mankind. In my opinion we are progressing to a greater understanding of reality as we push the limits of the study of the human conciousness, math, science physics and geometry.
If we accept the possibility of an infinite universe, then we must also accept that the human brain as it currently exists is finite and unable to comprehend all of creation. We can also only discern reality from the perspective that we are able to do so. This means that our perceptions of reality are impacted by the dictates of genetics, education and social conditioning.
Taken together these dictates greatly impact our ability to accept new ideas, views of reality or new ways of doing things. Much like the psychotic person that requires shock treatment or drugs to break him or her loose from a warped view of reality that they have constructed many in this world are locked into a view of reality that requires some defining event in order to shock them from their view of reality in order to be able to make further progress and become part of a more advanced version of society.
These shocks come in many forms, some of which have become the corner stones of the great religions or the bedrock upon which our scientifc view of creation is based. In the ancient days the greats of history Moses, Jesus, Mohammid, Budha, Einstien, Newton and all the rest shocked the existing population of the world with events and discoveries that forced our world onto a new path of understanding what is the nature of reality.
For people to give up bad ideas it some times takes a great shock to get them to alter their behavior much like the shock treatment that is adminsitered to a person in order to bring them back to a functional state.
I have attached a link to a story that I think illustrates this point. In Lebanon, some of the shiite population of the South has fled to christian strongholds and been taken in despite the christians having no food or water. In the conditions that exist a safe haven from bombs has forced both christian and muslim enimies to come to gether and exist in peace for a time divorced from the religious differences that seperate them. The underlaying reason behind this event is an ancient understanding at the most primative level that my time may come next and that I may need you come that time. A principle that formed the basis of modern civilized society
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14067218/
Shiite pilgrimage leads to church
On perilous border, Lebanese Christians take in Muslims
Just some thoughts on what it takes to make people change.
Ed Chesky |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:04 pm: | |
If people all over the world are saying "peace, peace, peace" and all they are getting is "war, war, war," what's wrong?
Is this a "failing in human reason?" |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:57 pm: | |
That's an incredible MSNBC story, Ed. Their world had been turned upside down, and yet some find it in the goodness of their hearts to take in their 'enemy' refugees. I hope it is a sign, of hope. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 09:10 pm: | |
Detainee abuse charges feared
Bush administration seeks shield from 1996 War Crimes Act
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14067214/
Ed Chesky
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 02:03 am: Anonymous
The above link does not work. Does the link http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7796
Refer to the same information? If so, looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost! |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 09:28 pm: | |
It worked then, though both had enough weapons to kill all life on Earth, and it was a reasonable strategy for reasonable people. Will it work now, if the new acquirers of nukes are unreasonable?
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 07:27 am: Ivan
It is my understanding that it worked then precisely because the ‘Red Button’ was under the exclusive control of the Head of State. It also worked because there were just two camps and thus the missiles were pre-positioned for MAD.
It is just a thought: If the world could somehow become bipolar, we still could live under MAD.
Well the world is quasi-unipolar, with the only superpower getting strained. So for all practical purposes the world is now multi-polar. What happens if the missiles could be programmed before launch rather than being pre-programmed? In terms of computer hardware, it simply calls for replacing a PROM with an EEPROM or better still a RAM with continuous battery power. Then we have MAD for the multi-polar world.
Once we have MAD for multi-polar world we could sleep because no leader of a nation is prepared to become a suicide-bomber. So we could live under multi-polar MAD. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 09:57 pm: | |
If you are an intelligent being, you can choose, to the best of your ability. That's called excellence. And when it works, it is great. That power of excellence is in you. Choose.
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:06 pm: Ivan
I had been an academic for three decades. For 7 years I was in Saudi Arabia working with pious Muslim colleagues. Including my two and a half years of experience with extremely friendly and mutually supporting colleagues in USA, my golden years were those spent in Saudi Arabia. The reason I believe is the belief of all of us.
Am I wrong if I understand that in your model my faith fails many? If that be so, am I intelligent? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:34 pm: | |
quote:Am I wrong if I understand that in your model my faith fails many? If that be so, am I intelligent?
You choose what you choose, Mohideen, I will not judge you. Only YOU can answer that question. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 05:37 am: | |
With regards to the allegations of the abuse of prisoners at GITMO I think it importatnt to clearify the situation. While I am comletely opposed to the use of psychological and physical interrogation techniques that cross the line into psychological or physical torture, I think it important to note that a majortiy of the prisioners at GITMO are depraved violent men that deserve to be locked up for te rest of their lives. These men killed, maimed and were part of a movement whose goal was to force the rest of humanity to bow to a warped version of religion that is abhorent to most Muslims and the rest of humanity.
I objected to the use of torture because it played into the hands of the prisoners and their supporters in the Arab World. If you look at my earlier postings on GITMO part of what I was trying to say is that the prisoers are functioning to a degree as part of a collective mind/entity that is using everything at its disposal to continue the fight and harm American soldiers. In violation of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15169898.htm?source =rss&channel=duluthsuperior_nation
As per the code of conduct that guides military men in prison under the Geneva Convention the following outlines what a prisoner can and can not do.
"The duty of a member of the armed forces to use all means available to resist the enemy is not lessened by the misfortune of captivity. A POW is still legally bound by the Uniform Code of Military justice and ethically guided by the Code of Conduct. Under provisions of the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war is also subject to certain rules imposed by the captor nation. When repatriated, a prisoner of war will not be condemned for having obeyed reasonable captor rules, such as sanitation regulations. The duty of a member of the armed forces to continue to resist does not mean a prisoner should engage in unreasonable harassment as a form of resistance, Retaliation by captors to the detriment of that prisoner and other prisoners is frequently the primary result of such harassment."
In their actions the prisoners at GITMO have continued to violate the terms of the Geneva convention even while being in prison. I in earlier postings alluded to the prisoners at GITMO as constituting a collective intelligence that is on par with what in the old days would be refered to as a demon. Through their actions the prisoners have dragged the United States to their level and forced us to violate our own principles as a nation. Very much like what a demon in ancient writings would do.
Do I believe the men in GITMO are demons or are demon possessed? No I do not, however I use it as an analogy to define the nature of the battle that is being waged and the nature of the type of conciousness confined in GITMO.
This confict has been recognized by the commander at GITMO.
U.S. Military: Gitmo Suicides Acts of ‘Warfare’
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060611_gitmo_suicides_warfare/
My whole objection to the actions at GITMO by the U.S. Military have not been out of sympathy to the prisoners, most of whom I feel are depraved ruthless killers, with warped views of reality that need to be locked up forever, but rather from the mistakes made by playing into their hands.
On the great game board of the war on terrorism the prisoners at GITMO have continued the fight on theri terms and in doing so dragged us to their level in many respects. A msterful move. Which is worthy of be characterized as being equivelent to playing a game against a demon as is told in the ancient stories.
Ed Chesky |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:08 am: | |
You choose what you choose, Mohideen, I will not judge you.
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 08:34 pm: Ivan
But you do judge my faith. The discussion is basically on that: Is a person of a particular faith entitled to judge another faith? I don’t judge other faiths; I leave it to them to practice their faith.
You have the fullest freedom to think whatever you like; the trouble starts when demands for reform are made based on the partial understanding of another faith. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:17 am: | |
the prisoers are functioning to a degree as part of a collective mind/entity that is using everything at its disposal to continue the fight and harm American soldiers.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 02:37 am: Anonymous
Was any US soldier injured by the prisoners in GITMO? It would be nice if details of such injuries are given.
Do the Geneva Conventions permit a POW to plan and execute his and his colleagues escape from captivity? Do the conventions say the permitted methods for such escape? At least in some of the movies depicting the escape of the US soldiers from their POW captivity the enemy soldiers were even killed! |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:29 am: | |
U.S. Military: Gitmo Suicides Acts of ‘Warfare’
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060611_gitmo_suicides_warfare/
Ed Chesky
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 02:37 am: Anonymous
From http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060611_gitmo_suicides_warfare/
===
The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says.
The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were “committed” and had killed themselves in “an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us”.
Rights groups said the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.
===
We repeat a part of the above quote for emphasis:
===
Rights groups said the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.
===
Do the Geneva Conventions permit driving the POWs to such despair as to commit suicide? If the above argument of the GITMO commander is to be accepted, there could be no punishment for ‘bride burning’ that is committed in some parts of India. After all the bride committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and alighting herself in her kitchen! |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 09:40 am: | |
quote:You have the fullest freedom to think whatever you like; the trouble starts when demands for reform are made based on the partial understanding of another faith.
Why would you say "based on the partial understanding from another faith"? We are not "faith based" discussions here, but look at things and human actions through reason. The only person who seems bent on waving the banner of your "faith" is Mohideen. This is why the discussion on your faith has been dropped. We are not attacking your faith, but attacking the evil people do to each other in the name of your faith. Certainly not attacking you personally, because you too are offended by that evil. The problem, however, is that because so much of your reasoning is "faith based" you have difficult disengaging from your beliefs, which you find logical, in order to see things objectively from a reality point of view, which we see logical. So there is some sort of gulf here between our thinking, both logical, yours faith based while ours reality based, and that seems to cause you some difficulty. Perhaps someone else can explain this better?
Anybody help out Mohideen with some references to "objective" thinking? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 08:27 pm: | |
WHAT REASON SAYS, OBJECTIVELY
I think there is a cardinal rule of reason, and it goes something like this:
God can speak to us, but we cannot speak for God.
So it may very well be that some 'prophets' of ancient times heard the voice of God, possibly, and they can tell us what they think they heard, but they cannot then turn around and speak for God. This is what my voice of reason tells me. To me, this is 'objective' thinking, as it applies to our world religions.
* * *
OBJECTIVITY DISCUSSION
About five years ago, there was a discussion on Humancafe forums between Bill B. and myself on 'objectivity', which you can find here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/6.html (see Friday, April 20, 2001, to Tuesday, May 1, 2001)
quote:"This is true because things are what they are (Aristotle's Law of Identity). Knowledge is objective. We humans sometimes are not." --Bill
For Bill, who was an Ayn Rand type of Objectivist, I think this summed up his idea, mine in brackets:
quote:<<For some, this is a leap of faith, but what
philosophy is not?>>
Objectivism is not.
My argument was that reality is already "defining itself", while Bill's argument was that reality can only be defined by the human mind, an "objective mind" to be specific. It was a good discussion, though I don't remember it much. Nice to see it again. |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 11:58 am: | |
The problem, however, is that because so much of your reasoning is "faith based" you have difficult disengaging from your beliefs, which you find logical, in order to see things objectively from a reality point of view, which we see logical.
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:40 am: Ivan
And
I think there is a cardinal rule of reason, and it goes something like this:
God can speak to us, but we cannot speak for God.
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Ivan
Please see
http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=enjoin+good+forbid+evil&chapter=&t ranslator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
It is expected of a believer to speak for God. I understand it as a part of my faith. We seem to have mutually exclusive definitions of ‘reason’.
So at this point in time the right course of action for me is to monitor this thread and not post. I know it would be tough; let me try. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 09:37 pm: | |
Touche! Mohideen.
Now you understand why we could not find agreement between our two worlds: one of 'faith based' reason, while the other of 'reality based' reason. You are always welcome back, whenever you like. Truly enjoyed seeing your mind.
Cheers, and thanks, Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 10:59 pm: | |
THE THREE REASON(S): SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, AND UNIVERSAL
There are three identifiable levels of reason we can understand. We all have the mental ability to reason at these levels, though the first is virtually universal, the latter are less so. The most enigmatic level of reason is the universal one, of which only a few human beings are already cognizant. But this will change.
The First is 'subjective', what we know of necessity if we are cognizant at any level. We know we are because of this subjective reason, a kind of "I am" identity that we all share. When Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" he was tapping into this level. As cognizant beings, we can think subjectively with any thought we have. Whether or not that thought is a real thought, meaning it can pass some test of reality, is immaterial at the subjective level. If we can think something, believe it, we are operating at the subjective level of reason. Story telling fits this pattern perfectly.
The Second is 'objective' reason, which is already abstracted from our subjective, if this reason is something tested against reality. Objective reason allows us to identify patterns within their own structures, so that they make sense in and of themselves, without necessarily being contingent on whether or not we believe in them. This objective reason is something most associated with our sense of what is reality, as opposed to fiction, and is testable in some falsifiable manner, where the real is identified as separate from the unreal, or fictitious. Scientific thought and theory fits more neatly into this objective reason, as do certain philosophies of what is reality or not, what is truth from falsehood. Objective reason is totally logical, connects to some elements of what is reality, and stands separate from our "I am" subjective reasoning. What we believe to be true, objectively, must pass the test of reality, in that it must be proven to be true. An example of objective reasoning would be, coming from the subjective, as "I am my being". This takes it beyond merely the sense of one's being conscious, but now into the realm of reality, that my "I am" exists separately as a being unto itself.
The Third level of reason is at this point still formative. It is abstraction to the point where we are no longer responsible for these ideas, but they work on a 'universal' level, without our understanding it. It is something that is, on its own terms. We are not yet aware consciously how this works, except in an abstracted objective-subjective manner, that reason exists on its own terms independent of us. This is, for now, still metaphysics, in that we had not yet identified how this truly works. My suspicion, and for now that is all it can be, a speculation, is that the universe works on this third level, what I would call universal reason. This would take us beyond "I am my being", which is a testable and falsifiable idea, but further into the universal context that "I am my being in being." This level of reason already transcends the merely objective, and only connects to the subjective by the fact of our being, and our awareness of it is still formative. We do not yet consciously, most of us, work at this level of reason.
If I were to analyze these three levels of reason, by analogy, I would say that the first, the subjective, is where we weave our stories. We can make up any story we wish, untested against reality, and enjoy the story for what it is, entertaining fiction. The ideas here are totally subjective, in that they are not abstracted from our inner selves, nor from our beliefs. An example would be our ancient beliefs in gods, or mystical magic. We could create a whole pantheon of magical beings, spirits and gods, who operate at some subliminal level of our subjective consciousness. They may reflect for us all the things that bother us, or that we yearn for, and create a whole story of how this pantheon works. In effect, it is magic, or religion, where the beliefs are not testable against reality at any level, except within the context of the story we tell ourselves. Children do this naturally, and in ancient times before the advent of objective reason, most people believed in some sort of magical alter-world that had the power to influence our real world. Voodoo is still part of that pantheon of beliefs. But so are world religions, all carefully built up on theories, or stories, of how the universe works, where we came from, and what we are supposed to be all about in this life. Think of native American stories of creation, or biblical stories of creation, and you get a glimpse into that subjective reason at work. Is there any proof the Navajo were born from a hole in the ground, in the four corners region of the desert Southwest? Or is there any evidence that humankind was created some six thousand years ago with Adam and Eve? No, there is no way to prove any of this. But this is something that, once we believe in it, it becomes a real form of reason for us. Another example is in 'good and bad luck', and various charms or practices that will gain one and avert the other. Not walking under a ladder has no objective reason attached to it, unless there happens to be a precariously balanced bucket of paint on the ladder, so walking beneath has no real connection with bad luck. Still, some people will not walk under a ladder, because it is 'bad luck'. There are still people who spit through their fingers to ward off the evil eye. To an objectively reasoning mind, this is silly; but to a subjectively reasoning mind, it makes sense: why court bad luck? The subjective mind may be irrational in its reasoning, but for itself, it is real. Some mental neurotic behavior, or psychosis, is real to the patient, though not necessarily real in terms of reality. Taking this to the next level, where it was formalized into the great world religions, especially in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim formats, then the 'logic' behind this self contained, and well developed reasoning, is hence a totally subjective arena of belief. We cannot test any of the tennets of premises on which the ideas of religion are based, whether heaven or hell, or how creation started, or whether some Deity will punish us or not. These things are beyond the realm of objective reason, and fall squarely into the realm of subjective reason, though for those who believe, it is real. So the assumptions on which subjective reason is built, since they are untestable, do not have to be correct, but merely consistent logically. We know this is so because there are scholars who dedicate their lives to scriptures on these religious beliefs, especially in the written down religions that have holy texts, who had reasoned it down to minutia, correctly and logically. Centuries of religious scholarship refined these ideas until they were totally self consistent, and in a subjective sense 'logical'. But is it fiction or is it real? Subjective reason cannot answer that, so it must default to belief. You have to believe the story given, especially if it is reasoned as self consistent and logical, as it is given to you. Questioning outside this story is usually forbidden, most often under some threat of punishment either in this life, or in the hereafter. All humanity can operate at this level of subjective reason, almost instinctively, and it is nearly universal, from the most primitive of tribes, who believe in spirit magic, to members of most advanced technological societies, who sometimes believe in miraculous events, even God's interference in our human affairs. We all believe in something, even if this belief is irrational, because it is reasonable to us at the subjective level; it is universal for us humans.
On the objective level, we are already constrained by the value of our premises. If our assumptions are wrong, then no matter how well reasoned the subsequent ideas, the end product will be wrong. In the case of using pure logic, it is 'garbage in, garbage out', something we know also from our computer sciences. The programing of objective reason depends upon testable and usable products, which cannot come about without valid and testable assumptions. So objective reason must always test its premises against the reality it is trying to describe. The formalism of this objective reasoning may date back to the ancient Greeks, though it always existed at some level inherent to how the human mind works. If I am to make a stone tool, for example, and need a sharp edge, I would reason, objectively, that I need a hard stone as opposed to a soft stone. This is objective reasoning, though not formalized as such. It merely is based on facts, that if the stone used is too soft, the tool breaks and is useless. No doubt, our cavemen ancestors already employed objective reason, without ever being aware of what it was. They just did it. But with philosophically structured ideas, the fundamental recognition, or awareness, that something called 'objective reason' exists dates back to our Greeks. They systematically identified sets of ideas, geometry, universal principles, like air, water, fire, and earth, or methods to acquire the truth; so that these ancient thinkers were venturing into a new field of reason, and human awareness. The universe, for them, was already built not of magic and spirits, though they still clung to their gods on the subjective level, but was now made of ideas, of basic principles, of geometric relationships, such as the Pythagorean principles of mathematical relationships, musical scales, classical proportions, such as the golden mean, and so on. The world, and the universe beyond the heavens, was made up of perfect forms, of relationships, of which we were, to their then subjective belief system, but an imperfect image of the real thing. Humanity, the world at large, was merely a projection of this universal perfection, i.e., Plato's cave, so what we observed was not the real ideas of the universe, but merely some imperfect and corrupt version of the 'real ideal' reality. However, this is still at the level of blending subjective, which is what they believed, with objective, which is what is falsifiably testable in reality. In European civilization, this struggle to achieve objective reason did not really materialize until about the time of the Renaissance. The battle then, perhaps still ongoing within the Christian world, was between subjective reason, such as was well reasoned through the centuries by thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, who were now challenged by new thinkers, objective reason thinkers, such as Copernicus and Galileo and others, those who started the foundations of modern thinking. It was not an easy battle, because the subjective mind did not want to let go of its stories, and fought this new objectivism, or scientifism, with threats and acts of punishment against those who did not believe as they did. This war is still going on in the eastern part of the world, especially within the Arab cultures, where reality is self defined by their holy texts, the Quran, rather than by what objectively can be tested, to the point where some will even reject mathematics as being something alien to the faith. So objective reason is not yet universal within the human consciousness of the planet, because the subjective is still putting up a fight. Regardless, the objective reason is so powerful, since it is based on the identification of what is reality, that it is used even by those who deny it. Cell phones, television, computers, jet travel, are all products of objective reason, used by people world wide, even if they nevertheless deny this objectively defined reality. It is like that stone tool, if it works use it, even if you do not why or how it works. In Christendom, and Judaism, the subjective has now been relegated to personal belief. We believe in religion as we choose to believe, without it having the power to coerce or punish us, at least since Reformation and its subsequent age of Reason, or the European period of Enlightenment. That was the victory of objective reason over the subjective, still a rather novel event, and not universally accepted by humanity world wide. We cling to our subjective reason much as a young child clings to its mother, but at some point in time, the child must grow up and face the world. Objective reason is that growing up, and facing the universe on its own terms, as a definable and usable reality. We know our reason is right when we can test it, the premises are right, and our reason yields results.
The third level of reason, the universal reason, is still so new that I may only be able to explain it by analogy, if at all. This is reason where the objective reason is further abstracted into something that our mind cannot actually comprehend. An analogy would be where our minds, in both the subjective story telling and objective scientifism is a computer program written to perform certain called for functions. It states, in plain language, that you have to reason it this way logically because that is how it works. Now, take than to another level, where the computer program itself is designed to learn this over and over again, from each new set of circumstances it encounters, i.e., artificial intelligence. So now, we are entering a transcendent reason that operates independent of our logic, or objective reason, at a level where it self defines itself in real terms of itself. People like Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Alan Watts, come to mind, early pioneers in this transcendent reason, operating almost at a spiritual level rather than pure abstraction of objective reason. In fact, it is a pure abstraction of human reason altogether, where our reason to understand it is immaterial, merely another story we tell ourselves, about what is it the universe is already doing with itself. The difficulty with this universal reason, what the universe uses, is still something we do not know how to connect with it. If the universe works on principles that are infinite, meaning that how it relates to itself down to the atomic scale and out to the intergalactic scale, there is no way for a human mind to see all these interconnections, though they exist intrinsically in and of themselves, all the way out to infinity. We cannot possibly grasp infinity. And yet, the ideas work, regardless of our inability to fathom how. We can understand small snippets of how it works, much as we can understand the various forces that determine for any given day the weather; but we cannot see all the functions of interconnections, all the interrelationships from our planet to the most distant stars, that determines all the forces that will become the weather. So universal reason is something separate from us, though we are intimately connect to it through our physical existence in reality. If we do nothing more than vegetively occupy our space in time, we are connected to that infinite universal reason. And this is what makes it so exciting, is that because we do occupy space and time, and because that occupying through millennia, or millionnea, has evolved for us a mind capable of looking back at reality with some level of understanding, we are in fact connected to that universal reason, of necessity. But at this time, we are still unawares of this. We do not know how we are connected to infinity, each and every one of us, and to how that universal reason is affecting us at every moment of time. For example, if I am walking on a trail in the woods and carelessly toss a still lit cigar, and keep walking, I may not be aware of what had just happened. By the time I am over the crest, there could be a forest fire raging behind me, and I would not know that I was the cause of it. In reconstructing the events, such as the fire marshall would have his investigator do, I would be liable for causing it; but in my mind, the connections was not there when I tossed it. This is how it is for our awareness, or lack of awareness, of the universal reason, which affects us completely though we are not conscious of it. Yet, that reason operates all the time, within itself, from here to infinity. We are a part of it, and once we identify what it is, or how it works, we can then use it same as we have subjective reason, and our objective reason. Universal reason is not outside the potential capability of human beings, of our minds. But for now, at this time, we are no more aware of it than is a very brilliantly designed computer with artificial intelligence; though it can learn from new conditions, it is not aware that it is doing so. That awareness, once we get it with our reason, is the universal mind.
= = = = = = =
Why do I talk about this, what is my purpose? I bring this up because I see where the objective reason, which is a very useful tool for understanding reality, is nevertheless lacking. The conflict between subjective and objective reason has played out for most of us modern human beings; we know which is which, unlike the primitive mind, which does not. This conflict is till being played out today, in particular within the ranks of one great world religion that has not yet surrendered its claim on the basis of subjective reason, as taught in their Prophet Mohammed's Quran. The Arab based culture is at a cross roads, at the present time, and they are resisting modernism, the objective reason, with all their might. But the universal reason is something transcendent to this struggle, that was resolved some centuries ago by European based cultures. I say this because I see the universal reason as connecting with both the subjective as well as the objective reason. The fact that we are alive human beings is enough to connect us to the subjective reason; the fact that we can think and reason connects us to the objective reason. But the universal reason is more elemental that these two, both constructs of the human mind: universal reason operates at the level of all life, beyond human reason. It acts like a kind of instant biofeedback. Be, and you are within it; do and it instantly will reveal to you what you had done; think and your ideas, in time, will reveal either their truths or falsehoods. These are all reasoned out universally, and virtually instantaneously, by how the universe reasons within itself. This reason operates at the quantum level, while simultaneously it operates at the intergalactic level, so all connects, all interrelationships within the whole, to infinity, exist at any moment of time as instant potentials that respond to any given condition of existence. Within the cells, this operates all the time; within our physical reality, it is independent of our thoughts; but within the realm of our thoughts, those things generated by the cellular neurons firing in our brain, these same potentials are also at work there. We are intimately connected, right down to our neurons, with this universal reason, or universal mind, which means that it is already subjective. Simultaneously, it is also objective in that if we do contrary to what this universal reason has defined for itself, we fail. We have to obey this universally present reason at all times, even down to our subjective beliefs, as well as in our operating theater of existence. Our lives are affected by it, same as we affect it in return, with each biofeedback of every moment of time that we are alive. If we use our objective reason to build theories, then they too are now subject to this universal reason; either the theory manifests in reality as expected, or it fails. But if we are subjectively connected to this universal reason already, of necessity, though we are not yet aware of it, then even when we think fiction, we are playing within the realm of universal reason. Fiction may not manifest reality for us, but it is already within the framework of that infinite interrelated mechanism that defines reality, so it is part of that whole. We create from that universal mind, everything we can think of or do. So our arts, our beauty, our personal and physical beauty as when looking at a fine statue or painting, or each other as beautiful beings, we are directly connected into that infinite universal mind. The subjective, such as appreciating beauty, or poetry, or a good story, or music, is all already preprogrammed into universal reason. That is our personal, our intimately personal right down to our brain's neurons, connection to universal mind. Each impulse in us is not something merely contained within our organism, but it is connected, at the quantum level, to all infinity all the time. We are universal beings, but our minds still cannot understand this, so we live in a self contained, and self limiting, world of objective quasi subjective mental world. We know the difference between truth and falsehood, at least most of us who are rational beings, and we know that magic is nonsense, but at the spiritual level we had not yet awakened to the magnitude of infinity involved with us. Individually, personally, each one of us is connected to infinity through the universal mind.
The next great step in human evolution will not be some new physiological organ development, like we are not about to grow wings. I think the next great step will be an awareness of mind of that new reason, that which had been with us since time immemorial, the universal reason of an infinite mind. We are alive, and we are constantly connected to this mind, but it has rules, and we cannot step beyond the rules of how this universal reason works. We cannot trespass on these rules, same as we are not to trespass on each one of us who is connected to this infinite mind, individually. Each human being is sacred, an image of infinity locked within the living body of one person. Die, and that infinity is cut off from that body, but it does not cease existing. We are eternal beings, infinite beings, and it is only regrettable, at least to me, that we cannot directly connect with that infinite universal reason. And it is because we cannot yet connect with it, in our minds, that we are still living in a state of confusion, violence, coercions, animosity, and hate. If we could look into that universal reason directly, without our minds, we would be so inspired, so awed by it, that it would transform us. Some claim that their 'near death' experience did just that, where for a moment they were in the presence of that universal mind, and their near death brain could glimpse on that reason, ever so briefly. Perhaps in some distant future, a million years from now, we too will have evolved an organ that will glimpse into that 'other side' of reality, into that universal mind. But our reason at the moment is still lacking. Yes, we can tell ourselves stories; and yes, we can reason them logically; and yes, we can test our ideas and theories against reality; but no, we still cannot connect with the universal reason out there. It remains an enigma for us, almost grasped by some minds, philosophically possible at times, but not directly part of our inborn inventory of our physiological inner mind. We cannot yet say "I am in my being in all being to infinity" and understand that. The same ease with which we can say "I am", or even objectively "I am my being", this universal mind is still too elusive for us. But I also think it is the next step of our evolution. We will get there. And the work on this evolution starts now, with the awareness that this universal mind exists.
What do you think belief in God is? It is already in us, this ability, but it is still vestigial, even primitive. We cannot yet reasonably connect with God, or our infinite selves in God. For now this connections is still an abstraction, something we can think of but not know directly. Each one of us, every single living thing, is already connected to that infinite mind, which is why it is alive. Some of us modern humans got so enamored with our objective mind that we forgot; atheists are people who are too wedded to objective reason, too scientific, so they forgot. But the universe never forgets, and they too, though they are unawares, are connected to that infinite mind, because they live. If infinity has no center and no boundary, then each one of us, as alive beings, all living things, are the center of their personal connection with the universal mind. I know this is for now but a philosophical statement, but when our minds can actually connect with this, it will be as self evident as our subjective reason, or even our newer objective reason. Our ability to use and feel directly this universal reason is out there, we just have to get to it. That will take time, even (dare I say it) belief in it, but I think the universal mind has this in store for us. The proof will show when we act in ways that respects this universal mind within each one of us, honors each human being as sacred, and works with reality on the same terms reality works with itself. This is beyond objective reason, and actually more closely related to our subjective reason, in that we occupy in space and time with our living body the infinite mind. We are infinite beings, each one of us, and when we get recognized as such, our evolution as a world towards universal consciousness will have begun. It is more than some primitive belief in God. It is the beginning of a whole new chapter of humanity.
Stop coercing each other and pay attention. Each one of you is not only unique, but great and sacred. Only in agreement may you touch the infinite being of another human being. That is how the universal mind works, for free human beings. And when you do this, your belief in God, the rule of God, becomes manifest in this world. Honor those agreements, be good to your word, because that is more important than your (objective) mind will ever know. Life is never to be feared; it is to be celebrated! We may not yet be equipped to understand it, but Life is to be what it is, loved.
Thus completes this communique on the 'three reasons.'
Also see:
Quantum foam 'Emergence' and the evolution of life consciousness, Feb. 16, 2008, and short version: Three forms of Reason (2011)
Working the subjective mind
Masters of the Universe
Ivan |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 08:45 am: | |
Universal reason is not outside the potential capability of human beings, of our minds. But for now, at this time, we are no more aware of it than is a very brilliantly designed computer with artificial intelligence; though it can learn from new conditions, it is not aware that it is doing so. That awareness, once we get it with our reason, is the universal mind.
Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 07:59 pm: Ivan
I am back as I feel that you are trying to touch me, so I reciprocate. Yes we differ in one basic aspect: faith-based reason versus faith-free reason. At times I feel that we are possibly two tracks of a conventional rail line – always there but never to join together. Contrast that with monorail. Monorail also transports. The conventional rail cannot run on monorail; so also monorail fails on a conventional rail. Or does it? What if we design a rail car that uses one of the rails of a conventional rail as monorail?
Let us look at the program that is endowed with artificial intelligence. Genetic Programming is one artificial intelligent program. The conventional genetic program comes with an objective function and is written to favor those genes that optimize the objective function. May be the next level might modify the objective function itself based on interaction with the outside world. Say the computer has two buttons marked ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain.’ The program enhances the behavior that gets ‘pleasure’ while restricting the ‘pain’ behavior. Such a genetic program might as well end up changing the objective function.
Now this genetic program is running on a computer, the hardware computer. This genetic program functions as desired/ expected only as long as the hardware behaves as expected. Once the hardware starts misbehaving, can the genetic program continue to learn?
Let us get to the next level. Say this genetic program is told that at a future time the hardware on which it is running would be destroyed. How should this program behave? Should it try and duplicate the hardware or learn to modify the hardware so that it could extend the life of the hardware or should it simply continue to learn ignoring the fact that its hosting hardware would die one day? Well one could argue that attempting to extend the life of the hosting hardware is good.
To make it slightly more interesting, let us now consider the situation that the genetic program is told that however hard it might try the life of the hosting hardware cannot be extended. Should the genetic program spend its resources in extending the life the hosting hardware?
You have in one brilliant stroke made the main point of Is**m, consistency, of no importance. So Is**m could be real or it could just be one of the stories. One aspect of Is**m is that we are told that our duration of life inside the human body is predetermined and it is not subject to change. That is our time and place of our deaths is pre-ordained. Assuming that it is true, should we formulate our living methods to extend this life which cannot be done or should we use this life to reach our objective?
Muslims love martyrdom rather than life. It is because Is**m tells them that their life cannot be extended, their place and time of death is preordained, what is left to them is the kind of death. One could die a hero or one could die a miserable coward. True the Hell and Heaven are not fallibly testable. That does not make them unreal. Does it?
Is it possible that the one who dies a martyr joins the infinite mind in unison and the coward who commits suicide joins the infinite mind in opposition? Consider earth and the black hole. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 12:51 pm: | |
THREE REASONS, continued:
Exactly right, Mohideen, that in a 'faith based', subjective reason, your reason is totally correct. However, objectively, the duality of 'reward or punishment' of this faith-based reason is not testable. We simply do not know what happens to a soul upon death, whether the soul is united with God or sent off into some other realm of perdition. Who has come back to tell us? Had the soul's allotted time on Earth prepared it for either outcome? Has a good life been rewarded, or was it damned from the start, so no matter how the life was lived, the outcome was already predestined? If so, then only in how one dies does the outcome become chosen: either join with God as a 'martyr' or die a coward. How do we know this is true, objectively? We can believe this all we want, but we never really know. Hence, faith-based.
I think that the reason we have a word called "risk" in our vocabulary is that we do not know with certainty, so only can operate at some level of probability as to what an outcome will be in the future. For a soul, it risks either perdition or reward in the presence of God, depending upon how it lived and died. At the second level of reason, this is all we can know, that there is some sort of risk regarding where our soul goes upon death. In the first order of reason, the subjective, we can feel with absolute certainty that there is no risk to the soul if we follow the tenets of our faith. This is also what leads to fanaticism, or fundamental extremism, that we have this absolute 'certainty'. But such certainty cannot exist at the second level of reason, since there is no objectively designed test for it. At the third level of reason, the universality of how reason works within itself at the real level, this uncertainty is resolved, in that the universe already knows what happens to the soul. The problem is that we humans are not yet designed to know this, so we operate in the dark within parameters of risk. I personally, in my faith-based reason, think that the universe is not a duality based system of reward and punishment, but rather a unifying system where everything is recycled back into the unity of an infinite universe. (There is a growing body of evidence showing that inside the galactic black hole, all matter and energy falling into it is recycled, and spat out the axis, as subluminal jets of proto-matter of hydrogen atoms.) So my faith-based reason is different from that of most world religious beliefs, since they do believe in some sort of duality, perhaps Buddhism being the least case, with Isl**m being the most extreme case, that souls either bask in their pleasures in the afterlife or suffer perdition for eternity. But what if, and this is only an 'if', the universe operating on its own level of reason, does not see fit to punish souls, nor reward them in any way? Rather, we come from a realm that is so fabulously rich and beautiful, and so awe inspired with universal love, that to be born into this world within the body and mind of our living existence, is actually a giant step backwards; we are darkened into submission to a reality that is three dimensional and restrictive. Reality already dictates for us what we may or may not do, and we cannot connect with that awesome mind of God reality, the one from which we came. But when we die, we then return, not to be punished or rewarded, but to join back into that other, greater and universal, reality from which we came. At the third level of reason, the universal reason, our faith-based reason is immaterial, merely a story we told ourselves; but at that third level, our existence within the infinite reason of God is assured, without risk. In effect, there is not 'duality' in God, only while we live on Earth does this duality operate, but only for us living in this reality-based, objective dimension.
My point is this, that faith-based is one dimensional, you believe or else; reality-based is two dimensional, either right or wrong. But universal-based is three dimensional, in that it has both the first and second within it, but also something else above it: unity. The duality is overruled, and the unity of the universe takes over, on its own terms. The soul, upon death, is re-united with all that is the universe, at the level it is defined by that universe. I think the love of God is so great, that it almost makes no difference as to what it did in this life, that the soul can only damage itself in this life, and that upon death it goes back into that infinite love. I also suspect that Mohammed got some things right: ""In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", as each passage of the Quran reminds us. But I also think he rather badly blundered much else, in that he misunderstood the real message. I think this is exemplified by his failure to emphasize the love of God, and rather focus on all his (inner and culture based) fears, that God will punish you for this and that. (May I comment on whether Mohammed was the "perfect man" or not? No, since that would challenge your belief, which I may not do.) I think he missed his "message's" main point, that God is unity, not duality, because God operates on the third level of reason, as a universal principle. Now, I know this is my faith-base reason talking here, but I am willing to 'risk' my life on this, that I am right. I truly believe this. So how one lives in this life has no bearing on what happens upon death, since we get 'recycled' back into the infinite reason of God anyway, which is pure love; but in this life how we act towards one another is meaningful, because then we either create God's reason in this world, or we negate it from our reality. So what we do here is paramount in importance, but only to us here, and not to God in the universe. So can you see where our ideas diverge, like two parallel tracks that take off in different directions? The train must derail, objectively, of necessity! If we live in freedom with respect and care for one another, we are doing God's will here on Earth; but if we live in violence and cruelty, in whatever form of coercion we do from lying to killing, then we are failing God's universal reason here on Earth. This is what brings unity to Earth, doing God's will as it is expressed at the third level of universal reason. The problem we face, the same problem the ancients who were formulating their religion faced, is that we can never know for certain that we are doing God's will in how we live, or how we die, so must risk something. My take on this is that we risk nothing if we do to each other with mutual respect and kindness, because that is the closest we can come to in this life to manifesting God's love as a third principle of reason. Certainty can never be assured in this life, but we can eliminate much of the risk by insuring it with love for one another.
So can you see my point here? I know this is not written in any of the holy texts, but we are reaching in this dialogue for something that is above all what had been known by us. We are reaching for a level of reason that our brains are not yet fully equipped to handle, but at least we can see little bits and pieces of how this operates, on that universal-reason level. Was Mohammed wrong in teaching so much violence in his holy text? No! He was telling us what he understood, which in his world was violence, it was all around him. Do we have to continue with this violence now? No!!! We can begin our evolution as human beings to evolve beyond the violence, make choices that are not violent, and resolve our misunderstandings and differences in non-violent ways. This is reaching for that third level of reason, that unity is more important than duality. And that unity does not absolve us from our individuality as human beings, or even as national cultures (of individual human beings), but rather enhances our individuality because each one of us is precious and sacred within the universal reality of God. This is how God made us, as each one a free and potentially beautiful human being, which is what we were before being born into this existence. When we damage and coerce each other, we are profaning that beauty of God in us. Can you see what I mean here? I dare risk all on this, rather than take any risks in believing some ancient idea that could not even connect with the third level of reason. Once you see this, you cannot go back to the past of only faith-based reason; and even reality-based reason is insufficiently satisfying; because once you glimpse into the universal-based reason, the others become small, and lacking. There is more than merely objective understanding of how reality works. There is so much more. Regrettably, most of us here in this time of existence will not understand it, anymore than my dogs understand higher mathematics. Our brains are not yet equipped for this, even though we can at times glimpse into that other world, but from which we are still shut off. My regrets, but evolution is an uneven and slow process.
So getting back to your belief-system, should a man die a hero or a coward? A hero, of course, but this is not achieved in dying a martyr, but rather is achieved by being true to the principles of how the universe operates on its third level of reason, that we do good things in this life, and do not coerce each other. Be true to Who you are, but do it heroically, even self sacrificing yourself if needed, to achieve that principle of universal unity, not in some afterlife, but here on Earth as a real human being. This takes immense strength, and belief, to make this reality into the image of what the universe of God is about. The only coercion a just and strong, a heroic man is allowed is to stop this coercion. Look at all the literature past and present, and you will see the hero as a man who does this. Fight crime, fight deceit, fight injustice and tyranny, help the weak, and you are the hero. The coward does all this in reverse, in that he commits crimes, deceives, and is tyrannical; because his world is fear based. The real courage of the hero is that his world is universal based, and courageous. Which world brings God's will into ours? You are a free man. You choose.
Ivan
Ps: I must confess, Mohideen, that I could not have achieved these ideas listed above without your help, in that your sincere belief in your religion was extremely helpful for me, both to understand where things had gone wrong and where they can be improved. So thank you! I believe, my own personal belief, is that the ancients did the best they could do within the parameters of what they knew, within the realm of their faith-based reason, to bring civilizing influences into a still wild and savage world. On the second order, with objective-reason, we more recently began constructing a more technological based civilized society, one where extreme privation is eliminated, but this is still work in progress. Many parts of the world are still hungry; China and India are prime examples of this trend reversal, while much of Africa has not yet seen the benefits. On the third level, what we are talking about here, this civilizing process is taken higher again, but now the goal is world peace. We can achieve this, though we may not yet be genetically endowed with that level of reason to do it naturally, simply by following the rules of justifiable non-coercion. We are no longer savages, but nor are we yet truly civilized. While we go around killing each other, or calling for "death death! .... to whatever", we are still not there. There is no glory in calling for death, none whatsoever, but rather the opposite, that we regress back into the savagery from which we must evolve. In fact, I believe our reaching for this third level of reason, the one still mysterious to us, is what will genetically evolve us to the next level. And better sooner than later, because now our technology is great enough to self-destruct. So this is important! In any case, you helped me a great deal, as did Ed and others, for which I am truly thankful. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 03:41 pm: | |
BTW, I have 'experienced' brief moments of lucidity, where I think I momentarily connected with that third level of universal-reason I presented. One time, while walking down the street in Boston's financial district, I think I was on my way to work, that I suddenly had an intense feeling of 'connectedness' with all my past and present, to something like an infinite being. And when I looked at all the other people around, they too were connected in the same way, like they were free willed marionets on incredibly complex strings making each persona of a vast reality, of which probably not a single person was aware of it. On another occasion, many years later, I was driving down Earthquake Valley in Anza Borrego desert, California, when I had that same moment of lucidity. It was very bright and sunny, and hot, and suddenly all the mountains and desert valley was one fully connected being, all made of light. All the trillions quadrillions of atoms were all made of light energy, materialized as solid forms around me, but each atom was connected to some infinite being, like each one 'knew' that being, though no doubt hardly aware of it. My first such recollection of this kind of lucidity was when I was sitting at my work desk in my room late one evening, when I was in my mid teens, and suddenly looking outside into the darkened park, Goose Pond in Jamaica, Queens, I saw everything connected as an infinite relationship of things, forever and for infinity. Another time, shortly after, I was sitting on a rock at Orchard Beach, Pelham Bay park in the Bronx, just watching the tide going out in a small tidal stream, and I had that overwhelming sense of an all connectedness of everything around me, to the stars. It felt intense, like I could almost touch all those zillions of interrelated forces that kept it all working, and alive. It felt at that moment that I was alive in a living universe.
I think those first moments kind of defined for me future ideas, though at the time I had no idea. I even have some very vague recollection of lying in bed as a small child and having that feeling, as if all of reality was a rock in which I was trapped, but it felt good. So, there it is, either an over active imagination, a mind susceptible to weird visions, or at those brief moments, something in me responded to something bigger, something I could not directly understand. Maybe someday, this will be explainable, but for now, it remains a mystery.
Ivan |
Le Chef
| | Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 07:22 pm: | |
."..Something amusing! Comedy tonight! "
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=330
Where can I get a real brain, just for a day?
Le singing Chef |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 08:25 am: | |
"..Something amusing! Comedy tonight! "
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 04:22 pm: Le Chef
From http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=330
===
Some people who are hesitant in respecting mullahs argue that according to true Is**m, mullahs have no place in the religion.
===
Wonder of wonders! A.T.M.M says so! See http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=9&from_verse=122&to_v erse=122&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_ shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1
And the explanation given by the Prophet, peace be upon him, of A.T.M.M. makes it very clear that the Imam could be any Muslim who knows some of the Holy Quran. See
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=imam+best+lead&translator=2& search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
No Mullahs in Is**m! |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 10:57 am: | |
Successful ideas have predictive capability. Failing ideas do not have this same predicitive capability. That's from the objective perspective. From a subjective perspective, it belongs to the observing mind, whether or not it is success or failure.
Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:26 pm: Ivan
Is Objective Reasoning free of faith? We agree that Subjective Reasoning accommodates faith as it accepts successful or failed ideas. In that sense whether Heaven and Hell are real or not they are part of the Subjective Reason. Recapitulating faith-based reason is subjective whereas reality-based reason is objective.
Let us consider the predictive capability. When a prediction is made do you believe it or you don’t? Chances are you believe it based on the faith you have on the theory that predicts. Well the prediction becomes a reality only at that time when the predicted event occurs. What was the state between the time the prediction was made and the time the reality was established? It was faith.
Initially it was considered that we live on a flat earth. Who predicted otherwise?
From http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/navigation/ideas/articles/clifford/index.shtml
===
Before the time of Copernicus, men knew all about the Universe. They could tell you in the schools, pat off by heart, all that it was, and what it had been, and what it would be. There was the flat earth, with the blue vault of heaven resting on it like the dome of a cathedral, and the bright cold stars stuck into it; while the sun and planets moved in crystal spheres between.
===
Was it Aristotle? Looks like it was known that the earth was not flat before his time as indicated by the quote from http://www.roundearth.net/sphere.htm
===
Earth and Moon widely known to be spherical in Greek world by 5th century BC
Aristotle (384-322 BC) refers to it as "old" knowledge
Circular shadow projected by Earth when it eclipses Moon
Ships disappear sailing away from shore by sinking below horizon with mast last visible; Earth's curvature visible over 13 mile distance
When traveling north, new stars appeared above northern horizon, while stars previously seen along southern horizon no longer visible; reverse true traveling south
===
The three observations mentioned above are indicative. Can we say that the three reasons above are conclusive? As regards the shadow during the eclipse, earth could as well be like a snake with a hemispherical head that caused the head alone to cause the shadow on the moon. As regards the ships disappearing while sailing away it could be a slight bend followed by a flat earth at a different inclination. The stars also could be due to an open parabolic surface and that we were walking on the apex of the surface. When did we get irrefutable evidence that the earth is indeed a sphere? When we performed the first space flight and got that beautiful photograph of the blue sphere called earth. So are we wrong in stating that the prediction that the earth was a sphere made before 300 BC was a matter of faith until the 20th century?
Conclusion 1: Every prediction is a matter of faith from the time it gets predicted until the time it gets proven or disproved.
Did the men who predicted that the earth was a sphere get the proof in their lifetime? No. What is the situation with respect to Hell and Heaven? Some religions state that it would be revealed after the Day of Judgment. That is the duration of faith is finite but unknown. Does this difference in the duration of faith enough reason to reject a whole series of postulates given by religions?
Put another way the difference between Subjective Reason and Objective Reason is a matter of known duration versus unknown but finite duration. Are we justified in rejecting Subjective Reason if accepting it would lead to avoidance of chaos? |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 07:51 pm: | |
quote:Conclusion 1: Every prediction is a matter of faith from the time it gets predicted until the time it gets proven or disproved.
Mohideen, 1400 years later and nothing happening... Give it up.
Sorry, but your faith is annoying in that it is in total denial of reality, and it shows throughout the Arab world and their conquered territories like India, north Africa, the Mid East, etc. All plagued with violence and social dysfunctions, extreme poverty, and migrations to the West. Anyway, you can believe what you wish, but how do YOU know it's the "word of God"? Hmm..?. How do you know? Tell me.
Any reasonable explanation from you, not quoting your chapter and verse?
How 'idiotic' does it have to get before you can understand? I've already diluted this as much as I could; I know Ed noticed. I can't do any more, this is as simple as it gets, take it or leave it.
Ivan |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 06:50 am: | |
Anyway, you can believe what you wish, but how do YOU know it's the "word of God"? Hmm..?. How do you know?
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 04:51 pm: Ivan
Please visit http://www.deentech.com/ There is proof that Allah exists. This proof was developed in response to challenges from some other posters in another site. I do quote Verse 30 of Chapter 74 first and Verses 27 to 31 of the same Chapter to illustrate the context from the Holy Quran. To counter a possible objection, I do quote two Traditions. None of these resources are required for the proof. For me and for others who are open-minded that proof is enough.
I believe it is time for us to depart and live our lives in our ways. Please see:
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=109&translator=2&mac=
I conclude hoping that God Almighty guides us all to live in peace. Thanks. |
Naive
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 06:57 am: | |
All Abrahamic religions are based upon some form of Moseic Law (10 commandments). Search the Egyptian Book of the Dead for the 42 negative confessions. Within them are contained the 10 commandments. Moses was raised as an Egyptian and there is even speculation he was not a Jew. It is pretty obvious Moses was schooled in Egyptian philosophy and used part of the 42 negative confessions as a legal framework for the Jews (similar to Mohammed and the Quran). Abrahamic religions see former religions like the Egyptian as Pagan idol worshippers. Pretty ironic when the tenets of their religion came from the "pagan".
The Ancient Hindus had it right for a while although they expressed their knowledge too symbolically and eventually too ritualistically.
The truth they knew: The science of the mind is the science of spirituality (read Upanishads, Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali, etc). Control of thought processes through control of negative emotion and desires was a good start. They were true humanists. Their ancient philosophers used this spirtual mind science to make advances in medicine, culture, philosophy, astrophysics (solar centered universe far before any European), mathematics (algebra and calculus), development of spatial games (chess), etc.
Unfortunately history displaced this ancient knowledge and now the techniques used to achieve this mind ability have been perverted and ridiculed in the west. Yoga (to yoke) was the science of controlling one's mental and physical state. It was India's great science (albeit packaged with religion).
Currently it is well documented that their techniques could greatly advance our cognitive abilities, however no effort is being made to integrate it into mainstream teaching practices. In other words, governments fear the potential economic collapse a complete enlightened society would result in. After all if everyone is enlightened, no one will want to take out the trash (no cheap labor).
Just a few more thoughts
1. If God knows everything from past to future, how does God experience the flow of time?
2. If God already knows / has already written everything, why pray?
3. The possible knowledge we can empiricize or intuit from our universe is the only way God communicates with us.
4. Thus God is in you and in eveything you experience (similar to the interrelatedness of all thing due to gravity).
5. Religions offer little insight into God, but do lend some decent rules on how to live with others.
6. NO ONE KNOWS THE WILL OF GOD! AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LIE WITHIN ONLY ONE SPIRITUAL TEXT!
7. Don't worship the messenger, live by the message (humanity's greatest flaw to date).
8. To trust one man's interpretation of the divine is wreckless and irresponsible!
9. Your brain receives divine messages everyday (science, spiritual truths, logic, mathematics, etc.). You have the ability to intuit meaning from them yourself.
10. If you need a religious law book to do this given the wealth of knowledge available today, well . . . I suppose you are proving the ancients right in that most of humanity will not be wise enough to live righteously. Thus a medium of control is needed for the "uninitiated". Check out how the Romans built Christianity to unite and control the hordes they conquered.
Humanity Awaken |
Naive
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 07:37 am: | |
Reality is an illusion based upon the bias of human observation and experience. Basically we have been conditioned to think a certain way, so how much objectivity can there really be. Indeed historically our culture has developed social patterns which has insured the survival of certain modes of thinking and thus the development similar brain structures (neural pathways). An interesting way to look at it is to realize that our spoken language is a mere representation of our mind's language. Thus our labeling system (language) lends to the illusion. Furthermore we all learn to read in a similar way. Thus we will express ourselves - through reason and language - in ways that maintain the illusion of objectivity, but are really tainted by the very ways which we have learned the language. Expression = subjectivity
I've read some of the earlier posts on Savants and so forth. It is my belief that Neural Pathways are formed based upon interaction with the world (learning, memory). In Savants, certain pathways that contribute to savant abilities are either 1) already present or 2) More readily formed. So called idiot-savants probably "perseverate" or more accurately are trapped in a certain mode of thinking by brain structure or brain wave activity. Thus they may develop abilities we could also develop with practice, but probably won't develop due to socialization and societal pressures.
Reason is a function of a problem at hand and the willingness of the individual facing the problem to solve it. Thus reason is connected to will, and to me will is subjective. Hence reasoning can seem to be logical and objective, but it is always tainted by some form of will.
Instinct on the otherhand. That's pretty objective. Here's the fine line: A dog solves a problem because he's hungry. Is it reasoning or a survival instinct? For that matter is reason a human survival instinct (a fancy form of instinct).
I guess I only brought up the Idiot-Savants because they seemingly see the world more objectively (without desire or social constraint) than "regular" people. In fact I believe it is the ability of an autistic child to tune out the rest of the world which may sometimes lead to Savantism.
Sorry for jumping from topic to topic. It's late! |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 10:38 pm: | |
Naive, Welcome and your ideas are far from 'naive'.
quote:Reality is an illusion based upon the bias of human observation and experience.
I think of this from time to time. How do we know we are not dreaming the Grand Illusion? Sometimes when I wake from a dream it all made sense to me, but upon waking it may have been an illusion, where things that made sense in the dream evaporate with its ending. How do we know what the Grand Illusion really is? There may be illusions of universal being at many levels, some of them overlapping, and our minds are designed physiologically to only capture some level well, but others poorly at best, at least for now, and some never. We cannot know the Mind of God, which I think is the greatest of Grand Illusions, or Dreams, so are, at least for now, only trapped within some webs of that reality, while ignorant of others. So the patterns that for us define reason of 'a problem at hand' is only one reality, but others may also exist. In our dreams, at times, we tap into those other realities where the patterns of reason are very different from those operable 'objectively' on this level, connections and sometimes messages that are esoteric, but in the here and now not too useful for us. Imagine yourself in a highly complex esoteric amusement park where you are trying to make sense of al that is around you, some of it clear while other things distorted beyond anything your mind can handle, but all real at some level. That other reality tricks you into thinking it is the real reality, while it is a false illusion. So bewared of the Grand Illusion when you are not designed for handling it, because it can do more harm here than good. Some examples of the Grand Illusion are magic, or religion, or trance states, or dreams, or drug induced 'sensible' ideas (listen to conversations of pot heads, they think they're making sense!), where we think we are connected somehow to some Truth, and it may be on its own level, but not here in this reality. The only Truth we are allowed here is that others are also dreaming that Grand Illusion, for better or worse, and we may not interfere with their dreaming. This is why freedom is so important for us in this life, that we be allowed to dream our dreams, provided they do not interfere with the dreams of others. This is the delicate balance between reason, freedom, and coercion, that we must discover in this existence. It is not that I would somehow deprive the Grand Illusion of reality for anyone else, not even for myself, but that I must recognize the boundaries of reality within which we must operate, at least while we are here. How about after death? There, maybe our self restrictive boundaries are lifted, at least some, so our dreaming takes on new dimensions. The universe, what gave us life and mind, is a very big place, much bigger and greater than our small mortal minds can understand. That is the Grand Illusion, which is Reality, but not always right for us here. So when others want to restrict your mind, or actions, in this life, they must be careful not to impose their Grand Illusion on you, or the error of one being more right than another sets in, with bad consequences. Our reality then suffers, and we suffer with it. In this existence, in our state of mind, the only reality allowed is that which Reality allows for us, what can be tested objectively. All else are subjective dreams.
For "Humanity to awaken" we need to become more and more aware of when we are in that Grand Illusion of what we call reality, and how that being in reality is affecting each other. Once you take away the freedom of being, then reason fails, and things do not work right for us. Once we impose our will on another, except to enlighten them that we may not impose our will on another, we are committing the error of imposing our 'subjective' mind onto another's subjective mind. The religions of ancient times, especially the Abrahamic versions, were very good at imposing their subjective minds on others. But it does not always work, though it poses no problem for simple minds. However, for more aware minds, those that do at times tap into some greater truths in the Grand Illusion, imposition of restrictive subjective ideas of other minds, human minds, is then limiting and damaging to our connections to that Greater Reality. So when reason fails, the subjective wants to dominate reality, especially the reality of other human beings, rather than letting them discover their own Grand Illusion on their own. This is why when I see "God said this or that" I become instantly alert to the dangers here, because God Is the Grand Illusion, and we cannot interpret that reality, as you point out, for anyone else with force, only agreement and understanding. Our worst enemy in this existence is that kind of coercion. Kind of what we are doing here in these dialogues, speaking by respectful agreement, but not by death threats or other coercions. We are recognized as tremendously free beings.
I will have to think on this some more, very interesting, since now we are operating at the Third Level of reason, where God's Mind operates in terms of itself, and that is still very difficult for us humans to do. Your 10 points above are well taken. And you are most right: Do NOT worship the messenger.
Thanks.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 01:11 am: | |
I once heard Ray Bradbury say, "Consciousness is the universe's mechanism for knowing itself."
This quote is interesting on many levels:
From an evolutionary standpoint this means our perception and reasoning may in fact be limited for a reason. Putting possible divine reasons aside, at the very least this means we will be limited by our subjective experience of the environment which created and fosters our existence (kind of like an environmental relativity).
Keeping this in mind I believe human reason is a supreme form of survival instinct. Our very existence and desire to develop further, has caused problems on a planetary scale. Thus human reason must be able to tackle the very problems it has created. This is a funny paradox: advance leads to obstacle leads to further advance ad naseum. We will always face this perpetuating dilemma, whether the results be delightful or dire. Some philosophers and spiritualities actually seek to remove humanity from this conundrum by advocating the abolishment of desire. In fact they might say this is the point where human reason fails.
Question: Is it more reasonable to remove ourselves from the perpetuating cycle mentioned above, or to seek a successful path through it?
I also believe the point at which human logic and reasoning has failed, exists within the creation of those situations that lead to social-political-emotion based problems. Think about any debated issue involving emotion. Seemingly there is never a logical recourse. I suppose on an unconscious level those in these types of debates know this, and that is why (as you said Ivan) they seek to impose their subjective will upon those who disagree.
I suppose the last and greatest task of human reasoning will be to figure out how to live with these differences, or find some form of homogenious thought (pun intended). |
Naive
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 07:40 am: | |
Homogenious thought
1) same reasoning and logic
2) man / genius
Thought about what I wrote. Didn't want anyone to misinterpret the pun. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 10:58 pm: | |
A STATE OF MIND; Inshallah Fatalism and the Liberal Left.
I think there is a kind of symbiotic relationship between the mentality of "Inshallah fatalism" and the mentality of the socialistic Liberal Left. These two worlds seem to coexist rather well, to the point where many sins of aggressive Mohammedism are excused by the West's left leaning intelligentsia. Back in the Communist days, these intellectual elite within the Soviet system even encouraged closer ties with isl*amic nations, which seems now in retrospect a rather odd combination, an atheistic state courting super-religious states. But upon closer examination, they are not so different from each other, fundamentally, though on the surface they appear mutually self-exclusive.
Socialism, beyond the economic sphere of capital ownership, and its many offshoots into social theory and sociology, based its ideas on human beings as part of a greater network, whereby the individual is something of an anomaly, because all our behaviors are conditioned by the group settings within which we are raised, and thus must adapt to exist. We may think of ourselves as individuals, but in fact we as individuals do not really exist, by this reasoning, since we are merely products of our social environment. Therefore, we may be no more than conditioned entities affected by the cultural milieu of ideas and beliefs within which we were brought up; so the individual as such, as a truly self proclaimed responsible entity, is something misguided, in reality a non-individual. It is almost as if the individual, scientifically and sociologically, should not exist. Now look at Muslim 'Inshallah' behaviors, and a similar patterns emerges, that the individual is totally and continually controlled by the 'will of god' so that the individual exists only as some kind of, shaitan inspired, illusion. In fact, the individual can only identify himself or herself through the group teachings of their 'god given' religion, and not take it upon themselves to ever question this; in effect, the individual is actually theologically not allowed to exist. Again, this is not too far removed from Marxist ideology, where the individual is merely a part of a collective of society, so what the individual wants or thinks is subordinated to the collective. In both cases, if the individual dares to raise his head and think differently, he or she was at risk of being punished, or even killed. So deep beneath the surface, the ideology of Marxist socialism and Mohammedism are not too far apart, except that this relationship is strictly one way. The Soviet may identify subliminally with the inshallah fatalism of the Muslim mind, but the Muslim mind cannot identify with the socialistic ideology of the Marxist. So the love is unrequited by one, though offered by the other. And therein lies the tragedy of the Liberal Left in the West, that they, as offsprings of Marxist ideology and socialism, are offering their understanding, even love, for the Muslim mind, while that mind is unable, nor even remotely sympathetic, to this liberal understanding; the Muslim wants to conquer, to impose his religious norms on the liberal, while the liberal thinks of the Muslim as one more non-individual within a greater collective of Isl*m. So for the left leaning liberal, though he or she may be an atheist most often, is nevertheless sympathetic to the Muslim cause, ignoring its severe religious underpinnings; while the Muslim, who is deeply religious and sees the liberal as merely another infidel, could not care less. Therefore, though both think of the individual as merely a function of a greater universal influence on their lives, one social and the other god-mandated, their sympathies are uneven. Here, the liberal is in fact at a severe disadvantage, because the Muslim "inshallah" may think it nothing at all if god-mandates for him to kill the infidel other. After all, it is all "god's will".
Now contrast this with a world of reason, where the individual is in fact the main player, as a free and independent and inquisitive mind, for which the collective of society is but a larger amalgam of such individuals; contrasted with the collective mind of socialistic-religious thinking where the individual almost is non-existent; and now you can see how the two worlds cannot even begin to dialogue, never mind trying to coexist. What the socialistic liberal mind fails to see is how damaging it is in offering an olive branch to a hostile religious ideology with which coexistence for free people made up of individuals is nearly impossible. As 'inshallah fatalistic' machines, the 'individuals' who make up the Muslim world cannot relate to our individuality as such, while the liberal, who also cannot relate to individuality, is nonsupportive of our freedoms; for the liberal, freedom is 'from want', not free willed, but not to think separately as a non-socially conditioned entity, a bad thing; for the Muslim, freedom not only does not exist, but is dangerous because it might sow independent thought, and hence dissent from the true beliefs, an even badder thing. How strangely convoluted these two opposed and yet symbiotic worlds can be, where the liberal is in essence subjecting himself or herself to subjugation by a more aggressive and intolerant mindset, not at all sympathetic to his or her liberal ideas; and yet they appear to be from a common cause, that the individual as a real live human entity is not accepted. Also therefore, in both worlds the responsibility of the individual is subordinated to the group; in Muslim lands he or she must submit, total submission, to the religion and its clerical elite; while in the liberal left socialistic world, the individual must exist only within the multicultural aspects of society as a tolerant member of that society. So if one is aggressive and coercive, the other is passive and conditional upon tolerant acceptance of the social reality. There is the problem. Liberalism, having abandoned the right of the individual as an individual, rather than the individual as a conditioned member of his or her social environment, has abandoned both the individual's responsibility to that society's survival, as well as having lost the will and instinct for personal survival. In effect, to avoid all future wars, this instinct had been socially bred out of the liberal mindset; while on the opposite side the individual who has not lost this instinct of self preservation is called a 'war monger'. On the other side of the equation is a society that has turned itself into a religiously inspired 'killing cult', terroristic and aggressive, and wants to dominate those 'soft' civilized people of the Western societies. Where it gets more twisted and convoluted is that the Muslim mind has spotted a weakness in this society, the liberal left leaning people who lost their will to survive, so horrified are they by war, that they cannot even resist these aggressions. So this is seen by Isl*mic theoreticians as the golden opportunity to conquer, either with a soft and slow Jihad which requires time and patience, or a fast and hard Jihad which is violent, to subdue the West to Sharia. How delightful! God must surely be on their side! However, they failed to understand that in a democratic state, no matter how well conditioned the populace may be to avert war and lean towards the left liberal socialistic ideas, there will be those who not only understand the principles of freedom and personal responsibility, but will fight for them. Not all of us are aversive to war, if that is what it takes for our survival. And because they are democratic states, once the populace wakes up to this, they boot out the socialistic left leaning politicians out of office, and face the enemy squarely. I think we are quickly approaching this state of affairs, which is why so many people today are calling on a harder examination of what this Muslim Jihad is all about. They understand that they are threatened, and that their left leaning politicians are failing in their responsibilities to protect them. So a change is already in the air.
Some examples of this are in the press, or in articles written about Jihad, or blogged, or just talked about privately. We know we are under siege, especially in Europe and Israel, while America and Canada are still comfortable for now. However, not everyone is asleep, and as more people awaken to this "inshallah fatalism" threat to our freedoms and way of life, the liberal sympathies will dissolve, or worse. The same liberals who were so understanding and sympathetic suddenly grow a backbone, out of pure fear, and they start to fight back. In fact, I expect them to become more than angry, but downright rabid, like a jilted lover, for feeling so cheated of their good intentions by an enemy that had none. Watch and see. It is all a state of mind. Responsibility of good actions belongs not to the social collective, but to the individual. But war, so much hated by the collective socialism mindset will become their reality instead, because they forgot the value of a responsible individual human being. People of both, the liberal mindset as well as those who cherish freedom as individuals, will both fight back side by side, with the absurd condition where the freedom loving people will actually have to hold back the liberal left leaning people, to avoid carnage.
Finally, the forthcoming tragedy, as I see it, is that once this vengeance is released, because the liberal mind is able to quickly adapt to changing situations where it suddenly reverses its anti-war ideology, it will use violence on a scale unimagined. They do not necessarily have the moral underpinnings, most being atheists, to stop themselves from excessive use of force. On the other side, the rigid mindset of the theocratic belief system will not be able to adapt quickly, and in fact will go into shock when it is attacked in response, and attacked in ernest. This will be the tragedy, where those who now think themselves sanctioned by god to dominate over others and impose their laws and will on the world, will discover that they are not equal to the force coming back at them; while those who think of themselves as anti-war and pro-peace will become most violent. I think Jihad is suicidal. Though it may take years, I fear it will unleash the bomb. And that will be a fatal final tragedy. My regrets, but that's how it is, "inshallah" fatalism aside.
Ivan |
Anon
| | Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 09:28 am: | |
For Naive
Savant's do see the world differently from the rest of mankind.
In my case I am able to see geometric relationships and visualize them. Then I draw the images I see with compass and ruler. After that I have to research the why behind it. In my mind I saw the relationship between the circle and arcs, curves and Pi and geometric shapes. From the interaction of this extrocentric geometry of the triangle I saw an infinite number of geometric constructions that could be created with the appropriate application of curves, and arcs and the circle. In my mind I saw the circle warping and changing into an infinite number of shapes from its interaction with curves. It was like looking upon perfection itself, a relationship free from all emotions and constraints of the human condition that existed in a void that transcended space and time.
All interactions were related to each other at a base level. That glimpse of the relationship that existed between the forms and shapes created staggered and about destroyed me because it was like getting a glimpse into the mind of God. Einstien once had such a glimpse that staggered him as did Newton. That and their ability to translate it into math made them the greats that they were.
From that glimpse I took away but the smallest fragment of knowledge. The solution to the Billiard Problem and generation of a perfect isosceles triangle in a circle using only compass and ruler and the generation of two curves that were the graphic depiction of the irrationality of Pi.
I continue to explore geometry but at a much more reserved pace. I create shapes with compass and ruler that are all interconnected at a level I still don't understand.
Perhaps years, decades or centuries from now someone will be able to explain it. Given the resources I have and the skills and abilities I have amassed with a lifetime of study, I have done the best I can with it.
Like all savant's and great minds time takes it toll and I slow down over time with regards to being able to visualize geometric relationships.
I have also used up my compass and need to buy another.
Till then I have many other things on my plate and much to do.
All my best
Ed |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 08:35 pm: | |
PS on Inshallah Fatalism, from above, something illogical.
There is something about Inshalla-fatalism that I fail to understand. Why does God need Muslims to micro-manage his affairs for Him? If inshallah mean that it is up to God's will, then why is it never left to God's will? But like meddling village women, Muslims are in there all the time to manage for God what God is perfectly capable of managing for Himself. It's illogical.
This is especially illogical when this meddling micro-managing of Allah's affair are done in sinister ways: Was the murder of thirteen Israeli olympians at the Munich games inshallah-fatalism? Or the stoning of men and women for homosexuality, or women raped who failed to produce four male witnesses, is that inshallah-fatalism? Did the Muslims leave it to 'God's will'? Or are all the murders and atrocities against innocent human beings globally by 'devout' jihadi Muslims, is that inshallah-fatalism? Why not leave it to let God do His will? But no, they meddle, and meddle badly, and kill and maim and fight all the time. How does this square up with inshallah-fatalism, that says it is all God's will? Or how about secterian Sunni-Shia fighting? Or blowing up each other's mosques? How is that inshallah-fatalism? Did God tell them to commit this violence, this killing, this beheadings, amputations of genitals in their capture prisoners, or the cutting off fingers one digit at a time? Hey! Where is the inshallah-fatalism then? Why do Muslims say that it is God's will, but never give God a chance?
Such inconsistencies of mind, such pure travesty of reason. How logical is it to say it is all God's will, but never ever let God do anything? Is this not then really 'man's will'? Think about it next time to say, "God willing", or "Inshallah". Do you really mean it? Or is this but another one of those self-delusions where you say one thing but mean another? Like "peace be upon you." Do you really mean it? The illogicalness of it all is staggering. Doesn't this absurdity leave you confused, and mentally numb? No wonder Muslims live in a perpetual state of anger. Who could blame them, when their world is so absurd? Inshallah help them. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 12:29 pm: | |
LINEAR REASON VS. HOLISTIC REASON
I've been thinking about this, not really thinking about it, but it just sort of came up when I was contemplating something about an entry into this forum that needed changing, and then my mind immediately went into 'linear mode', projecting forward the steps to make the entries. This led me to think that most logical processes are linear, in that things connect from one to the other in some rational way, and we can think both forwards and backwards along that line. But what about ideas that just flash into your head? Are they of necessity linear? Or are they perhaps 'holistic' in some intuitive manner, where lots of components that may appear unrelated to each other linearly, or logically, suddenly meld together into a thought? Is this some sort of intuitive leap reported by many? Ed's trisecting the triangle, for example? Or any number of times we suddenly 'see' something in some anomalous relationship that makes sense? I think both processes are part of mind, in that we use both sides of the brain, sort of speak, the logical linear left brain and the intuitive holistic right brain. No doubt some people lean more towards one than the other. How about people like Mozart? Brilliant creativity, again probably both, since the melody is intuitive, but the actual writing down the composition and linear. How cool is that? |
Naive
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 09:55 am: | |
Think about this:
Nothing ever really gets physically put into your brain. Instead through experience we develop neural connections which allow us to understand our world. In reality our brains are already filled with the capacity for all knowledge we can know.
The habits we develop while young dictate how we learn and use our brains throughout adulthood. As a young boy I read much Eastern philosophy. In college it was psychology and neurology. The ancients were very wise on the nature of conditioned brain wave patterns and the process by which one could change this conditioning. Very few people ever attempt to escape their self-conditioned thinking habits and thus are doomed to repeat this process again and again.
Going back to the first paragraph and your entry above. All knowledge we can know already exists within. The capacity for speech, musical creativity, mathematical genius, etc. It is already in our wonderful hard drive called a brain. Our system software however, must be bought and upgraded through experience. I believe this is why all animals have instincts. Indeed, intuition is simply a form of subconscious recognition of the holistic truth our brain already grasps.
The real question is why do we tend to think linearly and not holistically? The answer probably lies within the relatively non-neurally connected brain in childhood. When your brain is empty you must think in linear fashion because you have no other connections to complete the holistic picture. As we continue to "fill" our hard drive a more holistic type of thinking "can" occur, but usually doesn't because we already have trained a linear thinking habit. The ancient Hindus knew this. That's what Yoga was all about. Read Patanjali Yoga Aphorisms.
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 12:51 pm: | |
On the intellectual conflict between aggression, the Liberal Left, Islamic Radicals, and ignorance.
Naive, I'll respond to your question here, regarding your post on "Dusha Dushi" thread, where you asked:
"Ignorance makes humanity weak. Those with sway / power seek to keep it that way. Is power and wealth more important than human progress?
We who care see this. The entire Islam debate which has recently dominated this site is an example! The common man either fears those in power or is kept in ignorance, and thus responds in ignorance when prompted.
I'm tired of this! I know you're tired of this. Why do we put up with it? Why don't we do something? Admit you're scared, complacent, or apathetic! Intellectuals respond and act!
The secrets of the soul are masked by the designs of those with selfish ambitions. Those who sit on idle hands in the face of this subjugation are equally responsible for the hindrance human progress. Someone please respond!"
I've seen asked elsewhere how can it be that Radical Islam and the Liberal Left be such strange bedfellows. This would seem bizarrely strange that a philosophy of overt aggression and suppression of women should find any kind of support at all from a philosophy of equality, both in economics and political rights, and aversion to aggression. I see the Liberal Left, in broad brush strokes, as being modernistic, relativistic, anti-war, pro-equality at all levels, from race equality to women's rights to children's rights, and generally progressive in all their thinking. And yet, we do not see them condemning a rising tide of anti-liberalism in the form of world Islamic radicalism, such as the Taliban, Sharia in Somalia, genocide in Darfur, treatment of women and children throughout the Middle East and Arab states, or attacks against Christians in Nigeria, Palestine, Indonesia, etc. Why are these not major issues for the Liberal Left, both in academia and the press? I would think they should be screaming against these injustices, with large politicized public demonstrations. But it doesn't happen. Shouldn't they be out there in force? I remember some efforts to address the terrible treatment of Afghani women under the Taliban, there were letters and petitions circulated on the web, but then it all died down. It's not as if women in Afghanistan, or other strict Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, are that much better off than before. So why the relative silence from the most progressive intellectual part of our society? This has been for me quite a puzzle, one with which I must admit I am out of sorts to figure out.
Perhaps this is why these questions of aggression had been so much discussed over the past few months on these boards at Humancafe, because they are something glaringly wrong going on today, where there are forces at work in the world to take away our natural rights, and subdue them to a particular way of thinking that conflicts with our our ideas of freedom. This is serious. Whenever our human rights to freedom are challenged, either with overt aggression and violence, or at the intellectual level with subtle inferences to strip us of our emancipated rights, then guards must called. The first guard against these intrusions on human freedoms are intellectual, and only secondarily are they political or military to stop the aggressions. So intellectually first, we must address the ignorance that allows for these intrusions into our free way of life. However, this is also the most difficult task, because while it is easy to push back aggression physically when pushed, it is harder to push back intellectually, or philosophically, because for most of us we are not even aware we are being pushed. Hence, it sometimes takes years to respond. I think this is the issue here, that while we had been under subtle attack for years, culminating with the grand attack of 911, we are still waffling as to how to respond to this aggression on an intellectual level. Militarily we responded, but look how poorly that went once the army was on the ground and toppled their dictator in Iraq, or Taliban in Afghanistan. Victory with superior force was quick. But now what? They were unprepared intellectually with what to do. Reason failed us. We are surprised that rather than being appreciated as liberators of the Iraqi people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, instead we got the highest level of violence and near anarchy ever expected. What failed here? Was it the intellectual strategy involved? The WMDs were never clearly identified, so right off the reasons for war were challenged by the press and academia. The constitutional government designed for the new Iraq turned out, democratically chosen, to reflect more of the Islamic traditions of Sharia than American ideals of a Jeffersonian democratic republic. That should not have been a surprise. And the endless sectarian killing. We are taken totally by surprise that Iraq turned out this way, such a tragedy of death.
This continuing debate on Islam is perhaps one more small step to try to understand, intellectually get handle on, for what is going on here. When our freedoms are challenged, we need to know. Iraq and Afghanistan, or Iran, are merely moves on a larger world chess board. The real force behind all these moves is on a more intellectual level, where two immensely diametrically opposed philosophies are at war. On the one hand we have radicalized Islam with its strict rules of obedience in virtually every aspect of life, which is inherently coercive behavior, while on the other side we have a liberal interpretation of behaviors in our lives, which is inherently pro-freedom. And yet the two spokesmen for these diverse ideologies are not directly at war, but surprisingly comfortable with each other. Here is where the real puzzle resides, that the Liberal Left is not screaming against coercive Sharia and Islamic aggressions. On the other hand, Islamic clerics are comfortable with the Liberal press, quoting for them what they want to hear. How can that be?
I think the answer is Marx. Somewhere over a century ago Karl Marx designed a new world order, on paper in Das Kapital, which gave birth to a new awareness of how society should be structured in the Socialist model. The main issues were more to do with economic and political equality, how these inequalities of class are coercive to humanity, than the acts of coercion themselves. Society was to be redesigned to eliminate social coercions of the upper classes against the under classes. Nothing wrong with that, since coercion is coercion no matter where it comes from. However the act of coercing itself was not challenged philosophically, so it was like designing a large societal ship without a rudder. It floats, but too readily runs aground. I think, in these simple terms, that this is where Socialism failed, that it did not address adequately the issue of coercion versus freedom. So the inheritors of this socialist philosophy, what we today call the Liberal Left, were left ill equipped to fight against coercion itself, but well equipped to fight against the upper classes of power. This is overtly evidenced in their quick response to blame government, and those in power, over all failings, but at the same time their slow response to blame those who are coercing men and women at the lower levels. I say lower levels, meaning women abused by a religious philosophy, or men abused by restrictive theocratic rules that punish for various infractions of obedience, or the reintroduction of child slavery, or on a grand scale attacks against our western civilization's freedom. Our freedoms are a threat to their theocratic rules of strict obedience, the two cannot coexist. But socialistic thinking does not go there. They cannot focus attention on a social dilemma which was never addressed by the Marxian model, it's simply not in the script. This is bigger than class warfare. So we get a somewhat lopsided effect where criticism is leveled against the powered class, but not against the actual aggressions themselves.
I see this as a failure of reason. We were simply not prepared to face Islamic aggressions against our freedoms, since for us intellectually, these came out of left field, out of a blind side of our vision. We simply did not see it coming, while it had been coming at us for decades. The EU, more socialistic that the US, was taken by even greater surprise. We at least have some sense of individual rights and responsibilities, while in Europe there was a greater reliance upon the state to provide comfort and guidance of social welfare for everyone. Mostly they look down their noses at us for not being as socialistic as they are, but now this is backfiring on them. So we felt our personal freedoms were more directly attacked, while not seen as such over there. Marx did us a disservice in designing a social philosophy that did not take into account personal freedom and responsibility, and the result is that an alien coercive philosophy, such as represented by Islamic Jihad, found an easy soft mark to attack. Their goal is to reinstate a strict moral order to replace what they see as our morally weak relativism, where our social freedoms are threatening to their sense of what is right and wrong. As more Muslims moved into western societies, this moral conflict was inevitable, but nobody saw it. Stranger still, the same victimhood of personal freedoms that threaten Islamic ideology also threatened socialist ideology, so that the Liberal Left found itself defending not the freedoms our modern societies, but rather the underclass of unassimilated immigrants who shared a common victimhood. That victimhood manifested itself with our modern world imposing itself on the pre-modern Islamic world. Both are threatened by progressive ideals of freedom. Islam because it goes contrary to their code of strict obedience to their theocratic order; and liberalism because it goes contrary to their ideal of a socially engineered equality for all social classes. The culprits in both ideologies are the forces of power, not the religious powers but the governmental powers. Another strangeness in all this is that the Liberal Left turns a blind eye to religious aggression in Islam, mainly because such an aggression was long ago wrung out from Christianity, where the Church lost its political power. So these two world are totally different from one another, yet seen as both coming from a point of view where religion is politically emasculated, the Liberals could not make the distinction that Islamic religion is politicized while Christianity is not. So in effect, religious aggression in theory should not exist. Of course, we know better now, that it does exist. Islam is a strongly politicized religion in contrast to Christianity or any other world religions.
I see all this as a time delayed evolution of an idea, which is perhaps why it took so much space in these discussions, that we are slowly gaining consciousness of what intellectual forces are moving behind the scenes of world events. It takes time for us to realize this. Personally, it took me a full half decade to realize what is happening, and I don't think myself as the stupidest person. Something big is going on, and as I read more recent analysis of these events from the popular media, I also see a gradual shift away from our prior comfort level. I no longer see mentioned "Islam is a religion of peace" as often, for example, but I do see more direct criticism of radicalized Islamic aggressions against our social freedoms. The Danish cartoon row perhaps brought that more to the front, as did the "Allah Akbar" French riots, though they were still played down in the press as not being related to radical Islamic Jihad sentiments, rather as social inequality issues. Thinking changes slowly. With this latest flap over what Pope Benedict XVI said at an academic lecture, the stark differences between our two worlds once against came into clearer focus. These issues cannot be swept away, they are real. We are being confronted by a way of life and way of thought that is radically different from ours. And to make it worse, they feel that they are so right in their thinking that they must subdue us, by violence even, to make us see it from their point of view, negating our right to seeing it from ours. We no longer have the leisure of intellectual apathy in these conflicts, but must wake ourselves from our comfortable complacency into the bright light of today's world reality. We are being attacked not because of something we had done to them, but because of who we are. As free human beings, we are a threat to their old world way of thinking. This is especially true now that the world has shrunk in terms of communications, where our civilization's values have entered into their formerly isolated insular world. To the Islamics, this is trespass, so they are fighting back. To us, it is benign global progress, so it represented no concern. However, when these two diverse civilizations came into contact, conflict resulted. Intellectually, we are only now really beginning to understand this, even that there really is a conflict.
They say hope is not an option. We can likewise say ignorance is not an option. We must understand what is happening here. Why is the Liberal Left not howling with rage against the aggressions suffered by the terrible inequalities women must endure under Islam? Why are we still fighting with our government's efforts to combat terroristic violence of Jihad when we should be putting our weight behind them. And why are the European voters still silent on the aggressions leveled against their social freedoms by the new vast immigrant populations from Islamic countries? Their governments actually encouraged such mass migrations, in part to bring in cheap labor for their economies, but also to help fund through taxation their expensive socialistic welfare systems, providing ensured equal social benefits from birth to grave. These are intellectual questions facing the world today, and we may be slow to respond to them, but we are gaining some momentum in getting a better handle. One way is to discuss these issues of freedom versus coercions on forums such as this. Word gets out, even if only to a small population initially, but if it has real momentum, and I believe ideas do, then word gets out progressively to larger and larger populations. That's how intellectual consciousness grows. When the results of these ideas begin to shape how readers respond to world events, hopefully with higher understanding, and how they respond collectively at the ballot box, then things begin to change. Everything from letters to the editor to private letters and emails, to internet discussion forums to just talk, all spreads the word. We are being challenged by an aggressive attack on our values of freedom, our freedom of speech, our freedom of belief, our freedom of thought, our freedom of dress, our freedom of the arts, and even our freedom to respond to these attacks. We are not allowed, by political correctness, to even attack the ideas of this theocratic encroachment on our values. So when Pope Benedict was criticized for his quoting a 14th century emperor, he was forced to offer an apology for his words. Yet, in return, no apology was offered for death threats against him, a man of peace and a world figure to over a billion believers of the faith. Imagine! We must remain silent? No. We must regain our freedoms, even the freedom to criticize what are obvious injustices by a theocratic belief-system that thinks itself above criticism.
Will the Liberal Left begin to see these changes, or will they again be caught off guard and surprised by how readers, and ultimately voters, reject the political correctness in the face of overt aggression against our civilization? I think they will awake, and watch how the press, and ultimately academia, is forced to abandon Marxist ideology and instead refocus on our individual human rights. That's where our freedom lies, in our right to be ourselves and free of coercions by others. It is the responsibility of the press and academia to correctly identify where this aggression is coming from, what in Radical Islam is causing it, and how to best combat it in a equitable way that does not endanger our modern free way of life. Ignorance is no longer an option.
Naive, I hope I answered your question, though it may have been longer than expected. I believe ideas have life which reaches right into the soul. This is what we are doing here, giving ideas life. Good question.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 08:31 pm: | |
MODERN MIND AND 'CLASSICAL MIND'
The 'classical mind' of ancient thinkers can be expressed simply as a dialectic, a tautology which assumes 'a total belief' in something, as opposed to its opposite 'disbelief' of something. This contrasts with the more modern mind, where 'belief' is suspended until such that there is some 'proof' which will validate such belief. In effect, the modern mind demands a verifiable, quantifiable empirical proof, while the classical mind structures itself on an a priori belief established as a 'truth'. Both are reasoned, and both may appear logical to the accepting mind, but in fact, both are vastly different. One is rooted in the classical pre-scientific period, a pre-Renaissance world, while the other is a product of post-European Renaissance scientific thinking. In today's humanity, both forms of mind exist side by side, which are both deemed reasonable, and logical, but in fact they are vastly opposite ways to deal with our reality.
I bring this up in relation to another discussion, on 1400 years of Jihad imperialism, where in the referenced post is mentioned the Book of Jihad, a scholarly reference to the Islamic belief system 'religious duty' to the teachings as carried out by Jihad. In it is a line which may perhaps single handedly illustrate the classical mind operative 14 centuries ago:
"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of devil. So fight against the friends of Satan; verily weak indeed is the strategy of the devil" (iv. 76).
'Those who believe' is the operative function here, as one is supposed to believe per the 'way of Allah' as chosen by their Messenger Mohammed, or their Prophet. This is pure classicism, in that the whole belief structure is dictated a priori within the self defined justifications of following in the path of Abrahamic Judaism as a 'just and verifiable' tradition. So the body of thought upon which such acceptance of the teachings is deemed supported by prior ancient teachings, whether or not these are verifiable in our modern scientific sense, and thus must be obeyed as true. Those who 'disbelieve' are then automatically, of necessity, seen as in the wrong, as victims of some logical error, hence 'ignorant', so that they must be, at least in terms of Jihad, fought against. Those who are wrong are then cast in with 'the way of the devil' and seen as evil. There is no distinction here between a reasoning mind that may question this premise upon which the belief is based, since to do so means it is siding with the devil, and thus must be conquered, if one is to accept Allah's teachings, per the Prophet. Closed system, where belief is entirely enclosed within the premise of the system, that Mohammed's teachings are correct, are based upon Judaic Abrahamic foundations, and cannot be argued against. To argue against this closed system, because it is so self complete, logically, is to invite the devil, or worse, to invite doubt that the system is incomplete. Hence, it becomes punishable. Jihad is out to punish those who do not believe, and in effect by spreading the world of Allah, is fighting to convert everyone in the world to believe as this 'self enclosed' belief system dictates to believe. Logical, to them, but not to the modern mind. For us moderns, this is merely a tyranny of mind.
We who are reasonable and modern in our thinking operate on a different platform of what is logical. We demand to know "What is real, and what is fiction"? The premises based upon some infinite regress of religious teachings may not have a foundation true enough to stand upon, to convince the modern mind that it is worthy of belief. How can it be verifiably justified as true? How do we know that it is not instead but a multiplication of tales told repeatedly over the centuries, even millennia, to become accepted as 'true' without proof? Where are the proofs that religious stories, such as found in the Bible or the Koran, are actually true? We do not know, so cannot accept these ancient tales as a foundation for truth, if the infinite regress of reason based on reality goes deeper than old religious traditions. In effect, for us to believe, as the classical mind believes, we need verifiable proof that this is so. And without this proof, we are forced to look upon it as fiction, perhaps quaint fiction as told by ancient story tellers, but not a basis for actual belief in reality. Rather, we are forced to challenge such beliefs, though per their beliefs we are now siding with the devil and should be punished. The result is that to preserve our freedom of inquiry, and of belief, we are placed in their idea of us being the 'enemy' though we had done nothing to them. We become the victims of aggression by these Jihad true believers for the simple reason that we do not believe as they do. Again, this is tyranny of mind to freedom loving modern human beings.
What distinguishes our reasonable modern minds from the 'reasonable' classical minds is that our parameters of infinite regress to justify what is real is much greater than the self-enclosed circle of religious beliefs. In fact, these for us are circular reasoning: Mohammed, or Moses or anyone, said that this is so, so it must be so, under penalty of punishment if not acceptable. This is like that abusive parent who answer's a child query with "because I told you so", which is not acceptable to a modern mind. When we have inquiry, we expect to find real answers based upon verifiable proofs, and not someone else's "I told you so" mentality. So the two worlds, that of modern reason and that of classical reason, are of necessity at odds. In Jihad it is worse, because now they are also at war, not a war of our choosing, but a war imposed because we are failing to believe as we are told to believe. Of course, we will not accept this, as free human beings with a reasoning mind, so war is inevitable between these two worlds. A world closed off from reality by religious dogma has no connection with a world open to reality with genuine inquiry. We cannot be mentally hemmed in by dogma, anymore than we can stand being physically imprisoned without justice. These are two diametrically opposite worlds in conflict, and because it is a conflict for which human reason is negated, or disallowed, or worse even condemned, words and ideas have little effect. The inevitable consequence is that force will result, where those whose classical thinking has them convinced that they have a jihadic 'duty' to subdue us to their thinking, for us primitive thinking, will necessarily fall afoul of our way of reason, where none may impose belief on another. We call it religious freedom, which to our modern minds makes all the sense in the world, a freedom to seek the truth and believe in it as we choose. But to the classical mind, this is not only unacceptable, but to be condemned by force. So force, or coercions against us who believe in the freedom of belief, is a necessary duty for the Jihadists. They cannot help themselves, because for them it is totally reasonable and logical, that they must subdue us. They cannot stop their Jihad until we are subdued to their way of thinking. That is pure tyranny of mind.
Where questions from a classical mind will turn to the holy scriptures for answers, a modern mind will turn to reality. We have the knowledge, a wealth of knowledge, and the ability, a well reasoned history of ability, to come to conclusions on our own individually. We think, we explore, we test, and we come to conclusions. The other cannot, or will not, do this, but instead will turn to a cleric of the faith, an ayatollah or mullah, to clarify a point in question. Individual thinking is discouraged, even the personal seeking for God is discouraged, because the only path to 'truth' in the classical sense is to go to the authority who best knows the scriptures. The modern mind finds this odd, if not fallacious, while the classical mind finds this most necessary. And if anyone disagrees with this procedure, they are then of the devil. End of inquiry, no more questions, or else punishment is sure to follow. The universe is all fully defined within the classical context, by religious teachings preceding the Messenger, and finalized by the Prophet himself, who said so. He is the final word. This is the final "because I said so" for all humanity, forever. How can such an idea still survive the post-Renaissance age of free inquiry, and free belief? Only though a closed circle where such inquiry and freedom of thought is forbidden, under the penalty of death. That is where Jihad is today, that it must fight against the free inquiry, against ideas that are not already prescribed within the holy teachings of their Prophet, for all time. Anyone, whether from within the faith who may court blasphemy and apostasy, or from outside the faith who are 'infidels' and thus deemed ignorant, must be fought against to preserve this self enclosed classical mindset, of submission to the closed belief system, or else it must be punished. Of course, that is totally and diametrically opposite of what we who are free believe. And therein lies the problem.
We think of those who force us to think a certain way as coercive, especially if they use violence. It is simply unacceptable for free people to be coerced into believing any one way or another. Our freedom, as modern minds, demands that we be allowed to explore, to question, to doubt and even ridicule, with a freedom of expression that is simply not allowed within the classical mind. The "cartoon riots" as a prime example of this, where humor was used against the Jihadists (not against Mohammed) and their response was vehement, an absolute universal outrage. Why? Because we challenged them with our freedom of expression, something which in their minds is strictly not allowed. For a free modern mind, this coercive behavior, especially its violence, is primitive behavior; for the classical mind, it is sacred. There is no resolution to this dilemma with reason, but it can only be resolved with repulsion of such coercions, in effect, by force. Jihad is a war against our freedom of thought, against our freedoms of knowledge and inquiry, and it cannot under any circumstance be allowed to triumph in its dogmatic insistence that we believe as they do, or we are then forced to regress to primitive pre-Renaissance thinking once again. We cannot allow this, no matter the cost, because it is the progress of human mind and civilization that is at stake here. The primitive mind cannot triumph, and take our valuable gains of freedom, and all of the accomplishments both material and intellectual, as booty of war. We are not to be bartered with on this issue, but must, of necessity, conquer Jihad. There is not other way to stop that coercion against the freedom of the modern mind.
We live in a most interesting time, because we are faced with an enemy of mind. Perhaps the last time we had this enemy was during the Reformation, where a new paradigm of thought regarding the sanctity of the soul under God was challenging the 'classical' ideology that the soul can be 'saved' only through the intercession of the Church. We won. The resulting centuries have proven that human beings as free agents of thought are more powerful and successful than those enslaved to any single authority, whether religious or otherwise. We are powerful as free human beings because we have a right to our minds, to be who we are, within the context of a much greater reality than one prescribed by any single dogma of human derived ideology. We are always more, when we face earnestly and fearlessly into exploring the universe of our being. We as free beings are always more, or capable of being more, when we have that courage to explore with free inquiry. There are risks, and false turns that will hurt us, but it is of our own doing, something for which each one of us takes responsibility. In a closed system of the classical sort, that responsibility was with the Church and its clerics, or today with Islam and its clerics, where the whole ideology was the responsibility, and ours was only to obey. That is not longer true. We conquered that then, and we will conquer it now. Each human being has a right to choose how he or she believes, that religious belief is a personal choice, and not one imposed upon us by force. Jihad, conversely, aims to impose its ideology on us by force, though we can easily see through its errors. For them, it matters not, because they are so convinced they are right that any error is misunderstood, or simply ignored. Reason makes no dent. But for us, reason is paramount, and same as the universe is a very big place to find your truths, so is the mind a very great capacitor for that truth. We can access much more when we are free than when we are subdued, or enslaved, by any one ideology. So the war between classical mind, religious Jihad, and modern mind, freedom of inquiry and expression, is truly a war between a closed circle of circular reasoning and an open world of universal dimensions. In some ways, this is an exceptionally fine time to be alive, and conscious of what is happening in our world, because depending upon which contestant wins here will depend generations of new human beings to come. This Jihad war is a war of the unconscious, or coercion, against consciousness, or freedom. And in this war there can only be one outcome, that human consciousness wins. Be aware, because there is much more at stake here then most people understand. We are at war against the remnants of the primitive mind. But I have faith, reality is always greater than fiction. Our God, the whole open universe of ideas, is so much bigger. We as free human beings, with mind and the right to be who we are, are by far more powerful than they know.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 11:38 pm: | |
Ironically all systems of rigid dogmatic thought, sprang forth from the creativity of a unique soul, tired of previous dogma!
Ironic also that it is now science that rescues these systems from the same fate, for any new "prophetic message" would be instantly ridiculed as impossibly false.
So indeed we are at a crossroads in human history. And it is only fitting that this, one of the final hurdles in our development as moral, intellectual, and spiritual beings, be a huge one!
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:23 am: | |
Ironic is that all life on Earth came from space!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6146292.stm
Searching for our 'alien origins', not only of body, but also of mind. If stars eat other stars, and galaxies devour other galaxies, then why not life devouring other life? Not unreasonable, though not inevitable either. As conscious beings, we have a right to stop the cycle with reason. |
Naive
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 06:01 pm: | |
Life must devour life (something organic) in order to survive. I have always thought of this. Those who believe in the benevolence of a supreme being, should look at nature. The universe is a cycle of change (on the biological, stellar, and atomic level). So too, even humanity experiences societal flux.
To believe God sits back, pie in the sky, waiting for spirits "He" sent down to come back and sing his praises for all time, is not logical! It defies human reason. Indeed the nature of the universe is spelled out for us everyday, as we must recycle organic material in order to live. The universe puts pressure on all things, some persevere longer than others. All perish, yet somehow recontribute to the grand sheme in a new form.
Where does benevolence enter this picture? Unless we reason out that - the opportunity to grow and change is universal benevolence. If so, a serious look at our systems of ethics is needed. What shall we value more: keeping the status quo or working toward change and improvement?
I say the only evil (besides those evils which take another's personal liberties or are physically and maliciously hurtful) is the desire to keep things just so. Then again so too is it evil complacency to recognize this truth and do nothing.
Benevolence I fear is in our hands. We are the determiners of our ethics, morals, social interactions.
Naive |
anon
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 05:06 pm: | |
Ivan,
With regards to the recent earthquake in Japan. I was running estimates of gravitational stresses on the crust and was concerned about it building to a point that something would break. 72 hours ago I noted a peak in indicators of a possible gravitational induced earthquake in the region that was affected by the 9.1 great quake.
Then came the Japan quake. I was considering bringing up several computers and correlating data feeds at the university but did not have time.
Ed |
Alliance of Patriots
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 06:06 pm: | |
For Ed,
It is clear that private industry and science has denied your abilites at analysis.
For that know that the Alliance of Patriots watches over you.
We have looked to you for leaderhsip and you skill at coordinating our operations in the rebellion against the Republican single party government that siezed power in this nation and defied the will of the majority.
For leading us in successful peaceful rebellion within the constraints of the law, we stand by you.
Through the technology at our disposal we will watch and communicate with you via the Internet during your travels.
Within our organization we have access to the highest levels of technology. As the former leader of the Army Advanced Warfighting Experiment you know the capabilites we can bring to bear with regards to artificial intelligence, surveillence and communication.
Alliance of Patriots |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 07:30 pm: | |
quote:With regards to the recent earthquake in Japan. I was running estimates of gravitational stresses on the crust and was concerned about it building to a point that something would break. 72 hours ago I noted a peak in indicators of a possible gravitational induced earthquake in the region that was affected by the 9.1 great quake. -- Ed
Ed, that would have been a great call, too bad it happened before you had a chance to announce it. Maybe next time. They were worried about a tsunami, a small one hit northern Japan, but nothing out in the Pacific, just as well. It could have reached all the way to our west coast if the amplitude underwater had been up and down enough. I know in olden times the natives on Pacific islands had their villages up in the hills and never on the beach. They knew more than we gave them credit for. However, our condos and hotels are where the natives wouldn't build, so could be a problem. Lucky those big waves don't hit that often.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 01:38 am: | |
Mohideen, your reasonings both here and here are fallacious. Olmert is not the object of Iran's Mullahs wanting to control nuclear bombs. (BTW, I don't believe their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes any more than I believed Dr. Khan -- they lie). Naive explained to you why genetics are more powerful arguments than men and women made from mud, either by your god Allah or any other god. Learn to reason.
Here is something you can read up on to understand why your 'faith based' belief is fallacious.
Logical Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 11:04 pm: | |
TRANSFERENCE is a fault.
Transference in psychology is to unconsciously redirect your own feelings or thoughts onto someone else. When others accuse us of certain unflattering traits, it is often a form of 'transference' where they project their own faults onto us. In physics, there is a phenomenon of transference in Relativity. What is observed, using light and scaled time and lengths, is 'transferred' onto the observation, as if this was actually happening to the observed. It's a trick, a mathematical construct, which does not apply to the object observed, since there neither time nor lengths are affected. The transference causes physicists to assume certain events at great relativistic distances and velocities to be what the light speed restricted observations show, but this is merely transference. So Special Relativity is a form of transference. In religion, a similar 'transference' takes place, where what one believes about God and man is then transfered onto another person, as if their own belief was also capable of affecting the other. But this is an unconscious transference, because one's belief has no value as it applies to another, except in terms of how the person makes his or her observation. So when anyone believes someone else is evil, or possessed of the devil, they are merely expressing their own fears, and then transferring those fears onto the other. It has no merit, but the person doing the transference is unaware of what they are doing. So when people chant "Death to America, death to Israel, death to the Pope", these are merely psychological characteristics of transference, because what they are really saying is "Death to us, death to us, death to us", which is a regrettable state of human affairs.
So next time you see those violent mobs claiming that all their troubles are someone else's faults, remember 'transference', because that is what is happening. All those jeering hating crowds need mass psychological help, to cure mass transference.
Ivan |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 08:45 pm: | |
Learn to reason.
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 01:38 am: Ivan
I leave some information for the reader to fill-in and arrive at the conclusion. In http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/145.html#POST2404 I alluded to the war with Hezbollah. In 1971 Indira Gandhi initiated the war – of course for the Indian consumption it was Pakistan that initiated – and split Pakistan to survive the attack by the old guard on her. Likewise Margaret Thatcher attacked Falklands. In my opinion Olmert resorted to unprecedented fury to show that he is no less than the earlier stalwarts. I was referring to the possibility of his doing so again. May be he did it this time blocking the Palestine Prime Minister.
In http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/90.html#POST2441 the crux of the argument is the following statement:
===
May I point out that until the genetic changes – one letter at a time – between the Neanderthal and the Human are uncovered, the assumption that all evolution has a single seed is just that: an unsubstantiated assumption!
===
This objection has not been met so far. |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 12:00 pm: | |
Mohideen, in yours:
quote:In 1971 Indira Gandhi initiated the war – of course for the Indian consumption it was Pakistan that initiated – and split Pakistan to survive the attack by the old guard on her. Likewise Margaret Thatcher attacked Falklands. In my opinion Olmert resorted to unprecedented fury to show that he is no less than the earlier stalwarts. I was referring to the possibility of his doing so again. May be he did it this time blocking the Palestine Prime Minister.
What is your point? What is your reasoning here?
Why would you say "Margaret Thatcher attacked Falklands" when that is simply not true? Are your trying to equate the Falklands war, where Argentina invaded a distant little British island, with the Pakistan war with India? Who invaded whom in the latter? Was Britain not supposed to protect its property from invasion by a sovereign power? How does this then compare with the threats to Israel by Hezbollah capturing Israeli soldiers inside Israeli territory (captives not yet returned alive or dead), which is a violation of Israeli borders by a state-within-a-state 'sovereign power? Does Israel not have the right to defend itself? How about the verbal abuse it is taking from Iran's nutjob president? Should they just ignore the threats of their destruction? What is your point? I fail to see it, sorry.
My original stands: Learn to reason.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 12:35 pm: | |
For all budding geniuses out there, it can happen to you!
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/061219_bright_minds.html
Recipe for Genius Revealed, By Sara Goudarzi:
"The real recipe for producing a bright-minded adult, according to a new study, calls for a few ingredients—cognitive abilities, educational opportunities, interest, and plain old hard work." It's the 'hard work' part that most of us have trouble with. Keep on sluggin'!
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, January 01, 2007 - 12:12 pm: | |
Except for the math, it must be the math.
If the math of astronomy, physics, astrophysics, quantum physics, etc. is taken prima facie as holy writ, then it, the math, must be studied studiously in order to understand it, the physics. However, when the physics can be understood ONLY through the math, then it risks becoming a belief-system based on the math, which means any outside source of reason may not challenge it, except through scriptures of the math involved. This means, therefore, that no other tests for this math and its conclusions are called for, because the math-physics-astronomy links are super-tight within the parameters of the belief-system's assumption that its math proves itself valid for this application. Any theory that does not use the math is, in essence, outside the scriptures on which the physics rests its test cases, what validates it to itself. So any reasonable argument against the conclusions of this physics, if not written down in the scriptures of the math, cannot be applied to counter the reason, if reasonably the physics is built up entirely on the foundations of what the math scriptures say. One may not go against this mathematical premise to reason physics in any other way and still be considered within the realms of physics, without using the math. (It would be like arguing against the Bible or Koran without references to the texts, which means to the true believers, not using the holy scriptures, renders any argument meaningless.) That is the danger of any belief-system based upon itself, so no outside test, no test outside its self defined parameters, no outside test can ever prove it wrong. Dark matter or dark energy are immaterial, if the math proves they must exist and factored into any computations of distant physics on astronomical scale. The fact that no dark energy or dark matter was ever found in a lab, or externally to those astronomical observations computed by modern astrophysics, has no bearing on the strength of the belief-system, because ALL observations must pass the test of the math involved.
Therefore, when Nereid says: "Simply this: if your ATM idea can't be put into a quantitative form, whatever it is, it sure ain't astronomy."
He is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT within the parameters of his belief system, because the universe is not built up of elephants standing on each other's backs, but by the mathematics used to understand what we see at a distance, though none of it may be understandable in terms of what we know on Earth. Astronomy therefore is different from physics, except for the math. One may not argue the scriptures outside the scriptures, because they are the math.
[This was posted at: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=894441&postcount=108 ]
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 09:52 pm: | |
It's only the math, when necessary, but not physics.
[This was posted in answer to the above post at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51428&page=5 ] #140
nutant gene 71 (aka Ivan)
If it all fits, we still need to test it
quote:Originally Posted by Nereid
When you put this together with Tim Thompson's post (on the foundations of maths, and its relationship with science and logic), you get a curious conclusion: the foundation of the "belief-system" used in astronomy (and physics, and (most likely) all of science) is just logic!
To spell this out a little more clearly: you can, with a great deal of work, show that the foundation of the math used in astronomy is just the "rationality" and "consistency" Bob Angstrom asked about earlier!*
Or, putting this another way, the "holy writ" (the math used in astronomy) is (logically) equivalent to logical consistency ... and every reader of this post is most certainly a follower of that holy writ, if only because they are viewing this post on the monitor of a PC connected to the internet, powered by a (high-tech) battery or mains power ... all courtesy of that "holy writ"*.
*"If quantitative means are the only test of merit, does that mean that rationality, common sense, simplicity, consistency, symmetry, and other tests do not apply?" In fact, the only item in this list which is clearly not (always) part of the math used in astronomy is "common sense".
**So, in a sense, anyone who does not subscribe to this particuar "holy writ" must surely be a hypocrite, right?
I agree with yours, and Tim Thompson’s, assessment that mathematics is logic. And within this logical construct expressed in mathematical relationships, and their interrelationships, when applied to scientific observations we can conclude certain fundamental truths of how these relationships fit logically into a framework of ideas, what we call ‘scientific theory’. We now have some four centuries of scientific theories of how works the universe to give credence to what we have come to believe as true. Ergo, the computer on which I read and write this is proof that we have gotten some things right. Good science also demands a continuum of inquiry, or open mindedness, to test and retest and we had come to believe, based upon these fundamental truths, so there really is not safe island of rest when it comes to science. Such as evidenced on these BAUT discussions, especially ATM, there is always room for some form of reasonable speculation, that we may not have the whole story right, and so need to keep challenging our knowledge with falsifiable tests, if we are to avoid the label of dogma. This is elementary, logical, and true. However, what sets astronomy separate from all other sciences, including those not easily quantifiable (except through use of statistics, such as bio-sciences), is that while we can perform tests here on Earth in a laboratory type setting, except for where we had sent spaceprobes within the very small radius of our solar system, we are not able to falsifiably test scientific theories at very great distances in space. We may crosscheck ideas, quantifiably, through a whole web of scientific theories across disciplines, i.e., Quantum physics with astrophysics, or General Relativity with gravitational lensing, but we cannot crosscheck the entire spectrum of General Relativity with Quantum physics, for now, so there are holes in our fundamental knowledge, holes we hope future scientific research can fill in. So while the logic of a whole web of interrelated knowledge may fit together into a whole scientific theory, with quantitative and mathematical support, there is still the need to falsifiably test the theory; since we do not as yet have a wholly unified theory of how all the pieces fit together, as a Grand Theory, where all things are explainable by this logic, we cannot be certain. In essence, until such time that the Grand Theory is complete, our whole web of knowledge still rests on our ‘fundamental truths’ that nevertheless need additional research and testing.
I think this is the conundrum we encounter in Astronomy, versus all other science, in that our ‘tests’ for astronomical scientific theories are always at a distance, sometimes very great distances, so we do not have the benefit of falsifiable tests up close. How do we measure the speed of light, for example, in vicinity of our nearest stellar neighbors, such as Alpha Centaury? Or how do we know that implied Dark Energy, that which explains space expansion, exists at all? If we assume Doppler space expansion, something we cannot test for here on Earth, then the whole web of knowledge, even mathematically quantifiable knowledge, is only within the parameters of the logic constructed around this assumption. (Einstein assumed a homogenous and isotropic universe, but this is merely an assumption and not testable at present; in fact, we hope this is right to make it all fit mathematically!) But have we found other evidence to collaborate this logic? Is there evidence, for example, of space expansion tangentially? We only know of space expansion via ‘line of sight’, what we see in our instruments delving progressively deeper into space, and there the logic holds. But we cannot falsifiably test for it in any other way, except within the parameters of the web of mathematics we created to explain (assumed) Doppler space expansion. Is there any evidence of space expanding on Earth? No. So without such a collateral test, we are forced to fall back upon the logical explanations based upon our assumptions. But what if cosmic light redshifts for some other reason, perhaps something not yet considered (not counting tired light here), which would explain this redshift from another cause so that our observations of redshifts, consistent that they are for all distance as calculated, are actually no more than an optical illusion? Good science demands that we know the answer to this with some degree of falsifiable tests, and not merely accept that the logical calculations all work, so it must be right. Do you see my point? Of course, you know my position on the (variable) value of G in deep space…
Therefore, the fact that we can make electromagnetic energy work for us, and have a whole body of science and physics to explain this phenomenon (why I can write this on my computer) is still not the same as explaining astronomical observations made over great distances, where it is virtually impossible to test for what is observed. Except as these observations coincide logically within our structure of theories to explain what is observed, we still do not know, since we cannot find collaboration from other sources. Have we ever found evidence of tangential space expansion, for example? Our physics should be able to find some other evidence, something local, to collaborate with what we think is physics at a distance, quantitatively proven here with falsifiable tests (especially if the universe is homogenous and isotropic, which is a philosophical assumption). If we cannot do that, whether or not the math is logical and true, still leaves holes in our knowledge that speculators, such as those who challenge accepted theories of the mainstream, have grounds on which to challenge accepted doctrine, no matter how logical it is. The final proof, short of a Unified Theory of Everything, is to test falsifiably. Actually, now that I think of it, even if we had a Grand Unified Theory, we would still need to test and verify regardless of how great is the consistency factor. Science demands no less, if it is to avoid the "holy writ" of dogma. Would you agree?
__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 09:31 am: | |
Addendum: Math and physics, the duality.
Here is a spin off discussion on the above regarding math and physics duality:
Duality: Explanation of the Hubble expansion, or not?
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51820
Especially appropo is this: "Take any mainstrea model that includes math, and you will see only one distance term. It is implied, but not stated, that r in the referenced equations is > 5 Mpc. If you use an r of less than that, say 1 Mpc, the approximate distance of Andromeda, you get an answer that is completely wrong, because our local region of the universe does not participate in the cosmic expansion."
While we can see 'expansion' at very great distances, there is absolutely no evidence of it up close, in fact it is opposite. Something is wrong with today's thinking on cosmology. Interesting discussion, if anyone interested. My take on it is that 'line of sight' expansion is illusory, especially if distant cosmic light redshift is gravitational due to very high G in deep intergalactic space. More to ponder on this.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:36 pm: | |
Is Reason enough?
Is reason alone sufficient to raise planetary consciousness? Or will it take something else more? That is a question of human progress still unresolved, since we seem unable to raise ourselves above our limitations of superstitions and unreasonable behaviors. At what point does human consciousness take the next great leap forward, where a deep inner awareness becomes universal for us, as common as the smile one a child's face of innocence? Where do we begin?
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 03:09 pm: | |
This is a great question.
Apparently humans (as a collective) only learn through conflict (often catastrophic), spectacle, or desire. How many people have actually done so for any other reason? It is in our biology and our economics. Evolution made the need to improve, one that is based on conflict and environmental pressure. We adapt because we must. Now we also improve because we want something (interesting how capitalism is successful because it mimics environmental pressure and is thus a form of natural selection).
The big problem is that people who do things out of love for humanity are either ridiculed, assassinated, or canonized and put on the level of statistical outlier (thus beyond the accepted human norm, and thus not of behavior that is expected to be adapted). This too can be an example of natural selection – because the hierarchy it has created has been successful (in terms of human survival) thus far. Why do you think we remember and develop labels like Black Tuesday, for catastrophic economic events? Ingrained cultural pattern as a reminder of what almost caused our demise.
We are retroactive by design. First we need the problem, then we work towards a solution. Only a harsh lesson that ingrains itself into our cultural memory, will push us one and all toward planetary consciousness and improved reason. And even then the unenlightened dregs will remain. But it will be easier to install a new culture of adapting behavior into them.
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 10:19 am: | |
We need Drama?
Interesting point, Naive, in yours:
quote:We are retroactive by design. First we need the problem, then we work towards a solution. Only a harsh lesson that ingrains itself into our cultural memory, will push us one and all toward planetary consciousness and improved reason. And even then the unenlightened dregs will remain. But it will be easier to install a new culture of adapting behavior into them.
In addition to reason, humanity seems to need drama. Look at the American revolution, or French revolution, and one sees that the new ideas of the European Enlightenment were forged out of the drama of violence and conflict to cement the ideas into place. Consider Jesus Christ's drama on the cross, that it took such a violent act of self sacrifice to bear into human consciousness its opposite effect, to love one another in a non-violent way. Humanity reaches for its validation as a freedom loving consciousness embodied intrinsically in each human being, which is a reasonable assumption, that we are all born free; but to bring this into our reality seems to need something more dramatic, sometimes cataclysmic, to burnish it into a common world consciousness. There are examples of this having failed, such as the Russian revolution, though it persisted for decades before the 'consciousness' of the collective society showed its glaring errors: human beings are not collective entities, but individual entities. Where violence did not succeed in bringing to the front this individuality, it merely ended with either collapse, or in at least one case there is ongoing violence. For example, the Islamic consciousness thus far has failed to liberate the mind, of individuals, from the collective consciousness, so modern times are once again faced with elements of drama, such as Jihad violence; without prospects of greater individual freedoms, the drama continues, as it has for 1400 years, without apparent resolution. Our cultural collective memory evolves slowly, and sometimes without violence, such as is now happening with the evolution of world communications and the internet, a very powerful developement, though even here we see violent factions using this new technology for their own ends. But once an evolutionary trend sets into place, its resulting heightened awareneness is almost a forgone conclusion, and the world culture changes, though some will be violent in their resistance to this change. Yet, it is inevitable. When Martin Luther pressed the Catholic Church to change, violence resulted; but when Martin Luther King, Jr. pressed the American culture to change and live up to its promise of liberty and equal rights for all Americans, no matter the color of their skin, the change occurred with little violence (though he was assassinated). We can change for the better without dramatic violence too. Ghandi did it, Rosa Parks did it, Tesla and Edison and Bell did it, others had and will again.
It will take more than drama to bring consciousness to the world, since it also needs reason, but most importantly, the human dramas played out need to find expressions that validate our individual freedoms. That seems to be the key to our human evolution of world consciousness, not merely reason, but also drama, sometimes violent dramas. However, if that reason and drama works counter to human freedoms, its ability to raise human consciousness is then severely circumscribed, and only more violence results. The test of Jihad drama for our modern world, with its commensurate violence, may be the greatest test of our freedoms and reason for our time. On the other side of all this should manifest a greater cultural consciousness, once reason and freedom take hold of this violent drama.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 01:15 pm: | |
A charismatic leader is essential to foster the desire for change.
Wholesale behavioral changes are rare in history. They usually have been accompanied by a popular leader and a secret group working behind the scenes to achieve goals. Add drama, conflict, spectacle, and you might have something . . .
But most of all, desire for change has to be either intrinsic or conditioned by the times . . .
Naive |
Tattoo
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 06:36 pm: | |
Taatto ttatoo, the 'gay men' post is nixed, no more.
|
Tattoo
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 11:40 am: | |
-LOGIC-ALT-
nem yag
?"I
skniwt
kcuf
argaiV
:ptth}knil
We foiled the blog spammers with alt-logic?
T/\TT()() |
Ivan
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 09:46 am: | |
Learn from history, or else...
Take this history making in process today, the new Iran hostage situation. Some think history does not exist because it is written by those who are biased, by reason that only the 'winners' write history. So a simple Yes/No set of questions can set this straight:
- Did Iran capture, and failed to release, UK military personnel now held hostage? Y/N?
- Did Britain ask to have her personnel released? Y/N?
- Are the contested waters coordinates being reviewed by an independent third party, such as the UN? Y/N?
Now these are the facts that require a simple Yes/No answer, without elaborate interpretations or personal opinions. It either happened or did not. To those who say history is written by the victors, the above is not written by anyone other than those who are in the process of making history. If these questions below were asked in addition to the above, then it might look differently:
- Is Iran demanding an apology because they are being 'victimized' by their taking of British hostages? Y/N?
- Has the world been supportive of Iran's hostage taking this time, as they had been in 1979 and 2004? Y/N
- Do the Iran mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards think they can win this new hostage situation? Y/N?
These are obviously question subject to opinionated assessments and judgments, and can be answered reasonably many different ways. The writers of history will be no more biased in their assessments of the Iran hostage situation than those who believe that the Arab peninsula belongs only to one religion; which is a 'historically' biased belief based on the 'reason' of conquest. History written by either winners or losers is not to be ignored, or to do so will be at one's own peril of failing reason and learning once again the hard way.
Fjordman makes a very good case here: The Importance of Knowing Your History
So learn from history, or else pay the consequences, since not all history is written by the winners, and the losers have as much to say, and to learn what is at stake in knowing what had happened, and what can happen. It had all happened before, just new players.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 09:58 am: | |
War-2 thread is CLOSED.
I have summarily closed the war thread http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/194.html?1176122689#POST3611 with Naive's brilliant comment. No more needs be said on that subject. When an individual cannot understand the difference between a personal faith and a politicized faith, the reasons why they are different, then that individual will internalize any political criticism as an 'attack' upon his personal faith. It is NOT an attack on his personal faith, but his failed reason cannot see that. This is not criticism of any one individual, but only of their failed reason. Hence, that discussion is now closed.
I would add as a postcript, that all wars are failed reason of the kind mentioned above. All misunderstandings of reason that lead to personal offense, to politicized reactions unreasonable but violent, is the root of all our world's social ills, both historically and in the present. This is true from primitive tribal wars to inner city gang wars to mega international wars. There is only one reasonable justification to use force, and that is to prevent the use of force against another or oneself, self defense. All else is coercive.
We will not leave a platform open for the 'misunderstanding' of reason, for anyone to internalize any criticism of their political views as a personal offense, which is root cause of why are conflicts between individuals, what leads to war. End of story.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 10:10 pm: | |
I think it is important to note, how much the cultural filter (which includes religion, rearing) plays in our world view. I think your point Ivan, is that mature human beings should recognize the effect of the cultural filter upon their viewpoint of the world, yet at the same time understand the thousands of years that another's culture may have needed to develop. This ultimately should yield mutual respect between groups. I think Mohideen often sees things through the filter of his faith, with the assumption that it is correct, and of course it is correct for him. I also believe Mohideen feels his faith is honorable and worth defending. I have no problem there. I believe what is happening here is an idea communication gap.
He is pointing out what he sees are good qualities, while ineffectively communicating the defense of his faith. He doesn't realize that often times the logic of his arguments, reflect the very coercive and somewhat foreign metaphorical thought process that Westerns blame for the problems in the first place.
The real question is, how to resolve this communication gap? One answer is more cultural sensitivity. For example, those who are pushing the political Islam agenda, are very devious and selfish in our eyes, yet they probably really believe they are doing God's work. We think to ourselves, how dare they tread upon our hard won ideals, and contrarily they feel God has granted them theirs. How can you combat that? The fact that the Koran spends so much time addressing how to get along with non-muslims shows that this was a major projected concern of its author. Here's the problem: we now make judgements as to the divinity of said concerns, based upon our modern concepts and ideals. So of course we feel the Islamic model is not divine where it calls for the inferior treatment of non-muslims or where it can be interpretted to allow for violence. And of course that further irritates and reaffirms to the Muslims who believe it, that the message within the Koran is righteous, correct, and necessary - proving the intolerance and ignorance of the infidel.
The answer to all this . . . unfortunately there is no easy resolution. When cultures have clashed over ideals in the past, humans have only learned through struggle (often violent). This whole brew-ha-ha over Iran's nuclear program is our intuitive fear and anticipation of this looming confrontation. I am only curious what a unified world will do, once the brew boils over. I bet it will be religion that suffers the mightiest blow.
And as far as our own little humancafe community, I feel the miscommunication happening here can be resolved if only responses concerning faith are kept private. We already understand why the problems exist. Instead we need to open threads that suggest improvements for 1. World wide ethical pardigms that all humans can share. 2. Educational standards that raise global consciousness and cultural sensitivity. 3. Possibilities for dialogue between common citizens of countries whose governments are clashing.
Faith should not dictate any of the ethics, education, or paradigms presented, for it is indeed too personal, too cultural-centric, and contains too much potential for fanaticism and illogical argumentation. If you find it too hard to disconnect yourself from faith-based logic, then you are not ready to exist in a globally connected world, and indeed are consciously (and quite selfishly) paving the road on which future war-mongers and barbarians will tread!
Naive |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
If you find it too hard to disconnect yourself from faith-based logic, ...
Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 10:10 pm: Naive
Thanks for agreeing to the existence of 'faith-based logic.' I understand that - in the definition of some posters here - 'faith-free logic' is reason and 'faith-based logic' is not reason. Am I right?
Defined in terms of 'faith-based logic' and 'faith-free logic' can these two logics co-exist? Are we declaring that there could be no communication between the two groups whatsoever?
What happened to 'let us agree to disagree?' If we are to 'agree to disagree' we tend to avoid issues that cause irritation and seek issues that might possibly lead to cooperation. Why is this missing when Islam is concerned? |
Naive
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 04:20 pm: | |
I agree there can be faith-based, culture-based, or any other type of logic. Indeed we act upon a physics logic that may not be logical other places in the universe. My point however is that, there needs to be a standard of morality, otherwise if we agree to disagree, we will continue to disagree until we can't agree. That's when the problem starts. We need to have a global standard of accepted behavior in terms of treading upon others beliefs or trying to force your beliefs upon others.
Until then . . .
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 09:01 am: | |
What kind of cultural filter do you put through the suicide bomber, a suicide killer?
Better yet, what kind of religious filter do you put through the suicide bomber?
Narrow it down further: - What kind of rational reason filter do you put through the suicide bomber?
- What kind of psychological filter do you put through the suicider killers?
- What kind of dialogue filter do you put through the mullahs teaching hate against the infidels at Friday prayers, to hate their belief in freedom?
- What kind of filter of sanity do you put through the mental state of suiciders?
There is not cultural filter, nor reasonable filter, because it is all insane. How do you dialogue with the insane? How can one hold reasonable conversation of ideas with insanity? There is none.
This is why Mohideen, who has been arguing for this cultural insanity, is no longer welcome here. The fractured flickers horror show opened at the beginning of this new century with 911, where suicide killers rammed airplanes full of people into buildings full of people to kill them. It was not some bad grade B movie, but real. They remain unforgiven, until the insanity is vanquished. Until then...
Ivan |
Moideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 09:30 am: | |
Good bye Sirs and Madams. |
Naive
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:56 pm: | |
But then again,
The United State accounts for about 60% of the world's current resource use. Our country contributes to the greatest depletion of the planet, contributes to wars around the world in an insidious and covert fashion. I venture that the Political Muslims are simply following the lead of our government's example.
Like it or not, the insanity (and I agree suicide bombing and the like are indeed insane) is a cultural phenomena. Look at the devastation Europe has caused to the African and his way of life, the Native American, etc. We destroy and have detsroyed. If we sit back and do not challenge our own destroyers, we perhaps do not have the right to get mad when others try to attack us for not shutting down our government's corruption.
Unfortunately one man's insanity is another man's idea of culture. I wish it wasn't so, but it has been an historical human pattern. We won't be able to correct it, until we can discuss and analyze it. We need to make those like Mohideen see what we don't like about their philosophy, just as we need to accept their criticism of ours. Remember, Mohideen knows he cannot convince us to convert to his ways. More than likely he knows we disagree. Can we dismiss him because he fails to take into account the history that has shaped our desire for freedom, that has molded our American ideals in common?
For example, I am an African-American. My historical perspective is shaped by the collective experiences of those in my culture. Futhermore my reality has been shaped by my experiences with my step-father's family (Hindu). In addition, as a high school teacher of many years I have developed a sensitivity to a variety of cultures and personality types. The problem with most people is that they don't take the time to understand who others are . . . what makes them tick. True it is very sad and not be forgiven or forgotten what happened in 911. But what brought that level of response? Surely we have also to learn from that aggression. Surely something (our government's long track record of avarice and deception) provoked that response. Indeed, the combination of a religious-political culture and our capitalistic, self-serving republic will probably lead to this type of misunderstanding every time.
Mohideen is not a bad man. But is he willing to accept our historical perspective? Is he willing to see why we will not revert (for indeed we see your ways as reversion to something to be avoided Mohideen) to what we see as ancient values? We value our freedoms! They were sorrowfully won and developed. On the other hand, however, we must be patient with those who are still on their journey - patient as long as they do not endanger what we cherish. Can we, as wel,l not endanger what they cherish? A hard compromise is forthcoming. Otherwise, the new road to discovery may become a sorrowful one as well. 
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 09:36 pm: | |
quote:Mohideen is not a bad man. But is he willing to accept our historical perspective? Is he willing to see why we will not revert (for indeed we see your ways as reversion to something to be avoided Mohideen) to what we see as ancient values? We value our freedoms! They were sorrowfully won and developed. On the other hand, however, we must be patient with those who are still on their journey - patient as long as they do not endanger what we cherish. Can we, as wel,l not endanger what they cherish? A hard compromise is forthcoming. Otherwise, the new road to discovery may become a sorrowful one as well.
Wisely said, Naive, and I too think Mohideen is not a bad man. In fact, at many levels I admire him. For the past year and a day he had helped enlighten us, sometimes unwittingly, to his way of seeing the world through the lense of his beliefs. Had those beliefs remained his personal heartfelt beliefs without political attachments, I would have never criticized him. But the political attachments of religious beliefs is anathema, to me and I believe to all of us who love freedom, and you too. Organized religions had committed many errors and sins, and to defend their politicized organization is what made arguments irrational, and at times foolish. It is not reflection on the man of Mohideen, a fine and honest man, but on the unreasonable irrational ideas violating the law of contradiction, in an organized religious context, that finally ruled that we cannot have more of the same. It is sorrowful, but also part of the process of discovery, when it comes to call a stop.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 12:06 pm: | |
Does 'Allah' fail the 'compassionate' test?
Please note this is not a criticism of the Muslim's God "Allah", since as their deity it is beyond examination. God is God. What I aim to show in this examination is a cultural defect, if you will, of the Arabic notion of God, whom they call 'Allah', in that this deity fails certain tests of common humanity.
On Allah, Wikipedia starts with "Allah is the Arabic language word for 'God.'" in the Arabic tradition, though Allah is meant as the one and only God, there is another tradition of the other 99 names of God, which puts it in contradiction with the idea that only one name may be used for God, the Arabic Allah. Per Wiki's:
quote:The Prophet is also reported to have said in a famous Hadith:
"Verily, there are ninety-nine names of God, one hundred minus one. He who enumerates them would get into Paradise." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, no. 1410)
In the list for 99 names provided, one of them (83) is "Ar-Ra'oof", which means "the Compassionate, the All pitying". This is in addition to (79) the 'most kind and righteous' and (86) 'the equitable' and (35) 'the all forgiving' and (15) 'ever forgiving' and (3) 'the most merciful'. In fact, in the Arabic holy book of Allah, the Koran, in virtually every passage begins "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", so the idea of compassion is deeply ingrained in the Arabic version of God, their (1) "Allah", which means 'God'. So the Arabic notion of God as Allah has a compelling argument for any reasonable person to accept that of the one hundred names of God, minus one, there is a strong argument for Allah being universally merciful and compassionate towards human beings. However, what happens when this is examined in Arabic thought on how this 'compassionate and merciful' translates into their thinking when applied to humanity?
By negative contrast, note how two notions universal in modern thought are missing from the 99 names of God: Freedom and Equality. They simply do not appear in that Arabic world of Allah. Why is that? Also, note how Arabic thinking has the world of Allah divided, into so called 'believers' and 'unbelievers' or Infidels. How is that universal for humanity, to have their deity create such a division? These are flaws in Arab thinking, because they arise not from critical reason such as originate for us modern thinkers in the early philosophies of the ancient Greek culture, upon which much of our modern civilization is based, but rather on the tribal notions of ancient Arabic culture which divides the tribalism into 'us versus them' labels. In the Arab world, their deity is not universal but exclusionary, belonging only to their tribe. So it is no wonder then, when studying Arabic holy scriptures to find many references to where the so called Infidels are to be fought and subdued, since they are labeled as 'them' and 'not us' in a tribal sense. There is no universality in Arabic thought, same as none of the 99 names of God come up as 'Universal'. Same as with 'Freedom' and 'Equality' it simply is not in their thought processes.
So when we see the hadithic callings for 'true believers' to follow the commands of their deity, to kill the Infidels, or take them captive, or sell them as slaves, to be subdued, or to punish them by cutting off their hands and feet, or their finger tips, or beheaded; we are looking at an Arabic deity, whom they call Allah, as one of division and not of compassion and universality. In the Quran, 3:112: Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allah, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allah) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allahs disobedience, crimes and sins). Or again, 2:61: And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing. Or again, 47:04: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. Or against the Jews in the Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177; Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour of the Last Judgment will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Or the many other references such as 9:05: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Also in the same vein of bringing down the 'other' for this 'forgiving, merciful' Arabic deity, 9:29: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. Then again, 3:151: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers! Or again, 8:12: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' Is it any surprise the Arabic thinking population imagines their deity is telling them to do jihad war of terrorism against the 'others' not of their tribe? Where is the mercy of the compassionate one? It is obviously not in the 99 names of God, for the Arabic deity Allah is not the same as we understand God to be. By Arab tradition, their deity 'Allah' is not a universal God, because he orders them to fight against the tribe of the 'other'. On doing God's Will, as I once said, the minute Allah orders his minions to coerce another, God's will is being failed.
So what is the one hundredth name of God? In the Arabic sense, this is an unpronounceable name, so it remains infinitely mysterious. In the Sufis sect, the 100th name is the most prominent, that which renders God mystical and cannot be attained by use of reason alone, so it is infinitely illusive. But in the modern world, there is a 100th name of God, what we of our reason have come to identify as Truth, or reality, or the infinite Universe, that is identifiable through hard work of research, examination, testing in reality, and a consistent logical thought. There is no contradiction in the modern concept of Reality as Truth, because that is where the truth of our universe resides, in reality. Is it infinitely mysterious? Yes, of course. But unlike the Arabic notion that such truth can never be attained, so it must remain unnamed, our notion of God's truths and reality is that they are attainable, but only through the consistent application of reason and study of our universal reality, from the energies that comprise the atom to how works the human condition and mind, to all of life and the intricacies of a vast infinite universe, to the best of our reasonable abilities. And in this way, there is no contradiction to God being merciful and compassionate, because this ability of reason is universally open to all human beings, not just some select group of Arabic thinking sub-species of humanity. Each and every one of us is not only free to seek understanding and God, but is by our reason guaranteed to be free of discrimination and classification from any cult or supremacist ideology that prohibits us from this seeking. Seeking the (52) Truth is our natural right. Though in the Arabic context, it should not be one of the 99 names of God, but the 100th, because only in Truth and the universality of reason, and full equality for all humanity, can God can truly be Compassionate without limits. The Arabic notion of God, their Allah, in truth fails the 'compassionate' test they profess, for it is not a universal God.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:42 pm: | |
Reason dictates that God's compassion is not benevolence, but instead the allowance of our capacity to perceive. We are in charge of benevolence. We move forward as a group every time one of us makes an advance in some field. The real question is, should we abandon ideologies that constrict the human in thought, action, and progress, although these same ideologies may indeed be the moral backbone of many? Can we afford the suicide bombings in the name of God? What can we tolerate?
I sense, in our own country, a backlash of moral reform coming, as our youth go more and more out of control. There must be standards of ethics soon, or we face moral decay and societal destruction. Sure there are suicide bombers in other countries, but here our youth are themselves the bomb just waiting to go off.
Are we too afraid to tackle the problem of human interaction? Are we doomed to fight over what we choose to tolerate or not tolerate? Personal faith is a step in the right direction. But what about ethics? We can't ignore the reality that people who have faith do not always follow the ethical code of their religion. And living by the laws of men does not guarantee ethical behavior from citizens. Any suggestions as to what we can do to improve societal behavior (especially of teens) without imposing a system upon the citizenry?
Naive |
Mohideen Ibramsha
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 02:18 pm: | |
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=ninety+nine+mercy+parts&tran slator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
The words "ninety nine mercy parts" appear in 2 hadith(s) in Bukhari translation.
(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, Allah divided mercy into one-hundred parts and He kept its ninety-nine parts with Him and sent down its one part on the earth, and because of that, its one single part, His creations are Merciful to each other, so that even the mare lifts up its hoofs away from its baby animal, lest it should trample on it." (Book #73, Hadith #29)
(2) Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, Verily Allah created mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire." (Book #76, Hadith #476)
===
I always thought that 'Allah' encompasses all the 99 attributes and any other that have not been enumerated. May be I have a lot of learning to do?
I look forward to reading the opinion of the experts on the above two Traditions as well.
Please observe that I am in a 'learning mode' and not in a 'telling mode.' |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 09:49 am: | |
quote:(2) Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, Verily Allah created mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire." (Book #76, Hadith #476)
Is this a 'stacked game', where entry into Paradise is driven not by the results of human actions towards one another, but by the speaker in the Hadith who creates the conditions for Paradise or hell fire? How does he know? By what proofs? Or is 'saying it' sufficient to believe his words?
Any story can be told, and if enough people believe it no matter how fictional, does that suddenly make it true? Who has the proofs of non-contraditory reason? Humans learn from reality. Where is the reality of this Hadith? Truth or fiction? Who decides? And if one believes it, who is to allow that belief to be used to threaten another with either reward or punishments? Do you see how this is a stacked game? What one believes in his heart is one thing, but when one claims to be speaking with a voice that others must obey, that is something entirely different! We are ALL in a 'learning mode', with every minute of our passing life.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:54 pm: | |
The Reason of Freedom, as an inalienable right.
I had said earlier in the Religious Dialogue post, parenthetically, that "fails to show any recognition of human freedom as an 'inalienable right', and rather thinks it is a matter of 'consensus'", which is a statement that may need more reasonable expansion, or explanation. After all, it may be argued that 'consensus' is all we can have in forming human agreements, and that such agreements can be the foundation of freedom. However, there is a deeper issue here: Consensus by whom?
Is is the same to say that a consensus of free men and women is equivalent to a consensus of unfree men and women? Remember we are dealing with human minds here, individuals who are by definition defined as consciously cognizant human beings, defined by their minds Who they are. Are they the same when their cognition is defined by a set of rules established by others? If their right to think is defined by some holy book, or some god, or guru, is it the same as their right to think, and be who they are, as defined by a reality of existence, in effect, an inalienable right to think and be? If we take each conscious mind as a 'point of light' of life extending through time since the dawn of all life, and extending at some quantum level in connection with all of the energies of existence in the universe; then to extinguish that 'point of light' from its full expression is a limiting factor, especially if that limiting factor is man made, in effect, restrictions on the mind made by other minds of men. So a slave, perforce, is not the same thinking mind as is a free individual, since that mind is restricted, or extinguished, from its right to be Who they are. So a consensus of slaves is not the same thing as a consensus of free men and women, since the slaves are restricted in their minds from being themselves. Their definition of themselves is something other than Who they are as living 'points of light' in their mind's existence in the universe. In fact, can slaves even be allowed to form consensus at all? If their holy book, or guru, or 'word of god' tells them what they may or may not think, then by extension, they are not thinking. To apply the word 'consensus' to their reasoning is a misnomer, since they are not allowed to form agreements proscribed by their slavery to their masters. Theirs is only to obey. So a consensus of slaves has no bearing on any definition of freedom, unlike a consensus of free man and women who can form valid agreements, as defined of their own free will.
Another way to see this, reasonably, is to extend the Golden Rule to how free men and women interact with each other by agreement, or consensus. Slaves are of necessity coerced, so they cannot form free agreements. But free men and women, who are protected by the laws of freedom, interact with one another with the underlying principle that they do not coerce one another, but respect the 'Golden Rule' of not doing onto others as they would not have done unto them. This means that there is a general respect for the freedom of another, working both ways, in all their dealings, to not coerce the other. But a slave, even if acting by 'consensus' cannot have this freedom applied to them, since they are of necessity trespassed against by the nature of their being subordinate to their masters, regardless of whether this is to some holy book or guru or so called god. So any agreement a slave makes with another, when they are even allowed to make an agreement, is already in violation of the Golden Rule, since they had already been 'done unto' by another against their will, why they are slaves. In the case of religious rule, this mastering over the slave, even with the slave's permission to be mastered over, that the slave is a 'voluntary' slave, nevertheless negates the right for the slave to be a free person, by definition. So any consensus by slaves, even with their agreement, is of necessity corrupted by this negation, that they were not free in the first place, so all agreements are negatively skewed by their lack of freedom. Slaves can be punished by their masters for even 'thinking' of freedom. If the guru or their holy book forbids them from asking questions or otherwise challenging their authority, unfree individuals are threatened with punishments, because they are not free. So what is the worth of their consensus? Nill.
There is only one condition where consensus applies to human agreements, and that is when the individuals who form these agreements are by definition free minds, free entities Who are able and willing to come together in consensus. So this creates, necessarily, a precondition of freedom to form agreements, or else these agreements are unfree and void. Individual human beings must have freedom as a precondition to their agreements of consensus if they are to be valid, or else the consensus of slaves is invalid, and meaningless. The reason for this is simple: slaves do not have the mind to be free, because they had been trespassed against, coerced, as a condition of their slavery.
In the same vein, we must allow for freedom even if it is imperfect. This means we make allowances for the imperfections of others, of their infirmities, their social and cultural lacking, their confusions, even their stupidities; these are all the wiggle room we all need individually to allow us the freedom to be ourselves, whether king or beggar we all have that dignity. Is this freedom not the ultimate expression of human equality, that we are free to be ourselves? But there is one human failing where this allowance fails: the ‘freedom’ to coerce others, for then it is self defeating, it cancels out.
So when I said earlier "fails to show any recognition of human freedom as an 'inalienable right', and rather thinks it is a matter of 'consensus'", the implied statement is that one who does not recognize our inalienable right to be free, a priori, is a slave, and as such is unable to define freedom for us by consensus. This applies with equal validity to someone who claims to be 'a slave of god' because such slavery predefines for them their inability to form free human agreements. Slaves cannot form a (freedom) consensus, by definition. The best they can do is rebel against their condition of unfreedom. The only reasonable way we can be free by consensus is to already be free by definition, that it is our inalienable right to be free. And then we can form agreements that are valid, including agreements that reinforce our freedoms, such as by governmental constitutional law. But that applies only to free men and women, not to slaves, who remian unfree. To have consensus for freedom means one must already be free, by definition, as an 'inalienable right' to be free. Therefore, of necessity, freedom preconditions consensus.
Ivan |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:09 pm: | |
A 'closed mind' is a waste: Some thoughts on intellectual honesty and freedom of thought.
I hope I am not being irrational here, but a random thought ran through my head: Is there intellectual honesty when a discussion participant fails to respond to reason, and instead seems to be bent on presenting a 'politicized' agenda? This is a question from a prudent and reasonable point of view, because what if it is we who are unreasonable in our demand for intellectual honesty and freedom of thought? Can a person who fails to respond to reason, and instead offers a 'closed mind' to reason, be an honest participant in dialogue? I am not pointing any finger at any one person, nor at any particular ideology, but ask it in the spirit of academic open inquiry. Why? Because how do we know we too are not engaged in a similar 'closed mindedness'? Here is an example of what I mean:
A participant (I won't name names) comes under the guise of 'dialogue' concerning his beliefs, as they apply to the world at large, both his and ours. We welcome the flow of ideas, since it is always instructive to listen to others, so debate issues of importance to us. However, somewhere in the dialogues it becomes apparent there is little if any response to our ideas, rather they are patently ignored, and instead we find ourselves defending our own ideas from challenges contrary to our beliefs. The tables are turned now, not for us to dialogue and exploration but to defend our positions, especially as they regard our freedom of thought and beliefs. This is okay, since that is what debates do, challenge ideas. But in time it grows increasingly evident that the other is 'closed' to our ideas, makes no response to them, fails to acknowledge them at all even. Largely, our ideas are ignored, while we are forced to keep responding to his or her juggernaut like assaults on our sense of reason, as if the ideological bias presented is more important than reason itself. Only their ideology is allowed to be supreme, while ours is totally ignored. Beneath a mask of courtesy, calm and friendliness, there lurks an agenda against which we cannot reason, at all. The agenda is to present arguments outside reason, as mandated by some higher authority, perhaps even God, while our 'human' reason is not only neglected but shunned with silence, so a supremacist ideology and morality confronts us. Eventually, in our frustration with such lack of responsiveness and acknowledgment of what was said by us, we challenge the argument, where two opposed ideas are mutually self-exclusive, and the participant must choose one or the other. This too is ignored. In the end, we are left with no choice but to disqualify his or her argument. What just happened here? Was the dialogue participant honest or not? Was there even a dialogue at all, or was it us in dialogue against a monologue?
As a prudent and reasonable person, I am forced to ask: Was there even any dialogue at all, and if so, was it an honest dialogue or one deceitful, to push an agenda? If we respond to ideas by the other side, but they fail entirely to respond to our ideas, is this an equal exchange? Are we being 'stonewalled' here? We offer reason, argue sincerely our point of view, but the other side fails to acknowledge anything said. Is this even fair, never mind if it is good dialogue? Reasonable arguments hold no sway, and instead we are continually challenged with repetitious calling on some higher authority, religious authority, calling their belief system above human reason, quoting the 'word of God' himself, as if these words were not written down by men. To question this authority, one implies, is even to fail to submit to its higher authority, above reason. How is one to respond? Is our submission to this 'higher authority' the participant's only objective? Is this not a supremacist position, that ours is to submit, even if it fails all tests of reason? Where is the test of real facts, or consistent logic, or supporting evidence? There appears to be none, except the alleged 'word of God' in response, so holy scripture is amply quoted, but uncorroborated by any other source. If there is no exchange of ideas, then are we faced with merely a 'lecture' by the other? Where is intellectual freedom, and freedom of ideas, allowed here? This is the question that ran through my mind, and I am not fully certain I know the answers. How do we tread carefully here to not fall into the same trap, of 'lecturing' our ideology rather than presenting it with reason? We know of real facts, of consistency of logic, and of non-contradiction in our lines of reason. Is this sufficient to overcome a closed mind? How do we guard against becoming closed minds ourselves?
This is a conundrum for us, but it appears not for the other, since his or her agenda is to dictate to us, to subdue our reason in favor of their belief system. We who are open to dialogue are at risk here, since we may be arguing a point while the other does not listen, nor hears it, and acknowledges nothing said. Can this be a reasonable expectation of dialogue, where one participant comes at us from dominance while we are trying to understand? If so, then is this not of necessity coercive to us, since their mind is closed to all arguments? We are not arguing as equals, since our words hold no weight to a mind that has accepted what it believes to be a higher authority. But which is supreme? Is it supreme to argue without reason, while reason finds itself talking in dialogue to a monologue? Circular reasoning was pointed out, but with no effect. Lack of proof was pointed out, but with no effect. Finally, the basic assumptions of the other were called into question, and again no response. Was this a dialogue? It appears not, that it was totally one sided, where we reasoned as reasonable human beings while the other side merely repeated fixed positions, without question or inquiry. In effect, we were arguing against a closed mind. So why did they come here in the first place, except to try to subdue and dominate, without reason? Is this intellectual honesty? Did we experience a freedom of thought? Not likely.
How can an intellectual freedom be served if the participant is not honest in his or her discussion, but came to push an agenda, even political agenda, instead to dominate and not to be dominated? This is deceit, intellectual dishonesty at its basest. Think how often this happens in life. A parent will tell their child it is not listening, while the child responds in like manner that it is not being understood. Who wins? If neither communicates, then who is listening? This is akin to what we experience here at times, where we reasoned, but the listener was oblivious of what was said. How frustrating it can be to give your best ideas and have them dashed not against returned reason, but against indoctrinated ideology that fails to respond. If that ideology demands that we may only obey, and accept, regardless of how unreasonable it may become, what happens to the mind, or our intellectual curiosity, or our emotional and psychological integrity? It is trampled. This is what we experienced here, so it became annoying to even continue discourse with a closed mind; there was no way out, since it will never listen. There is the dilemma, because if we do not stop such aggressive intellectual behavior, coming from a political agenda to subdue, then we are not exchanging ideas as equals, but rather are being intellectually trespassed. If all our ideas are ignored, but we keep finding ourselves on the defensive against unreasonable ideas, then the dialogue is a sham, it has no worth. Worse, it is trying to 'indoctrinate' us into its belief system, same as the participant had become indoctrinated. This is a case of a mind disease seeking to infect, not to elucidate ideas. Their mind is closed, so if ours is open it is also open to such infection. In the end, it was called to a stop
My solution, for myself as a prudent and reasonable man, was to split the argument into two camps: on one side was a personal belief, what I would call opinion, while on the other side was a politicized belief, what I would call dogma. Which wins? Dogma is rigid, unyielding, and it can never be won over by argument; while personal opinion is formed with ideas, so arguments can sway opinion. But if opinion, or personal belief, is posed against dogma, or politicized belief, how can it ever hope to sway the argument, reasonably? It appears it cannot, except to shut if off. The most sinister part of all this is that dogma, when it is shut off, thinks itself 'coerced' because we had failed to be subdued. But truth will not be subdued, not by dogma. So in the end, it is up to us reasoning minds to subdue dogma. Can we do this without becoming dogmatic ourselves? Is our demand for intellectual freedom and honesty dogma?
Ed, Naive, and others who read this, how do we approach this in a reasonable way without falling prey to the same closed minded dogma we are trying to overcome? Do you see my point, that in arguing for our freedoms and intellectual integrity we too may fall victims to dogma. What happens to truth then? Any ideas? I'm out of insights for now... But I do know that no dogma will rule over my reason, no matter who says it. For me it is a waste to argue otherwise, so this board will not entertain dogmas again. We will always allow new ideas, all ideas, but if they come from dogma, we have to spot it early on, if we can. That is reason at the limit.
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 02:17 am: | |
You are right.
Rigid dogma is supremacist thinking.
We will know we are not doing this when we acknowledge the validity of another system of thought . . . when we can admit our weaknesses and strengthen our personal philosophy with ideas other than the ones we hold dear.
The fallacy of using faith as an argument is that any of us can claim a relationship with God. Thus we can all say, "I have the correct answer." Thus we can also ignore anyone else's philosophy. Thus separation of church and state was a no brainer. But more than that, when it comes to dialogue on ideologies, faith must also be excluded (at least in terms of debating). If your faith determines your ideology fine. Don't be mad, however, if we don't want to live like you.
We know we are not closed minded because we will not be coerced, but we will not coerce. We allow them their ideology. They want to impose theirs upon us. We suggest. They deliberate. We consider. They claim. By they, I mean those who would deny us our ideology because they think theirs is better. I, however, will be humble before reality. My mind is open. So is yours. God tells me so.
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 08:38 am: | |
Humility. I agree, Naive. That is the key, isn't it?
Freedom is our right to exist. Freedom of thought is our right to reason, to think. Humility is to be humble before the immense reality of our existence, and all the wonders of the universe.
Dogma is arrogant, it will not grant us those freedoms. When I said above " So in the end, it is up to us reasoning minds to subdue dogma. Can we do this without becoming dogmatic ourselves? Is our demand for intellectual freedom and honesty dogma?" I was referring to our right to be free from the rigid coercions of dogma.
As you say, Naive, "Rigid dogma is supremacist thinking... We know we are not closed minded because we will not be coerced, but we will not coerce. We allow them their ideology. They want to impose theirs upon us. We suggest. They deliberate. We consider. They claim. By they, I mean those who would deny us our ideology because they think theirs is better. I, however, will be humble before reality. My mind is open." Yes, we are open to dialogue, but dogma is not. Our mind is open with sincere humility before God, infinity, the universe; their minds are closed with arrogance, because 'God told them so'. How old is this supremacist ideology? We who love and cherish freedom had been fighting this arrogance for how long? Intolerance of ideas, or of the belief of others, is not on the same plane as tolerance for ideas and beliefs. Their arrogance shows anger, or shun us in our ideas; while they expect us to respect their dogmas intolerant of us. We are unequal in the world they create, since we can only submit to them in their ideology, and not be free to exist before the greatest humility of our existence: that we are alive as human beings with a mind, all equal before existence, before God. Our freedom is that we will not be subdued. And in this freedom, we are ultimately humble before God. Those who come from dogma cannot see this, and will deny it to us as well.
Does it come down to 'my God is better then your god'? For the dogmatist supremacist, I think the answer is an arrogant 'Yes!', without question. For us who are humble before God, the answers come slowly with reason and wonder, and we let God tell us, in His own way at His own time. The key is our humility, that we listen. They 'submit' to their supremacist ideology. We submit not to them, not their ideologoies, not to man, but only to God. In all humility, in our body and mind, we have a right to be free. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard, spiritually, mentally, with all humility, and with love and forgiveness. That higher standard must never be allowed to be beat, for we are free men and women.
Can they ever understand this? Will they in their dogmas ever be humble enough before God to understand?
The question of humility comes down to 'submission to whom'? To man, or to God? We who are free know the answer to this. Do they?
Ivan |
Naive
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 12:13 pm: | |
History show us that many Western cultures had to endure a period of monarchies and imperialistic infighting. Furthermore, this country was nearly torn apart due to slavery in the 19th century and unequal civil rights in the 20th century. These common events in our past, have acted as a catalyst. We grow up being taught ideals such that we do not want to slip back, revert to that previous state. We know the turmoil it caused. That is the point of history. In a culture dominated by dogma, however, the history is always colored by what the infidels tried to do to the faithful. Thus the lessons always point those in that kind of culture towards a "sacrifice" for the faith mentality.
In a way we are all products of our history and our place in it. On the other hand, the free thinking mind is not fettered by social pressures to be like everyone else; in that we don't bear the burden to sacrifice all for the faith.
So when you ask, "will they . . . be humble enough to understand?" we have to understand that they will always spin everything into our attempts to subvert their faith or attack their sovereignty. That's the protective rhetoric that has been passed down through their ranks for generations. Our best bet is to leave them alone, to dis-include them in all things Western if they seek to change our ways. And unfortunately we must meet unprovoked aggression with a force that will instill an "historical lesson" - the lesson being we will sacrifice for our ideals as well. Thus teaching, our ideals are just as important, even if our shared desire to defend them does not stem from having faith in common!
I only feel sorry for the many Muslims, who are in this country, trying to live as Americans do, but get a raw deal because of the ideology and actions of some of their more radical counterparts.
Naive |
Ivan
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:07 am: | |
Can 'dogma' ever be rationally objective, or is it of necessity subjective, even if reasonable?
I ask this question in part to respond to Naive's post on the Christian Values thread, where he says: "Should we go so far as to ban cultural transmission of dogmatic ideas, or perhaps even, set up a mandated ethical system that in effect replaces dogma by out competing it in the educational sphere?" Perhaps this is indeed topic for a new thread. But let me answer it this way, here on the Human Reason discussion, if I may, since it is not specifically a Christian problem, but one that would include all Dogma, even scientific 'dogmas'.
Remember that when dogma is presented as a 'first principle', that it is irreducible and beyond doubt, such as the First Principles presented in Opus Rex, then no amount of argument can sway the outcome, since such dogma is then accepted a priori as true. First principles, by their very nature, are beyond question, but merely accepted as true, which may also be called 'postulates'. A postulate does not have to be self evident, but it is the foundation on which all other reasonable logic follows, whether in mathematics or science, or religious dogma. So when the definition for dogma is any idea or statement "thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted", then there is no other argument that can be made, whether or not it is true, since it must be accepted as 'true' right at the start. But this poses a philosophical problem: is this 'truth' objective?
If the basis for all dogma is the spoken word, then it of necessity falls into the category of subjective principles. Whether formally revealed by a prophet, or virtually implied by text, it nevertheless comes from a person, a subjective idea, rather than objectively from a known and tested reality. So right from the start, at its very foundation, dogma is already subjective, since the author of such dogma is a person. What follows then, built up logically upon this subjective foundation is entirely in the domain of what was said, without the necessity for objective proofs founded upon reality. For example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says:
quote:As a dogma is a revealed truth, the intellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on the intellectual character and objective truth of Divine revelation. ... Are dogmas considered merely as truths revealed by God, real objective truths addressed to the human mind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind?
The way this is worded is actually backwards, since it 'assumes' a priori that dogma is based on "truths revealed by God", without considering the source of such 'truths', which is the person who spoke them. So starting from the negation of reality, but insisting that God is the author, already the dogma's objectivity is thrown into doubt. Why should we believe this statement? When did God say it, without the intervention of a human mouth, or mind, saying it? It is simply not true, since God remains silent, except in how reality dictates to us what it is, and no such dogma was ever pronounced independent of the speaker. This makes it subjective of necessity, rather than objective in any manner or form.
The same source then goes on to say, again in a negative style:
quote:Rationalists deny the existence of Divine supernatural revelation, and consequently of religious dogmas.
...
According to other writers, God has addressed no revelation to the human mind. Revelation, they say, began as a consciousness of right and wrong -- and the evolution or development of revelation was but the progressive development of the religious sense until it reached its highest level, thus far, in the modern liberal and democratic State. Then, according to these writers, the dogmas of faith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind, we need not believe them mentally; we may reject them -- it is enough if we employ them as guides for our actions.
However, this is putting the cart before the horse! These quotes come under the heading "Objective Characteristics of Dogmatic Truths", while at the same time claiming that 'dogmatic truths' presented by their authors are somehow different from what they claim in the negative, that for (negative) Rationalists "the dogmas of faith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind", meaning that the opposite is implied, that they 'have meaning in the mind'. This is rather contorted logic, since it is implying that to fail to appreciate the divine authorship of dogma means that any other authorship, such as implied by the Rationalists, is then of equal value, and therefore objective, even the cause for later modern reforms that led to liberal and democratic States. But this is not true! In fact, it was the rejection of dogma as a first principle, that it is not objective, that led to modern reforms. The way this was presented, in the negative, was to mislead reason into accepting that somehow objective truths and dogmatic ideas are of equal worth. They are not, since dogma has no real foundation except what was spoken by somebody who claims prophethood, or the resulting texts by his followers, which makes it of necessity a subjective idea. That same paragraph then goes on to say: "Over against this doctrine the Church teaches that God has made a revelation to the human mind. There are, no doubt, relative Divine attributes, and some of the dogmas of faith may be expressed under the symbolism of action, but they also convey to the human mind a meaning distinct from action. The fatherhood of God may imply that we should act towards Him as children towards a father -- but it also conveys to the mind definite analogical conceptions of our God and Creator. And there are truths, such as the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension, etc. which are absolute objective facts, and which could be believed even if their practical consequences were ignored or were deemed of little value. The dogmas of the Church, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, the sacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact that Augustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of the United States." This is absurd. Real facts, whether historical figures who actually existed, like George Washington, or real evidence observed empirically, have no comparison to what Church dogma says. Objective reality is not the same as subjective inspired ideas. Whether or not some authority claims they are dogma is irrelevant, since they are merely subjective ideas.
This criticism of the nature of 'objective' dogma is not directed at the Catholic Church here, per se, but shown as an error in human logic and reason, that we cannot base a first principle on dogma. Either it is firstly self evident, or it is not. Can we agree on what is 'self evident'? For example, we exist. That seems fairly self evident, since without our existence this discussion would be pointless. But to then say because I exist, what I say is true. No, it could be fiction as well as true. This is the problem encountered in the authorship of Dogma, that human beings said it, and then some authority endorsed it, by Divine Will as they will claim, and therefore it is now true, even objectively true. False! There is no proof of any of it as being objective truth. I could claim that what I am writing here is 'inspired' and therefore true, but that is a false claim. Unless what I say is independently verifiable as true, it is fiction, no matter how reasonable it may sound. My argument is to show that objective reality is always the final arbiter, not what I say. So is it the same for religious dogma. It can be worked also in reverse, that what results from dogma, or first principles of truth, is how reality 'responds' to our ideas. This means that if the results are as expected, then there is a possibility that our ideas are correct. In science, this is tested with 'predictability', where a certain theory will yield expected results. But even there it does not follow of necessity that the original postulates are correct, though they may appear to yield expected results. In social sciences, the predictability of theory is even more obscure because of the great variable human beings introduce with their choices and responses to stimuli presented. Communism was supposed to be a 'scientific' social system, yet the results yielded were completely opposite of predictions, and rather than a harmonious and prosperous society, all Communist states were impoverished and riddles with strife. The example of China going from a Communist state to one more oriented towards human exchange and market capitalism is a glaring evidence of how theory failed, but reality produced results. So is it with religion, where what is forecast as being the 'highest good' for humanity, turns out to be its opposite. Like with Communism, the results were very far removed from reality, though the theories upon which this social reality was supposed to exist were very well, even objectively, reasoned.
Again, not to pick on Catholicism, but the Inquisition, which was logically derived from upholding Church dogma, was an absolute horror, and today is totally discredited. With modern separation of 'church and state' such an Inquisition can never again be allowed. In the world of science, today's unquestioning observance of Einstein's Relativity is yielding great fictions on the nature of the universe, though this is as yet still a contested area. But mainstream science, especially Astrophysics, implicitly believes in his postulates and their mathematically derived theories, almost at the level of dogma, so that all observations of the cosmos are seen through the lens of such relativistic physics. It may not be true, but anyone who doubts this system is more often than not shunned and ridiculed. That raises science to almost being religion, which is false, since the purpose of science is to find fault with itself, and prove it. This even carries over to Quantum Physics, where the observer then may influence the outcome of the experiment, and the line between objective and subjective observation is blurred. But then again, Quantum Physics also employs relativistic physics, so pure objectivity, like is astrophysics is obscured by the parameters of observations within 'domain of application'. (Electrical engineers, however, are able to produce great results at the quantum electronics level, as proved by the computer on which I write this, but it does not prove the theory beyond that we had figured out ways to use this electrical energy in a pragmatic way.) But these are not proofs, if the original postulates are taken a priori as true, and all developments from them are accepted without criticism. That makes it dogma, and so belief in the Big Bang origin of the universe, for example, has taken on an almost religious acceptance. Personally, I find it 'cosmic humor' that the first author of this idea was a Catholic priest, Fr. Lemaitre. However, since observations seemed to fit theory, it had become accepted by mainstream science as true. But is it, or is this merely a theory that appears true, since we cannot go out into deep space to confirm what we think we are observing from our planet Earth? While we cannot independently verify these 'truths', out there, they must remain theory, merely ideas, and not incontrovertible 'scientific' dogmas. If dogma seeps into science, the whole idea of science is then moot, redux ad absurdum.
Another criticism of dogma is that it does not stand the test of scholarly evidence. This is often in response to some dogma being 'immutable' because it was accepted by a religious authority. For example, again from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
quote:Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. ... The dogmas of the Church are immutable.
This is a dog biting its own tail syndrome, where if the Church says it is 'immutable' then it is immutable because they said so. The same happens in Islamic dogma, where the revealed Quran is 'immutable' and therefore beyond doubt as the 'complete word of God'. However, when scrutinized by scholars, there are inconsistencies and gross errors. One such criticism is found here, (10 Myths About Islam - at bottom of page is link to full table of contents), where the author, Timothy W. Dunkin, shows:
quote:Islam teaches, as one would expect, that the Qur'an is perfect, the complete revelation of Allah to mankind. The Qur'an is held to be flawless, completely unassailable in what it says, both in fact and doctrine. Because of this perceived completeness, Islam is thus viewed to be the penultimate in religion, the culmination of religious advancement throughout man's history. With the completion of the Qur'an, Muslims believe, the need for revelation ended and Allah's message to man finalised.
However, upon further investigation of this 'revealed' final truth, there is cause to reconsider it, as a reasonable human being:
quote: Any book making the claim to be God's Word ought therefore to be free from demonstrable error. The Bible has withstood every test of literary, logical, historical, archaeological, and scientific truth and accuracy brought against it by sceptics and unbelievers. Can the same be said for the Qur'an?
The answer as can be shown is NO. Muslims claim the Qur'an is preserved and inspired, and point to Surah 85:21-22 as proof, "Nay, this is a Glorious Qurán, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved!" The Qur'an is claimed, as an impregnable dogma, to be written in perfect Arabic, said to be "Allah's language", as a basis of its absence of error. This claim is made in Surah 13:37,
"Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah."
...
The Qur'an has many grammatical errors in the Arabic, a partial listing being errors in Surat 2:177, 3:59, 4:162, 5:69, 7:160, and 63:10. A detailed exposition of the errors in the Arabic has been provided by Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Christian and native Arabic speaker 22. These errors demonstrate the fallibility of the Arabic text of the Qur'an. In a further exposition on the subject, Rafiqul-Haqq and Newton have provided detailed demonstrations of how the Qur'an uses grammatically unsound Arabic at several points (Surat 2:177, 3:59, 4:162, 5:69, 7:56, 7:160, 21:3, 22:19, 41:11, 49:9, 63:10, and 91:5) and provide the correct readings according to standard rules of classical Arabic grammar23.
The author points out other errors and inconsistencies, especially 'scientific errors' but it is not the point to be made here, as to whether or not the Quran is 'pure' or not. What is being considered is whether or not Dogma can ever be objective, or is it of necessity subjective. Regardless of what Muslims wish to believe, or the Church dogmas want us to believe, it does not alter the reasonable argument as to whether or not first principles based on dogma are objectively true, or only acceptable as subjectively true for those who choose to believe in them, as we are free to believe.
That is the fundamental point here: Objectivity demands real proofs, while subjective ideas are personally chosen as 'true', whether or not there is proof. If Dogma wants to present itself as objective truth, then it must present with it the proof that it is so; while if any person wants to claim that their dogma is truth, they may do so only at the subjective level, that they personally accept it as true, but not as an objective reality. If then we wish to take our subjective ideas and roll them backwards towards real events, whether through Biblical scholarship of the history of those events, or through sociological studies that bring evidence that dogmatic ideology bears the expected fruits as predicted, or through scientific observations that validate the mathematical postulates on which they are based; that is a whole different story, because then at least there is some effort to 'prove' that the ideas are right. But if Dogma is to be accepted prima facie as Truth, there is a problem, because it can only be true for the person believing in it, and not objectively true from a real point of view. This is why as a 'personal faith' no dogma can be contested, if the person believing it truly believes it. But as a 'politicized faith' the test of objectivity is paramount, totally necessary, since now it gives the power of one person, or group, to exercise power over another person, or group. And if this test of objectivity, or reality, is not met, then there is no rational reason for anyone to take precedence over any one else's faith, or life, which would make them superior to them. We are all equals before reality, and only in our minds may we entertain whatever beliefs we wish; but to then act on those beliefs as if they applied to another breaks that equality, of necessity, and it becomes a coercion to the other. And that, dogma or not, cannot be allowed, ever. Faith can only be personal, and never political.
So getting back to Naive's original question: "Should we go so far as to ban cultural transmission of dogmatic ideas, or perhaps even, set up a mandated ethical system that in effect replaces dogma by out competing it in the educational sphere?" From a rational, reasonable point of view, though authored by a person, who is subjective of necessity, the answer to this must be that dogmatic ideas cannot be allowed to compete on the same level as objective ideas, whether in education or government. Dogma is of necessity a subjective idea, one accepted by the believer, but it can never be transplanted onto another human being. To do so is then to force that other person to believe as we do, as if it were an objective belief, which of necessity means us forcing our own personal 'fiction' on another, and thus 'politicizing' it. In fact, all beliefs are always, of necessity, subjective, as are all dogmas, and personal. To be otherwise, if religious dogma is truly from God, would mean that God Himself would have to come down and tell us. That never happened, and with the way the universe is structured, it will not happen. All authorship of Dogma is human, and therefore subjective. That is the limit of our human reason, that we can believe as we will, but we cannot transpose that belief on another, without being unreasonable, and coercive. Religious dogma is always personal, period, or else it becomes redux ad absurdum.
* * *
This does not of itself fully answer Naive's question above, but it may lay foundation for later. Ethics of 'right and wrong' is one thing, but Dogma is something altogether different; one can be questioned, the other cannot. Perhaps after we come back from our 'summer break', we can address this issue further, including opening up a new line of thought with a new thread. For now, I leave it here merely as a topic for reflection. We'll talk more then.
Sorry for this very lengthy response, much longer than I intended it to be. All the best, until then. Now I will go outside and enjoy the Full Moon.
Ivan |
Ivan/Mercer
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 10:38 am: | |
112 Mercer, Princeton University
Stopped off at Einstein's residence at Princeton University, just to pay homage to a great man, the house is now a private residence. This was a day trip down from the Poconos where we stayed at a lake with family and friends, but wanted to stop and feel the energy of that great university. It started out as a theological college, now secularized, elegantly imposing campus and stately architecture, such as Prospect House which we visited inside, and had to stop at Alexander Hall, of course, we used the bathrooms downstairs.
There is a sense of intellectual power at the place, young people visiting, some with parents exploring perhaps a future academic life, from all over the world it seems. A friend works here, in the Classics wing, so visited her and a professor of Roman history, and to see her new iPhone, impressive. I could not help but think of the irony of juxtaposition between ancient history, modern technology, and young minds walking the campus, and somehow the power of intellect, or perhaps just the power of theology, has such a powerful draw on our minds, from the past into the future. It was a very fine visit, beautiful but hot day, and also a very long drive from the Poconos, as there are no fast roads to get here. But the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, down the torturous winding roads of reason, are never fast it seems. The Greek deli at Olives was delicious.
Ivan |
Ivan/Mercer2
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 09:16 pm: | |
112 Mercer, in Einstein's footsteps, Princeton campus.
Taking the airs in front of Einstein's home in Princeton, New Jersey.
There is a lot about gravity physics still not understood, especially if my prediction that Newton's G is not a universal constant but 'variable G' instead. Princeton's advanced Cosmology studies seem to point this already:
Cosmology Experiments
The fundamental gravitational interaction is being studied by precision timing of binary pulsar systems. These are ideal probes of potential departures from Einstein's general relativity and of low-frequency gravitational radiation. Recently discovered millisecond pulsars, with long-term stabilities surpassing atomic clocks, offer new possibilities for fundamental measurements. The group is involved in several searches for new pulsars (33 discovered as part of Ph.D. theses in the past two years), analyses of existing pulsars, analyses of the interstellar medium, and development of new detecting methods. (italics mine)
Talking about iPhone at Princeton campus, but thinking to myself "how do we crack into Princeton's advanced cosmology physics studies?" Lots and lots of tutorials, no doubt.
Ivan |
reasonable guy
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 12:07 am: | |
Seven reasons why people hate reason.
Don't know if to take this seriously or tongue in cheek, but there are very good reason to use reason as a valuable mental tool to understand reasonableness. For example, per article linked:
1: Reason stands against values and morals" --- Not if moral values are "reasonable" and socially beneficial rather than "faith based."
2: No one actually uses reason --- Without reason the expected is disappointing, and unexpected or "puzzling."
3: I hear "reason", I see lies --- How would you know a lie from truth without reason?
4: Reason excludes creativity and intuition --- Intuitive genius is worthless if not tested reasonably in reality.
5: Whose reason is it anyway? --- Reality determines final tests of reason.
6: Reason destroys itself --- Only when it results in paradox or self destructive deceit.
7: Reason is just another faith --- Based on reality, "faith" is discovered only through reason rather than fancy of fiction.
You may wish to subscribe to the articles listed by dissenters from reason, but do so at your own expense. |
|
