From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 21:54:15 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > Statistically, I understand, a majority of the worlds
> > population is so much into belief and religion and the
> > supernatural that many of them think they have another
>> life coming after this one. That imo effects the way they
>> make resourcing decisions and do their cost benefit
>> analyses to the extent that they do them at all.
Hi Samantha :-)
>
> Well, there are more than a few people around here
> that believe in a sort of "life after this one" as they are
> determined to support the creation of such possibilities
> whether through cryogenics, uploading or such increase
> of capability without formally dying that the result is no
> longer what most would term "human".
How many would be wedded to the use of the word
"belief" in that sentence I wonder?R I.E. Would they be
willing to freely drop it and substitute it with another if
they were convinced the word belief carried too much
negative baggage?R
Or would insist that this one (this life) cease before the
next once starts, rather than that this one would morph
with no loss of personal continuity in exchanging
substrates?R.
> Others think it quite likely that we are in a sim
> or are at least "players" in a sim.
An interesting hypothesis.
> The point of bringing this up is that belief in a life
> beyond this one, even of the more conventionally
> religious kind, is not automatically a sign of serious
> psychological problems and limitations.
Serious psychological problems by the standard of these
times, no, I agree. Limitations, I'm not so sure.
> Even conventional religious folks often belief
> in and practice good stewardship of resources in this life.
Yes.
> Now, it is true that many who do believe in an "afterlife"
> and even some that believe in some types of techno-
> transcendence, consider things of "this life" of not enough
> importance to spend much time maximizing.
Sorry, maximizing what?
> >
> > Belief makes for bad social policy.
> >
>
> Personally I get a little tweaked by "social policy".
You, tweaked? No. ;-)
> It smacks of collectivism and of centralized power and
> of some supposed limit on individual rights to come to
> whatever conclusions or beliefs by whatever methods
> they see fit.
If you find it in that form, and you reckon you can do it
safely, smack it back ;-)
When I talk of "social policy" in this context I mean it quite
simply as the way social groups (societies if you will) make
decisions as to how to allocate resources amongst
themselves, and what rights there should be that they will
each undertake to accepts some personal responsibility
for so that these rights are not just theoretical but are
actually underwritten in practice by the free decisions of
others in the social compact.
Unfortunately when some of the social group bring belief
of the supernatural into their considerations they can start
to imagine that the nexus between rights granted and
responsibilities assumed can be broken. That somehow,
because the supernatural underwriter is going to step in
if necessary societies can grant rights without its members
needing to merely confine themselves to real resources
and the real capacity of the society to underwrite those
rights.
Problem is when citizens try to rely on rights that are not
underwritten by real responsibilities they find those rights
cannot be relied on.
I don't think any of the above comments are more or
less true regardless of whether you have centralised power
or government or not. The nexus between real rights
socially allocated and real responsibilities socially accepted
(without recourse to supernatural - unreliable underwriting)
is far more fundamental than any particular form of
government.
> > I need to get to know someone before I give them
> > the benefit of the doubt as to having done either
> > qualitative or quantitative analysis of any sort *if*
> > they say they have arrived at a position based on
> > faith or belief. Actually if the used the words
> > "arrived at a position" I'd probably raise my
> > evaluation a bit. If they use another word instead
>> of believe, like perceive, think, suspect etc.. I know
>> there's a better chance of some sort of personal
> > processing going on. That they are not just parroting
> > what they've heard. I guess I apply a crude sort of
> > Turing test to people. I suspect that some others that
> > have a strong commitment to reason also make
> > assessments on the basis of language. Assessments
> > which are not facts, but are definitely not mere beliefs
> > either.
> >
>
> Why should anyone care whether you approve of the
> word they use for their process or not though?
Well I'm no one particularly special, so let's be clear about
that. But to answer your question, perhaps one intelligent
thoughtful person should care about what another intelligent
thoughtful person thinks because their is a genuine
opportunity to learn for both of them if one adopts that
attitude.
As it happens I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about
the use of particular words in the context of political debates
and do have some real world lobbying experience at quite
a high level but I expect no way to take my insights or
experience on faith. Rather I see it as my responsibility to
make my case.
I would counsel all who would listen not to accept things
I say because I say them, (I don't want disciplines -like
I'd come looking for them here : -) - I want more friends,
more colleagues, an extended community and more people
with whom I can work to make the world a better place as
determined by us not just by me). I ask that people accept
only what I say *after* consideration *if* it seems to be
true and/or useful to them (and then only accept it provisionally
until something better becomes available). But I'd also say
please be generous with *your* insights, thoughts and
criticisms with me.
> I disagree with the
> contention, as Lee did, that "belief" usually means or
> should be taken to imply an unthinking acceptance.
>
> > Some one who does no better than to believe when reason
> > is available in my view is morally copping out in many cases.
> > The process of reasoning is available to normal homo sapiens
> > but it can't be engaged simultaneously with the process of
> > believing. Belief starts when reasoning stops. If indeed in some
> > peoples cases, on many issues, reason every got out of the
> > starting block in the first place.
> >
> The above assumes that reason alone is sufficient for all
> things.
I did say when reason is available. Sometimes we must make
decisions. And so the process of reasoning is suspended on that
matter (at least for a time). But their is I think a difference in reason
deliberately and knowingly suspended, and reason abdicated when
the chance to reason remains and circumstances offer it as an option.
An option to accepting on faith or with belief.
> But some quite fundamental philosophical decisions,
> such as the Primacy of Matter vs. Primacy of Consciousness,
> are not decidable on the basis of reason alone.
PCR makes clear, I think, that it *is* necessary to accept some
axioms as fundamental but it has the virtue of systematically looking
at what these are and of formally acknowledging the limits.
(To be completely honest I may be getting a little rusty on Pan
Critical Rationalism myself its been a while since I read about it).
In relation to the Primacy of Matter vs. Primacy of Consciousness
I am not sure that I am well enough versed in this area to comment
intelligently, however my inclination would be to say that they are
not decidable on the basis of reason *yet*. Perhaps I am
misunderstanding this particular point and you might enlighten me.
> They are at a
> nearly axiomatic level not further reducible.
Nearly?
> There is also the
> matter of a more inductive approach to certain questions of life
> and value. For that matter, the entire sphere of values is not
> easily reduced to that which reason alone recommends.
Certainly not easily. But as I hope has become a little more clear
through the course of this reply I am looking a reasoning and
believing very much in the context of what they mean for the social
compact.
Also, perhaps some "values" in the "entire sphere" should not be
valued. Perhaps belief should not be valued. I don't value it. I value
people (even believers). I respect their right to have opinions and to
use words like belief. But I don't currently respect belief as such, I
think its anti-social at worst and a-social at best.
> > I certainly won't willingly contribute to the view that belief is as
> > good and as valid a way of making decisions in the world as
> > reason. It isn't. Indeed promoting such a misconception in a
> > democracy increases the chances of my premature demise.
>
> When you have employed reason and cannot reach a conclusion
> but you have to choose, what do you do?
I make a provisional assessment, or if need be a final assessment
as dictated by the need to reach a decision as best I can given the
circumstances.
> I expect you "make a value judgment" that at least seems unlikely
> to be certainly wrong and seems to be mostly in the direction of
> the rest of your values.
I don't know about the value judgement bit, but a judgement yes,
but I aim for more than "unlikely to be certainly wrong" this end of
the ranging is usually despatchable quite quickly (it depends) but I
also look to a judgement on what is "more likely to be right".
> >
> >>>Please do consider ditching "belief", "human life" and "human
> >>>beings" from your operating language when other terms are
> >>>available.
> >>
> >
> > I'm talking again as a political animal, not merely or mainly a
> > philosophical one. I am pursuing change and very aware of how
> > important it is to win the votes on issues in democracies.
>
> It is not important. The votes are a game generally to persuade
> the people they actually are in control. The counter-evidence
> is easily found.
I don't understand this comment.
> > Sorry just in case that was missed, the pivot point on embryonic
> > stem cell research around the world at present (politically)
> > speaking is whether an embryo is a human being. Of course
> > it is. It exists and its human. Its not a person though. So if we
> > don't want to propagate and validate the confusion we'd better
> > use the term person and people and personhood or some such
> > equivalents when we mean them instead of the less precise terms
> > or we are running the risk of helping believers giving us social
> > policies whereby actually persons (sick people) cannot be given
> > the fullest level of care, because we've traded off their rights as
> > a class against the rights of some potential people (embryos) as
> > a class.
>
> A good point.
Thank you, I've worked on it and I continue to work on it.
> However, it would be MUCH better to remove stem
> cell research and development from that which is subject to a
> "vote".
If you can tell me how we can do that in practice Samantha I'd be
very interested to here it.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST