Re: extropians-digest V8 #159

From: Steve Nichols (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 08:56:29 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: [WAR] amazing new photo history"

    >
    > Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:08:23 +1000
    > From: "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@optusnet.com.au>
    > Subject: Re: extropians-digest V8 #158
    >
    > Steve Nichols writes:
    >
    > > > From: "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@optusnet.com.au>
    > > > > >
    > > Sure, 1+1=2 and whole of maths relies on the identity statement
    > > 1 = 1 ..... but maths says nothing about the world (if you take a
    > > fictionalist view of it as I do).
    >
    > I agree maths "says" nothing about the world, in the sense that
    > clocks don't usually "say" anything about the time. Interpretation of
    > the symbols is an active process. But my point was that maths is
    > useful. We are able to do maths and reason and use language and
    > these capabilities generally confer an evolutionary advantage.

    So you have shifted from defending supernatualism (God &c) as
    being "True" to a position that it is (evolutionarily) "Useful" ..in the
    same
    way as fiction is useful in entertaining us ... but shouldn't be taken
    literally.

    I accept that wish-fulfilment and escapism has its place for some people ...
    but to build your whole life on a fiction seems wasteful and not "adult" and
    fully evolved in some ways. A child's imaginary friend might be comforting
    but is still delusional.
    >
    > Arriving at the position of atheism however, if one lived in the time
    > of Hume, looks to me, from what I imagine as the personal human
    > standpoint of Hume to have been a little too much reasoning for his
    > own subjective good. I find harder to explain *why* someone
    > like Hume didn't rationalise away an unpleasant personal truth.
    > Or maybe he did. I don't know Hume's personal story that well.

    Sometimes the truth isn't what w want to hear. Tough.
    >
    > But I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that being an atheist
    > because that position made sense to Hume on intellectual grounds
    > would still have come at a subjective cost for him because it would
    > have meant (I am assuming) that he would have accepted that he
    > personally would be annihilated at death. I don't think Hume could
    > have put much stock in cryonics, uploading or radical life extension.

    But as POSTHUMANS we do have these options and don't need the
    obsoltete human-era religion industry ......
    >
    > > However, EXISTENCE truth claims require (preferably)
    > > verification or proof ....
    >
    > If you mean to say that the assertion that A is true requires
    > verification or proof, I agree, but only provisionally.
    >
    > Someone else's assertion of A being true has to be *important*
    > enough to me for me to care whether it is true or not.
    >
    > Whether "God" exists fits into the category of being worth
    > caring about, if one learns from one's childhood (as most in
    > the judeo-christian tradition do), that personal annihilation is
    > avoided at death because of a set of ideas of in which the
    > existence of a particular type of God is central.

    OK, so we need a better psychotherapeutics and rationale.
    But anti-rational supernaturalism doesn't suit this modern
    techno age. I am working on developing MVT into an
    applied as well as evolutionary/ theoretic system, and
    combining Connectionist psychology with new MVT hypnotherapy
    techniques.
    > >
    > Sorry you lost me at MVT.

    Most info on this at http://www.multi.co.uk/primal.htm
    >
    Steve Nichols
    Posthuman



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 09:08:12 MDT