DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
Locked
12
12
DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
 
|
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennetthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowcPS. Christopher Hitchens murió en diciembre el año pasado. Asi que o está en la Gloria de Dios o simplemente transformado en otras formas físicas de la naturaleza. A mi me da igual !-- |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
|
|
Alfredo --
Very interesting listening. One might believe that they are all very reasonable men, until you get to the very end of the video where they listen to Hitch argue that the end of world civilization is imminent unless the Islamic world is reformed of its unacceptable beliefs, a reformation which he sees as only being effectively pursued by American military force. His colleagues are either struck speechless or they are in agreement.
The truly unacceptable belief of Islam, as far as I can tell, is Jihad, the doctrine that beliefs which endanger the faithful may need to be answered with force. Sam Harris posted http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god last week.
-- rec -- 2012/9/22 Alfredo Covaleda <[hidden email]>
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
|
|
Did you just point out that the mighty
Hitch himself has come up with his own justification for an
anti-Islamic Jihad? And the rest endorsed it with their silence?
Alfredo -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
|
|
Yes, that's one way to hear it. But on review, I now hear Dennett attempting to interject, and Hitch allowing that Dawkins disagrees. Also wondering what got edited out, since something did.
But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and fourteen seconds, and give me your interpretation.
Jump back another 4 minutes for riffs on Messianic Judaism, wicked Quakers, and fascist Roman Catholics. -- rec --
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
|
|
On 9/26/2012 7:02 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and fourteen > seconds, and give me your interpretation. Around 1:47:30 Dawkins makes remark about finding out the "fact of the matter". And how "passionate" he was about it. This leads to Hitchens asserting that all religions are equally wrong, and that the menace of religion coming from the "surrender of the mind" I think an unstated psychological distinction is between `getting to truth Z' vs. `denying yourself truths A-Y'. To see anything like the truth in the natural world one must attempt to mask every bias and only to realize the truth will still be, even after extensive falsification, ambiguous. Having nothing nailed down is just more difficult and stressful. (Constrained views of the world apparently do make people happy -- http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf .) But having the drive to some arbitrary Z has a psychological property seen in religion: belief without evidence. In this view, the surrender of the mind is also a sort of character weakness. Meanwhile, scientific culture even advocates pigheaded sloppiness known as the hypothesis. Hitchens goes on to talk about the distinction of offending one Muslim vs. a billion of them -- or rather why anyone would see the former as equivalent to the latter. It would be weakness to decide the merit of an idea based on the implied threats of an unthinking group; it's important to be prepared to go it alone. Just to prove he means it, he takes shots at more religions. (Mostly for dramatic effect, I'd say, but fair enough anyway.) Toward the end, what I think he's worrying about is the possibility that the greater (world) population just can't do without having some stupid fairy tale to stick to (and especially to stick to each other). Since he equates religious thinking to disease contagion, he clearly envisions a future where the fervent outnumber the sober. He only suggests one scenario, though. Part of what makes the U.S. government act is defense of secularism, the Constitution, and all that. Another part is that unleashed fervor is bad for business -- like when it involves valuable natural resources. Hitchens mentions the U.S. military as a likely appeal, but not other powerful secular actors of Asia that have their own interests to protect, and could be pretty nasty about it if they were so inclined. "Recess is over -- now put down that book of holy words and get your lazy *ss down to the factory, would you?" (I just knew globalization must have some benefit!) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism
|
|
Marcus -
Very thoughtful summary and analysis. I *am* hopeful that the intelligentsia of the world (of the West?) can somehow reason their way through the world's problems to some solutions. We here (FRAIM-at-large) might be in some way a microcosm of that. My snide remark in response to Roger's (also thoughtful and insightful) analysis of the Dawkins/Hitchens/et alia thingy was in reaction to my fear that (as Roger puts it) appearing to "all be reasonable men" in fact they might actually be as fervently unthinking as those they are trying to "fix". One theme of my chiding here (usually of Doug) revolves around a form of hypocrisy that I, at least, find somewhere between difficult and impossible to avoid. The epitome of this is "intolerance of intolerance". It seems to be an example of Godel's Incompleteness. If there any intuitively obvious allowance for intolerance it would seem to be intolerance *of* intolerance, yet opening that door risks scope creep on our subjects of intolerance. The Irony of Hitchens and company declaring Jihad on Islam itself was too rich to skip over. I find your (Marcus') analysis here an antidote to my knee-jerk reasoning on the topic. Thanks for talking me off that ledge (if only incidentally). - Steve > On 9/26/2012 7:02 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: >> But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and >> fourteen seconds, and give me your interpretation. > Around 1:47:30 Dawkins makes remark about finding out the "fact of the > matter". And how "passionate" he was about it. This leads to > Hitchens asserting that all religions are equally wrong, and that the > menace of religion coming from the "surrender of the mind" > > I think an unstated psychological distinction is between `getting to > truth Z' vs. `denying yourself truths A-Y'. To see anything like the > truth in the natural world one must attempt to mask every bias and > only to realize the truth will still be, even after extensive > falsification, ambiguous. Having nothing nailed down is just more > difficult and stressful. (Constrained views of the world apparently > do make people happy -- > http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf .) But > having the drive to some arbitrary Z has a psychological property seen > in religion: belief without evidence. In this view, the surrender of > the mind is also a sort of character weakness. Meanwhile, scientific > culture even advocates pigheaded sloppiness known as the hypothesis. > > Hitchens goes on to talk about the distinction of offending one Muslim > vs. a billion of them -- or rather why anyone would see the former as > equivalent to the latter. It would be weakness to decide the merit > of an idea based on the implied threats of an unthinking group; it's > important to be prepared to go it alone. Just to prove he means it, he > takes shots at more religions. (Mostly for dramatic effect, I'd say, > but fair enough anyway.) > > Toward the end, what I think he's worrying about is the possibility > that the greater (world) population just can't do without having some > stupid fairy tale to stick to (and especially to stick to each > other). Since he equates religious thinking to disease contagion, he > clearly envisions a future where the fervent outnumber the sober. He > only suggests one scenario, though. Part of what makes the U.S. > government act is defense of secularism, the Constitution, and all > that. Another part is that unleashed fervor is bad for business -- > like when it involves valuable natural resources. Hitchens mentions > the U.S. military as a likely appeal, but not other powerful secular > actors of Asia that have their own interests to protect, and could be > pretty nasty about it if they were so inclined. "Recess is over -- > now put down that book of holy words and get your lazy *ss down to the > factory, would you?" (I just knew globalization must have some > benefit!) > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
Steve,
This is, of course, the inherent weakness of the socially liberal position*, right? Either you become a hypocrite, or you must agree with your antagonist's right to passionately hate your ideas. The person arguing against you has no such handicap. The cards are thus stacked from the beginning against the maintenance of a tolerant society, and some decent amount of planning and effort is needed to keep things stable. Hey... that almost looks like something we could make a really good model of. You could certainly add several layers of real-world, empirically valid complexity on top of standard altruism models. Eric *The extra adjective is there because this is irrelevant to the financially liberal position. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 12:37 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Marcus - Very thoughtful summary and analysis. I *am* hopeful that the intelligentsia of the world (of the West?) can somehow reason their way through the world's problems to some solutions. We here (FRAIM-at-large) might be in some way a microcosm of that. My snide remark in response to Roger's (also thoughtful and insightful) analysis of the Dawkins/Hitchens/et alia thingy was in reaction to my fear that (as Roger puts it) appearing to "all be reasonable men" in fact they might actually be as fervently unthinking as those they are trying to "fix". One theme of my chiding here (usually of Doug) revolves around a form of hypocrisy that I, at least, find somewhere between difficult and impossible to avoid. The epitome of this is "intolerance of intolerance". It seems to be an example of Godel's Incompleteness. If there any intuitively obvious allowance for intolerance it would seem to be intolerance *of* intolerance, yet opening that door risks scope creep on our subjects of intolerance. The Irony of Hitchens and company declaring Jihad on Islam itself was too rich to skip over. I find your (Marcus') analysis here an antidote to my knee-jerk reasoning on the topic. Thanks for talking me off that ledge (if only incidentally). - Steve > On 9/26/2012 7:02 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and > fourteen seconds, and give me your interpretation. > Around 1:47:30 Dawkins makes remark about finding out the "fact of the > matter". And how "passionate" he was about it. This leads to > Hitchens asserting that all religions are equally wrong, and that the > menace of religion coming from the "surrender of the mind" > > I think an unstated psychological distinction is between `getting to > truth Z' vs. `denying yourself truths A-Y'. To see anything like the > truth in the natural world one must attempt to mask every bias and > only to realize the truth will still be, even after extensive > falsification, ambiguous. Having nothing nailed down is just more > difficult and stressful. (Constrained views of the world apparently > do make people happy -- > http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf .) But > having the drive to some arbitrary Z has a psychological property seen > in religion: belief without evidence. In this view, the surrender of > the mind is also a sort of character weakness. Meanwhile, scientific > culture even advocates pigheaded sloppiness known as the hypothesis. > > Hitchens goes on to talk about the distinction of offending one Muslim > vs. a billion of them -- or rather why anyone would see the former as > equivalent to the latter. It would be weakness to decide the merit > of an idea based on the implied threats of an unthinking group; it's > important to be prepared to go it alone. Just to prove he means it, he > takes shots at more religions. (Mostly for dramatic effect, I'd say, > but fair enough anyway.) > > Toward the end, what I think he's worrying about is the possibility > that the greater (world) population just can't do without having some > stupid fairy tale to stick to (and especially to stick to each > other). Since he equates religious thinking to disease contagion, he > clearly envisions a future where the fervent outnumber the sober. He > only suggests one scenario, though. Part of what makes the U.S. > government act is defense of secularism, the Constitution, and all > that. Another part is that unleashed fervor is bad for business -- > like when it involves valuable natural resources. Hitchens mentions > the U.S. military as a likely appeal, but not other powerful secular > actors of Asia that have their own interests to protect, and could be > pretty nasty about it if they were so inclined. "Recess is over -- > now put down that book of holy words and get your lazy *ss down to the > factory, would you?" (I just knew globalization must have some > benefit!) > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 09:56 AM:
> *The extra adjective is there because this is irrelevant to the financially > liberal position. I'm not so sure that it is irrelevant. I tend to view the merchant, who just wants to do business and doesn't care about your other social positions, as the very foundation of social liberalism. The best way to maintain a speaking relationship with someone you otherwise might hate is to continue doing business with them. That "bottom line" is very similar to the realists' ultimate Truth and provides a horizon for a continual moral compass. Ultimately, the ability to "make a buck" is a compression of all the other things that keep us alive ... food, shelter, procreation, etc. When doctrinal delusions like promises of 72 virgins, our own planets, or Star Trek social equality interfere with our ability to "make a buck" ... well _that's_ when all hell breaks loose and we riot in the streets. Financial liberalism is the _trunk_ and social liberalism is the leaves. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
Glen -
I'm not sure I have a conclusive position on this topic. But I do (surprise) have a few observations. I agree that "commerce" (especially in it's larger sense, embracing community and barter and things other than "bucks") can be a valuable ingredient in stable society... What I personally am most worried about is the implications of the (true, but maybe unfortunate?) statement "to make a buck is a compression of ...". I believe that our reduction of the value of *everything* to currency is a lossy compression, and that what is lost may not be missed until it is too late. My touchstone for this is the difference between "a buck" as an "I Owe You" vs a "You Owe Me". I believe that currency started as a normalized form of "I Owe You's" but that somewhere soon after the formation of that device, it became conflated with "You Owe Me's". This is a subtle but crucial difference. Whenever I might purchase something (good or service), I don't presume that I have a *right* to that good or service simply because I have the price of it in my wallet. I take the signs in many establishments as sacred: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". This might be a thinly veiled reference to the racial/cultural prejudices of yesterday, or to the individualist shop owner's assertion of their right to not have to deal with jerks... but it is a reminder to ME that any transaction is *more* than the exchange of $$ value. I think this observation supports your point. When you buy or sell something from/to someone, you also exchange something else much less tangible... it can be a building of trust... of understanding even perhaps? In this model, $$ are the needle pulling very ephemeral threads which ultimately weave a fine and strong fabric of community. Or so I like to think. - Steve > ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 09:56 AM: >> *The extra adjective is there because this is irrelevant to the financially >> liberal position. > I'm not so sure that it is irrelevant. I tend to view the merchant, who > just wants to do business and doesn't care about your other social > positions, as the very foundation of social liberalism. The best way to > maintain a speaking relationship with someone you otherwise might hate > is to continue doing business with them. That "bottom line" is very > similar to the realists' ultimate Truth and provides a horizon for a > continual moral compass. > > Ultimately, the ability to "make a buck" is a compression of all the > other things that keep us alive ... food, shelter, procreation, etc. > When doctrinal delusions like promises of 72 virgins, our own planets, > or Star Trek social equality interfere with our ability to "make a buck" > ... well _that's_ when all hell breaks loose and we riot in the streets. > > Financial liberalism is the _trunk_ and social liberalism is the leaves. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
I agree that the compression is lossy. But it all depends on _what_ is lost. If the compression extracts the (an?) essence of basic human needs, then it's a good thing. It loses all the nonsense (e.g. delusional ideas of social equality kumbaya) and hones in on things like bread and water. I'm not sure the problems with it boil down nicely to a conflation of "I owe you" and "You owe me". But they might. Some layers out, the problem I see with it is the difference between making a buck for basic needs vs. making bunches of bucks that will accrue to meet the basic needs of my descendants for millenia to come. I.e. the problems aren't with the compression so much as the misplaced value. And that point makes me think the problem is at a coarser layer than IOU vs YOM. Either of those "notes" seem benign. It's the lifetime of the note that is the problem. A good mnemonic for this is the word "currency" ... descended from "current". I've often thought investments, assets, liabilities, etc. should be measured by a metric separate, orthogonal to the currency with which they were traded. I.e. perhaps we shouldn't be able to _own_ cash, at least not for very long. Most checks have a "not valid after 90 days" qualifier on them. That seems reasonable to me. As for your basic point, I agree completely that concrete exchanges, face 2 face, facilitate the exchange of intangibles, trust, understanding ... like boxers touching gloves before pounding each other into meat ... or an agreement not to shoot someone in the back ... nobility, honor, respect, etc. And the more abstract the currency, the less it facilitates this exchange of intangibles. Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 10:55 AM: > I agree that "commerce" (especially in it's larger sense, embracing > community and barter and things other than "bucks") can be a valuable > ingredient in stable society... > > What I personally am most worried about is the implications of the > (true, but maybe unfortunate?) statement "to make a buck is a > compression of ...". I believe that our reduction of the value of > *everything* to currency is a lossy compression, and that what is lost > may not be missed until it is too late. > > My touchstone for this is the difference between "a buck" as an "I Owe > You" vs a "You Owe Me". I believe that currency started as a > normalized form of "I Owe You's" but that somewhere soon after the > formation of that device, it became conflated with "You Owe Me's". This > is a subtle but crucial difference. > > Whenever I might purchase something (good or service), I don't presume > that I have a *right* to that good or service simply because I have the > price of it in my wallet. I take the signs in many establishments as > sacred: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". This might > be a thinly veiled reference to the racial/cultural prejudices of > yesterday, or to the individualist shop owner's assertion of their right > to not have to deal with jerks... but it is a reminder to ME that any > transaction is *more* than the exchange of $$ value. > > I think this observation supports your point. When you buy or sell > something from/to someone, you also exchange something else much less > tangible... it can be a building of trust... of understanding even > perhaps? In this model, $$ are the needle pulling very ephemeral > threads which ultimately weave a fine and strong fabric of community. > Or so I like to think. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
Glen -
> I agree that the compression is lossy. But it all depends on _what_ is > lost. If the compression extracts the (an?) essence of basic human > needs, then it's a good thing. It loses all the nonsense (e.g. > delusional ideas of social equality kumbaya) and hones in on things like > bread and water. I don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social equality"?) exactly a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself. BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given transaction/POV. > I'm not sure the problems with it boil down nicely to a conflation of "I > owe you" and "You owe me". But they might. I agree that they are not that simple... it was merely an illustration of what I consider to be one *obvious* problem with abstraction of value. > Some layers out, the > problem I see with it is the difference between making a buck for basic > needs vs. making bunches of bucks that will accrue to meet the basic > needs of my descendants for millenia to come. I.e. the problems aren't > with the compression so much as the misplaced value. Agreed. In a true community, I would not sell my last egg during a famine to someone who was hoarding or "scalping" them to my neighbors, but rather to someone whose survival through the famine increased my own chance of survival (ideally through the increased health/survival of the whole network/community). In fact it is likely that I would not "sell" but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the right member of a community as an ultimately selfish act. > And that point > makes me think the problem is at a coarser layer than IOU vs YOM. > Either of those "notes" seem benign. If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone with "too much money", you might not call the last one "benign". There is nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or your soul with the flick of a pen... It is one of the worst things I find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy. > It's the lifetime of the note that is the problem. A good mnemonic for > this is the word "currency" ... descended from "current". I've often > thought investments, assets, liabilities, etc. should be measured by a > metric separate, orthogonal to the currency with which they were traded. > I.e. perhaps we shouldn't be able to _own_ cash, at least not for very > long. Most checks have a "not valid after 90 days" qualifier on them. > That seems reasonable to me. Yes, the time-constant of abstracted IOU/YOM is an interesting feature... I suppose (hyper)inflation is a good antidote to this, though it moves one from being a "saver" to being a "borrower" or a "lender", or worse yet, to adding absolutely nothing to the economy except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans. > As for your basic point, I agree completely that concrete exchanges, > face 2 face, facilitate the exchange of intangibles, trust, > understanding ... like boxers touching gloves before pounding each other > into meat ... or an agreement not to shoot someone in the back ... > nobility, honor, respect, etc. And the more abstract the currency, the > less it facilitates this exchange of intangibles. Yes, this is probably the most risky part of abstraction of value... the abstraction. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
In Stephen Pinker's recent book on the remarkable decline of violence,
"The Better Angels of our Nature", he makes a similar observation about the role of merchants, that they necessarily must practice empathy with respect to an ever-widening circle of people who go far beyond the emhathy one more easily feels for close kin. The merchant needs to practice the skill of "being inside another's skin" and understanding the Other. Pinker points out that we rarely give merchants and commerce the acknowledgement due their expansion of empathy. Bruce On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'm not so sure that it is irrelevant. I tend to view the merchant, who > just wants to do business and doesn't care about your other social > positions, as the very foundation of social liberalism. The best way to > maintain a speaking relationship with someone you otherwise might hate > is to continue doing business with them. That "bottom line" is very > similar to the realists' ultimate Truth and provides a horizon for a > continual moral compass. > > Ultimately, the ability to "make a buck" is a compression of all the > other things that keep us alive ... food, shelter, procreation, etc. > When doctrinal delusions like promises of 72 virgins, our own planets, > or Star Trek social equality interfere with our ability to "make a buck" > ... well _that's_ when all hell breaks loose and we riot in the streets. > > Financial liberalism is the _trunk_ and social liberalism is the leaves. > > -- > glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 12:55 PM:
> I don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social equality"?) exactly > a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself. Well, it's on topic. The search for a biological mechanism for the golden rule seems to target the disagreement between religion and atheism. Personally, I think the golden rule is a largely useless abstraction. It lacks any operational detail. Sometimes I might well want to be punched in the face ... sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'd like Renee' to offer me some of her candy bar. Sometimes I don't. I'm currently ~20 lbs overweight. 8^) > BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a > dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like > multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering > some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given transaction/POV. That's a great point. The compression algorithm is just as important as its inputs and outputs. > In fact it is likely that I would not "sell" > but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the right > member of a community as an ultimately selfish act. This is also an interesting point. The dichotomy between selfishness and altruism is false. I think it says something important when a gift giver (loudly) claims they don't want/expect anything in return. I like to play with people who fail to come to my parties after I sent them an invitation. They often will say things like "Don't stop inviting me", which opens the door for Eris! My last victim, a neighbor, said something like "I really wanted to come but blahblahblah." I responded: "That's OK. We only invited you so that you wouldn't call the cops on us when we got too loud." I still don't know whether he knows I'm joking. > If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone with "too > much money", you might not call the last one "benign". There is > nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net > worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or > your soul with the flick of a pen... I don't find that offensive at all ... ignorant, yes, but not offensive. > It is one of the worst things I > find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without > realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a > single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the > tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy. I guess I have to disagree there, too. I don't think that act, in isolation, is dehumanizing. I think it depends more on the cloud of attitude surrounding the act. If you treat the locals with respect, look them in the eye, engage their customs, listen when they talk, etc. ... i.e. treat them like humans, then it doesn't matter one whit how much you spend on your food. The trouble is that wealth engenders abstraction. So, the wealthy tend to view everyone around them as tools. > to adding absolutely nothing to the economy > except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans. I'm still torn on this. I do think "financial instruments", in general, are good. I just can't predict which ones will yield good things versus bad things ... until _after_ we've used them and seen their effects. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
Well... so much for
discussing modeling...
Personally, I am not a big fan of the Golden Rule because it implies that everyone should be happy with the same things. It also implies the very arrogant position that what you-in-particular want can be the "should" for everyone else. How about if we try to "do unto others as they would have us do"? As an example I am sure many on the list are familiar with: My mother does all sorts of things for me that she wishes I would do for her. We reach an impasse when I try to explain (usually for the 20th time) that I actually dislike the thing she is doing. We can get into a similar place if, for example, we think of all the weird kinky things that some people might like us to do unto them, but we would really prefer they didn't do unto us. And yes, there is nobody on this list that someone, somewhere, wouldn't want to do some really, really nasty things with. (See "Rule 34")* Eric *This is where there is a small chorus says "speak for yourself"; for you people, imagine those desiring very boring and mundane things. P.S. Having many times been in the presence of "people with too much money", even by middle-income US standards, I find the types of behaviors Steve mentioned annoying, but in no way offensive. Of course, I have been raised to have a strong belief in personal property, and (despite my hippy parents) have strong Libertarian leanings. I have never seen anybody dump a month's worth of my wages on a single meal, but I have seen a month of my salary go to a table of meals, and I have attended private events that probably cost a year of my salary. I think such spending is dumb, I wish they would give a bit to me, but ultimately it is their money. And, since it is on topic, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Grace is funny some times ;- ) On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 08:28 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 12:55 PM: > I don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social equality"?) exactly > a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself. Well, it's on topic. The search for a biological mechanism for the golden rule seems to target the disagreement between religion and atheism. Personally, I think the golden rule is a largely useless abstraction. It lacks any operational detail. Sometimes I might well want to be punched in the face ... sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'd like Renee' to offer me some of her candy bar. Sometimes I don't. I'm currently ~20 lbs overweight. 8^) > BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a > dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like > multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering > some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given transaction/POV. That's a great point. The compression algorithm is just as important as its inputs and outputs. > In fact it is likely that I would not "sell" > but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the right > member of a community as an ultimately selfish act. This is also an interesting point. The dichotomy between selfishness and altruism is false. I think it says something important when a gift giver (loudly) claims they don't want/expect anything in return. I like to play with people who fail to come to my parties after I sent them an invitation. They often will say things like "Don't stop inviting me", which opens the door for Eris! My last victim, a neighbor, said something like "I really wanted to come but blahblahblah." I responded: "That's OK. We only invited you so that you wouldn't call the cops on us when we got too loud." I still don't know whether he knows I'm joking. > If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone with "too > much money", you might not call the last one "benign". There is > nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net > worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or > your soul with the flick of a pen... I don't find that offensive at all ... ignorant, yes, but not offensive. > It is one of the worst things I > find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without > realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a > single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the > tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy. I guess I have to disagree there, too. I don't think that act, in isolation, is dehumanizing. I think it depends more on the cloud of attitude surrounding the act. If you treat the locals with respect, look them in the eye, engage their customs, listen when they talk, etc. ... i.e. treat them like humans, then it doesn't matter one whit how much you spend on your food. The trouble is that wealth engenders abstraction. So, the wealthy tend to view everyone around them as tools. > to adding absolutely nothing to the economy > except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans. I'm still torn on this. I do think "financial instruments", in general, are good. I just can't predict which ones will yield good things versus bad things ... until _after_ we've used them and seen their effects. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
I think the GR just says you might want to value context over
doctrine.
On 9/27/12 7:53 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES
wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Expected that Sarbaijit might have mentioned this - the Gita has a variant of the golden rule that I like much better than the biblical version - "refrain from doing to others what you would not have them do to you."
months wages on meal -- I fell into an evil crowd of capitalists on my first visit to Japan (brother of the head of the Chilean navy, Schwinn bike importer, guy who bought yachts in Japan and sailed them to California and sold at 200% profit, ...) and was treated to a dinner by their banker. Little, live, fish that you caught with chopsticks, dipped in hot sauce and tossed down your esophagus - fugu - kobe beef - about five different kinds of sake - ... . The meal for six of us was about $3600 USD - in 1972.
davew
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 07:53 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 06:53 PM:
> Well... so much for discussing modeling... I don't get what you mean by that. In order to model, you have to have something to model. You suggested that agents subscribing to social liberalism had a particular justification problem (contradict their own doctrine - intra-agent contradiction - or tolerate doctrinal contradictions between agents). But you leaped from the realm of thought (hypocrisy/contradiction) to mechanism/ontology (tolerant society) without providing any _thing_ to model. There's no referent to which a model can refer. Or, even if there is one, it's too vague to grok. It's bad practice to reverse engineer a model from analytic methods like contradiction. A better route is the forward, synthetic, constructionist map from mechanism to phenomena. Once you have at least one forward map, you can begin serious work on the inverse map. I suggested a mechanism: currency and trade. From that referent you should be able to build a model mechanism from which consistent justification can emerge. Steve further suggested some nuance to the mechanism that may well add finer grained building blocks (IOU vs. YOM). And I then elaborated a bit on the objects being traded (distinguishing between necessary vs. luxury goods) and suggested that a model measure _other_ than the currency itself be used to observe the system. Steve also mentioned using a semi-closed agent so that its interface (trading) is a projection of a larger internal system (which would give it some hysteresis and perhaps lower its predictability without adding any stochasticity). Bruce, earlier, tossed in the option to measure the system as a network and, perhaps, a hint at a hypothesis that might be tested: agents primarily motivated to trade facilitate larger, more connected networks. Then you, David, and Carl began hashing out whether the model should be rule-based or not. I read Carl's comment as a suggestion that each agent could be rule-based, but use different rules, some of which might be reflective. I.e. one agent's rules might take expressions of other agents' rules as inputs ... i.e. meta-rules or rule operators. This seems like a very common casual modeling conversation, to me. What's questionable is whether the mechanism we've suggested so far will contribute to a debate about religion and atheism. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
Dear Jess and Caleb,.
So, we are in hartford with the free wifi, warm and dry, and our plane is on time. In such moment of enhanced mortality, it washes over me that neither of you knows the name of our Lawyer. It Peter Ziomek and he lives in Amherst. He aint much of a lawyer but he has the paper. Caleb, well se yhou in six hours. Love to you both, Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:29 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 06:53 PM: > Well... so much for discussing modeling... I don't get what you mean by that. In order to model, you have to have something to model. You suggested that agents subscribing to social liberalism had a particular justification problem (contradict their own doctrine - intra-agent contradiction - or tolerate doctrinal contradictions between agents). But you leaped from the realm of thought (hypocrisy/contradiction) to mechanism/ontology (tolerant society) without providing any _thing_ to model. There's no referent to which a model can refer. Or, even if there is one, it's too vague to grok. It's bad practice to reverse engineer a model from analytic methods like contradiction. A better route is the forward, synthetic, constructionist map from mechanism to phenomena. Once you have at least one forward map, you can begin serious work on the inverse map. I suggested a mechanism: currency and trade. From that referent you should be able to build a model mechanism from which consistent justification can emerge. Steve further suggested some nuance to the mechanism that may well add finer grained building blocks (IOU vs. YOM). And I then elaborated a bit on the objects being traded (distinguishing between necessary vs. luxury goods) and suggested that a model measure _other_ than the currency itself be used to observe the system. Steve also mentioned using a semi-closed agent so that its interface (trading) is a projection of a larger internal system (which would give it some hysteresis and perhaps lower its predictability without adding any stochasticity). Bruce, earlier, tossed in the option to measure the system as a network and, perhaps, a hint at a hypothesis that might be tested: agents primarily motivated to trade facilitate larger, more connected networks. Then you, David, and Carl began hashing out whether the model should be rule-based or not. I read Carl's comment as a suggestion that each agent could be rule-based, but use different rules, some of which might be reflective. I.e. one agent's rules might take expressions of other agents' rules as inputs ... i.e. meta-rules or rule operators. This seems like a very common casual modeling conversation, to me. What's questionable is whether the mechanism we've suggested so far will contribute to a debate about religion and atheism. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
While agreeing that this version of the Golden Rule is somewhat more
"evolved", I don't exactly recall this variant as especially being from the Gita. On 9/28/12, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: > Expected that Sarbaijit might have mentioned this - the Gita has a > variant of the golden rule that I like much better than the biblical > version - "refrain from doing to others what you would not have them do > to you." > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
|
|
I'm introducing this subject with some trepidation, & mainly because I
dont want to seem as pushing an alternate religious viewpoint - especially one which lends itself so easily as justification for 'jihad'. As Glen expressed earlier the Golden Rule is not really compressible. "Do unto others as you would have done to you / Don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself etc" are rather vague. The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too) expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY to do what is "right", even if it involves heinous killings on a massive scale or even the killing of his close relatives. DUTY is one of the core elements of Dharma (the way of righteousness). Of course DUTY cannot be taken in isolation, because the essence of the Gita is the continuous weighing of choices between the Dharmic Law (kill / harm nobody) versus the inferior Niti (Penal) Law (slay all offenders on sight). Gita 1:30, 2:31 etc. So DUTY would probably be compressible. I am an ant, so I'm duty bound to pick up every speck of sugar I can find and convey it back to the mother ship. On 9/29/12, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote: > While agreeing that this version of the Golden Rule is somewhat more > "evolved", I don't exactly recall this variant as especially being > from the Gita. > > On 9/28/12, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Expected that Sarbaijit might have mentioned this - the Gita has a >> variant of the golden rule that I like much better than the biblical >> version - "refrain from doing to others what you would not have them do >> to you." >> > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |