clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Locked
123
123
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
 
|
On 12/29/2014 03:53 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Insisting on experiments that are strictly boolean valued is too harsh if there are other variables that are hard to measure, but don't completely destroy the correlation between things that can be measured. I agree completely. My hope isn't actually for a binary test. I was initially more interested in a spectrum of willingness to play the game, where [a]theists would be on one end (won't play the game at all) and agnostics are on the other end (willing to play any game for an extended period). But based on our conversation, here, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test which has 4 categories: achievers, killers, socializers, and explorers. (I mostly fall into the explorer camp.) And the expanded categories down at the bottom are interesting, too. Anyway, now I'm thinking [a]theists would show up as relatively small, relatively well defined, subsets of the 4 (8 or whatever) dimensional space, whereas agnostics would show up as larger, nebulous subsets. E.g. I know I dislike FPS and crosswords (though games with mixed play type are much better... an FPS with an occasional crossword would be way better ... the only reason I still play GTA, in fact.) But every so often (perhaps thrice a year), I'll play one just to see if I still dislike them ... and I almost always have to finish once I start. The same is true of bad fiction. I often start a novel, get to about page 100 and say to myself, "This book really sucks. I should stop reading now." But I very rarely do. Sometimes a bad novel will sit on my nightstand and loom over me until I force my way through it. (The last novel I quit reading was Atlas Shrugged. I just couldn't take it anymore.) My guess is that (ardent) [a]theists are quite efficient at a) knowing the games for which they'll be rewarded and b) avoiding games for which they won't. ("Reward" being various and often intangible.) Of course, their [a]theism is probably only one of many effects of [a] deeper cause[s]. And I care much more about the cause[s] than the effect[s]. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
And a month later, though actually submitted two months in anticipation, scientific research responds with: http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to get into Heaven It should be noted that PNIS is a mock scientific journal. -- rec -- On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:28 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:18 -0700, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> And a month later, though actually submitted two months in > anticipation, scientific research responds with: > > > http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to > get into Heaven They joke that "The eventual results of this experiment (which are not yet available) have been accepted “in principle”, and will be published when made available by the author(s)." It seems to me there is a fixation on positive results. To get funding, it is usually necessary to pre-register a set of questions, at least, if not the scientific methods. So wouldn't it be better if funding requests and submission of academic papers were the same process, and double blind? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:18 -0700, Roger Critchlow wrote: >> >> http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to >> get into Heaven > > > They joke that "The eventual results of this experiment (which are not > yet available) have been accepted “in principle”, and will be published > when made available by the author(s)." > > It seems to me there is a fixation on positive results. To get funding, > it is usually necessary to pre-register a set of questions, at least, if > not the scientific methods. So wouldn't it be better if funding requests > and submission of academic papers were the same process, and double > blind? The problem with intricate jokes is they rely on an intricate audience. The joke would be far funnier if they'd included a poes-law-like description of the aims and methods ... but fewer people would be willing to play the game. So, although it would be funnier, fewer people would find it funny ... humor economics? I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo and the opinions of Sam Harris (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/). -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
Glen writes:
"I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo and the opinions of Sam Harris (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/)." “This ‘respect’ we’re all urged to show for ‘religious sensitivity,’ is actually a demand that the blasphemy laws of Islam be followed by non-Muslims and secular liberals in the West are defending this thuggish ultimatum,” he said. I don't think he means to say the secular liberals are making that demand, but rather that they are surrendering to it. And elsewhere in the podcast he mentions some of them he doesn't "find readable". So I don't think he means all of them. An analogy might be a parent that beats his or her kids so furiously that the screams can be heard around the neighborhood. At some point being `sensitive' to that has a dubious moral foundation. And if one doesn't work from a moral foundation, then what is the motive for tolerance of the disruptive behavior? Just go along, get along? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
Glen writes:
"but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than he seems to be." It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult leader. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
Well said, Vladimyr.
Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email] [hidden email] Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? To Marcus and Group, If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can be true, or are all true in some respect? If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we decide which is true? Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value of the map is compromised. Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been squashed as the admission price) . Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory of his argument. ad hominem fallacy Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as if there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they appear. The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the judges, or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the drive for literary quality may be very small. vib -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Glen writes: "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than he seems to be." It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult leader. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
FWIW, Charles Peirce has a rather novel solution to this problem. First, he
writes as if there are such things as facts ... things that are true not matter what you, or I, or any other person might think. So, up to that point he seems like a straight-on dualist: reality is distinct from human thought. But then he takes a sharp turn. Facts are NOT independent of all human thought. Indeed, a fact is just what we, as inquiring creatures, are fated to agree upon in the very long run. Truth is that upon which scientific thought will converge. Thus there is no reality outside human thought, just reality outside the thought of any particular set of persons. Strange, huh? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:36 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Well said, Vladimyr. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email] [hidden email] Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? To Marcus and Group, If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can be true, or are all true in some respect? If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we decide which is true? Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value of the map is compromised. Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been squashed as the admission price) . Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory of his argument. ad hominem fallacy Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as if there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they appear. The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the judges, or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the drive for literary quality may be very small. vib -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Glen writes: "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than he seems to be." It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult leader. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |