PATHWAYS CONFERENCE: The Use and Value of Philosophy


	PATHWAYS CONFERENCE The Use and Value of Philosophy
[ISFP] PATHWAYS CONFERENCE The Use and Value of Philosophy http://www.nicenet.org Here are the postings for the Pathways Conference on The Use and Value of Philosophy from January 7th 2003 to December 7th 2003. There were 676 postings totalling over 220000 words. To obtain a key for the Pathways online conferences, you must be a Pathways student, and or a member of the International Society for Philosophers or Philosophical Society of England. Happy Conferencing! Geoffrey Klempner How to participate in the conference Request a Conference Key CONFERENCE TOPIC: THE USE AND VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY FROM: Geoffrey Klempner (01/07/03 11:00 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Welcome! Welcome to the new Pathways Conference! Our two ground rules: 1. Be prepared to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. 2. Treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times. — Enjoy the conference! Geoffrey Klempner ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Katharine Hunt (01/26/03 11:29 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Can philosophy save the world? Having registered for the last online conference but never having found the time to keep up with the discussion, and also having had difficulty accessing the messages, I never actually took part. Consequently I didn't expect to have the opportunity to start off this new conference, and yet here I find myself. I would like to invite my fellow conference participants to help me with a question which I keep returning to, but to which I do not know the answer. That is, whether philosophy can help us to improve our society, and ultimately the world? I have talked with people who are very optimistic in their hopes for the future, but they always leave me wondering whether they have actually noticed what everyday life and the majority of people are really like! As a Montessori teacher, I have read works by Maria Montessori, founder of that educational movement. She believed it was possible to improve society, and ultimately to bring about world peace, by changing the way that children were educated. Because of her ideas about human development, she believed that by correct education children could still be changed for the better, whereas adults could not. But the problem I see with this, is that children are constantly being influenced by their parents, and by television and videos, as well as by their teachers. And the influence of a parent, because of the emotional bond, is always stronger than the influence of a teacher. But where could you break this cycle, without taking children away from their parents to be brought up — a monstrous repression. Do you think it is possible to improve society, the world? If so, do you think philosophy can do it? REPLIES (9): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/26/03 2:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: kids are adapting to the world Dear Katharine, there has been some exchange on this topic before in the "questions and answers lists" of Pathways, and on the (old) conference. I will look it up. There has been an interesting exchange on this with Charles Countryman whose wife is a latin-teacher to a parochial school in Spokane (WA). And there has been a famous letter of Mary Seifert on the conditions in a school of Memphis. On this you best contact Michael Ward. The idea to improve society by improving first the kids is at least as old als Plato and his "Republic". But even in the former (socialist-Stalinist) German Democratic Republic (GDR = DDR) it failed. The wife of the top official there, Secretary General Erich Honecker, Margot Honecker, was herself a school-teacher, and of course she got absolute control on all schools of the state from even below Kindergarten. If you are the wife of the top official of a state this is a spledid position to try it. And the wife of Lenin — Nadeshda Krupskaja — was a school-teacher too and had the same absolute power by her husband to direct the schooling system. But it never worked, neither with Lenina nor with Honecker. Why? Kids are NOT stupid. They try to adapt. And they adapt to what they see — as we all do. Thus when they see that the socialist society does not work and is a great lie, and even the parents and other peers say so and get used to a double-speak and double-think, then what do the kids learn from this? They dont learn to become good socialists but they learn to become good liars and pretenders and cynics. And they are — from a practical point of view — completely justified in this. Thus the really interesting question is in another line: What is it, that makes people like Socrates or St.Francis or Schweitzer or Gandhi or ML King or other "rebels angainst the usual" rebellious and NOT adapting and becoming cynics. The main objection of the wife of Charles Countryman against the pedagocical principles of John Dewey (which I don't compare here to those of Montessori) seems to be, if I understood it right, the kids learn to adapt instead of learning to think. Or perhaps that they never learn the difference between adapting and thinking. Seen in this light, philosophy may indeed "change and improve the world" if it gets us all — not only the kids — to a clearer thinking. But of course you get the kids and yourself into trouble if you tell them that their elders are lying and pretending cynics — while they indeed often are. I had some gloomy thoughts when realizing that all those brilliant students in the former communist states had to get their A grades by learning and telling nonsense, while those that really tried to think and to ask, why things did not work out, got E or F grades just for being really bright and honest. And I have some more gloomy afterthought when realizing that this may be not that different in our western liberal world either. Thus I think to be honest to what you see and what is logical and not accepting for granted what you are told is the "point of honour" — but you cannot expect that from normal kids, this is for heroes. There will be much more to be exchanged on this topic. This only was a start. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/26/03 5:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Saving the World for what? Katharine, Firstly welcome to the conference and even if Philosophy cannot provide answers I think it can provide a means to help order and understand the world. When I read your posting it raises certain questions in my mind and I wonder if it is the same with you. Can Philosophy improve our society you ask? By improve you must have some ideas of what is 'better', would this be a return to a previous state or some future 'utopia' yet to be created. Would it be acceptable that humanity was, by its very history, always destined to have inequality and struggle — after all extinction of the least fit has successfully brought us to where we are today. Can Philosophy improve the World you ask? In a similar vein can the actions of the individual affect society at large or are there simply too many variables to ever be able to steer a course to a destination I wonder. Do I have an idea of what a better world is - no its just the way it is — always in a constant state of change, possibly more rapid recently. I am optimistic that we have a future and my rational thinking can accept that this future could be very different from today — people are not comfortable with managing change very well and yearn for the 'devil you knew' rather than something you don't. On the other hand my emotional responses find pain, deprivation and waste of talent both uncomfortable and unacceptable — I also have inconsistencies — but I guess that's what being human was about. Finally, taking children away from their parents and imposing some value system on them a very 'Brave' idea but whose values? Would they be fixed values or capable of evolving, if they could evolve how would that be done without competition I wonder. None of this helps you with your decisions for tomorrow — or does it, at least if you explore every option that can be thought of you will know have done your best. Michael Ward p.s. I have put the other two letters from teachers in the documents section for you. FROM: Charles (01/26/03 11:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Why philosophy? Can philosophy help us to improve our society? I think that if we focus on the word "help," it probably can. One of the ways that I understand philosophy is it being the art and science of using logic to understand the human condition. I think it is self evident that this would help improve society. I doubt that philosophy alone can provide a vision for what this improved society should be. Some look for this vision in religion and some in science. It is arrogant for either religion or science to deny the "vision" in the other. How do you get these two visions together? Should we even try? These are the sort of questions philosophy can deal with. FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 6:53 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy I'm sure philosophy can influence the world. That's why philosophizing developed during evolution. But changes may take long, and often outside your lifetime. That's no reason to stop debating, but reason to enjoy the fun of debating without any expectancies. In my own contribution I ask for opinions about democracy. If many of them show weak points, than I'm convinced that in the long run that will have an influence. FROM: Ralph (02/13/03 5:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Can education alone improve the world? I believe this is the question Katharine is asking. A reference to Montessori methods and family interaction is, evidently, troublesome. Perhaps, like other things, in practice it is difficult to achieve a measured result for this activity. That is to say, the result of education, in general, is not always social or mental improvement. Studying philosophy may be akin. As Mark Twain once said "I never let schooling get in the way of my education" I can argue "I never let philosopy get in the way of my improvement" Questions raised by mathmatics are equally useless and more arcane. In conclusion, changing our "programming" is not the path to social or world improvement. Changing the "hardwire" or DNA, retaining cultural diversity, freedoms and self-determinism is a start. Summus Quod Summus FROM: Michael Ward (02/14/03 11:36 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Never mind the quality, feel the width. Ralph, By what yardstick would you measure improvement? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/14/03 7:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: GIGO-principle Ralph, you wrote the "Changing the "hardwire" or DNA, retaining cultural diversity, freedoms and selfdeterminism is (likely to improve our behaviour and outlook)." I am very very sceptical on this. If you replace an old computer by a new one or an old TV by a new one, you will not improve the software or the TV-program by this. In computer-slang this is known as the GIGO-principle: "(if you put) garbage in — (then you will get) garbage out". Thus I think education will be much better than rewiring. Most people don't lack brainware, they simply have a bad program in their heads. And there are many teachers of all sorts the like it thus. Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/16/03 4:30 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: an example of this I agree with Hubertus on this. With the potential for genetic engineering being considered, there is plenty of discussion of how much of the way children turn out is down to their genes, and how much comes from the way they're brought up. There are strong arguments on both sides, and it therefore seems likely that the final result is a combination of the two — but I have to say that, working in a nursery, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the sensible, polite, caring children do generally seem to have sensible, polite, caring parents! Conversely, the more disturbed the home life, the more we see emotional and behavioural problems in the children. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 7:20 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the nature-nurture thing Katharine, you wrote "it is impossible to ignore the fact that the sensible, polite, caring children do generally seem to have sensible, polite, caring parents! Conversely, the more disturbed the home life, the more we see emotional and behavioural problems in the children." This clearly is a mixed effect. And there even has been an American bestselling woman-author claiming from evidence that education is of nearly no effect. I think so. And maybe this sheds some light on my new posting on political differences. To become a Paulus you have to be a Saulus before. If you are nice and easygoing you will never become a fanatic - for whatever cause. But if you are a born fanatic, you only look for the right cause to engage in. We here near Cologne had this case: A Jesuit changing to Nazi (Goebbels) and a Nazi changing at the same time to become a Jesuit sort of Billy Graham. Most people are "medium", sceptical, not caring too much for who is right, thinking all people are a bit mad and vanity is behind much of thinking and saying. I personally would agree to that. I usually evade people who are obsessed with some idee fixe. They may be hurt by some trauma, I will not touch it. But to have a soft spot can be used — and is often — to blackmail others: "If you enter this argument, I will start shrieking!" On a philosophical conference this should not happen. While it could on a religious one. An acquaintance of mine just reported from a meeting with old class-mates from 20 years back that they all have been "just as I knew them". We all don't change much. If you have dogs and cats in your home, they all will adapt to each other and to you, but they all will stay what they are. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/27/03 5:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: transplant of a "self" Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2003, 00:40 MEZ Dear Rachel, suppose a robot has stood the Turing Test and cannot even by experts be told apart from a "real" human. Now suppose this robot is flying around in a sphere which gathers some needed energy from solar cells that cover part of the sphere, or he picks his energy from some sender in form of EM-waves, or he uses a battery or whatever power device seems fit. This would be a purely technical question. And I don't care how the sphere is made to fly around. These are all technical details of no real importance. The important thing — which we cannot answer today — is: While this robot cannot be recognized by you from his answers alone to be a robot, since he has stood the Turing Test, how then could you know if it's only my brain implanted into a sphere? You only see the sphere answering your questions — maybe by signals appearing on your computer in written words or appearing in your headphones as spoken. Since this "black ball" has stood the Turing Test, you can have long debates with "it" (or "him" or "her"?) on noodles with pesto or on philosophy or on dogs or on whatever without knowing if it's (??) a robot or if it's "me". We were debating on the nature of "self". The question is: Do you need to know anything on the "self" of this "black sphere" to have the most interesting exchange on all those topics — noodles, philosophy, dogs or whatever? I don't think so. Thus the question arises: What is the use of a "self"? And one possible answer would be: "The use of the self is self-control" — and this answer would fit with the "mirror-self" of Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead: You build up "your-self" by the reactions of others and by reflecting your experiences with the world. To only exchange with others, you need not "self", but for self-control, for knowing what you are doing, you need some self-controlling "second-thoughts". In this way chimps and babies learn to recognize "them-selves" in a mirror and in the reactions of others. Of course: You need not have put your brain into a sphere, and I think I will not either, but this is not the point. This is an "ab-straction", seeing the normal human body as only a system for (inefficiently) supporting the needed energy to the brain. Thus I say: Our body is not essential to be a human, it's only a "natural" device to provide the CNS with all the energy and oxygene etc. needed for its functioning. I wanted the idea of "being a human" separated from the idea of "having a human body" to get nearer to what seems essential. Hubertus REPLIES (15): FROM: Michael Ward (01/27/03 6:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: What "self" Hubertus The Turing test, as I understand it, is a language method to determine human from non-human. By that criteria dissimilar language speakers and the minimally intelligent would fail — yet we would still categorise them as human. On the other hand I have never understood what can be artificial about intelligence if intelligence is measured by behaviour and not in flesh or silicon. The question still remains is how can one tell whether there is another self inside the sphere — perhaps there is no knowable answer and we are forever all alien to each other. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/27/03 7:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on knowing the other "self" Mike, yours are interesting objections. I only try some hooks, since it's late here (2:30 am local time). — What could the Socratic "know your-self" mean in robotics? — We don't know this moment what "artifical intelligence" will be up to next time. Some people like Searle think there will never be an artificial equivalent of "true" intelligence, no real Bach or Mozart or Shakespeare etc.. This is a complicated debate I will not enter now. I tend to say "never say never again" — we simply don't know this time. We neither know what "AI" could be one day, nor do we know what "natural" intelligence is really or could be if (perhaps) genetically "enhanced". Once more: We don't know. — Your objection, that somebody unable to speak or to argue and thus unable to stand the Turing-Test, but being a born human, should be treated as a human, is fundamental and difficult. In what way then should we imagine a "soul" — so dear to all Christians — if this soul cannot speak or argue? In the opinion of the Roman Church a fertilized human egg-cell is automatically "a person" — while of course completely unable to stand any turing test. This concept of soul completely was lost on the exchange some weeks back. — From this follows, that the Christian concept of soul is incompatible with those "spheres", while the "spheres" per se could well be "members of a spiritual order", since to be spiritual surely requires not only to be "a person and have a soul" but "to be aware of things spiritual". Even Jean would not call Schweitzer "a great master" if Schweitzer were dull and stupid. Thus there could be those "spheres" all of the spiritual rank of Schweitzer but none of them being "a person" in the Christian sense. Now think this over everybody and have fun! Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 5:24 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: disembodied persons Well, Hubertus, you haven't answered the problem of how we individuate the disembodied. That was my question. How can you tell one sphere from another? And why is it a sphere if it is disembodied? That implies shape to me. And I am not sure what you are saying. You can only really have an interesting exchange on the assumption that the other has some inner life. If I had an exchange with a disembodied sphere (the possibility of this "thing" being highly doubtful) I would feel conned to find out it had no consciousness. I would no longer regard it as an "exchange". If you want to use "sphere" and "exchange" in new ways, go ahead, but you can't expect me to understand. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 9:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a spiritual sphere. Dear Rachel, I only entered the "sphere" to abstract from all things bodily. Do you really need "arms, legs, and a stomach" to be able to think and to argue? Of course even those "spheres" need some "learning" to be able to use words, concepts, and arguments in the proper way. But if there cound be learning computers some day, there could be learning "spheres" to. If this picture of the flying spheres is disturbing you, then simply replace it by the picture of your computer flying around on some platform like a NASA space-module. My question was: Does a sensible or even spiritual being have to be a "fertilized human egg" to become sensible and spiritual? I don't think so. I wanted to separate the concept of "a sensible or even spiritual being" clearly from the concept of "a being with arms and legs and a stomach". I think that those to concepts are independent. To be a true human, you need to be a true human, but to be a true philosopher you (perhaps) need not, you could instead be a sensible and spiritual robot flying around on a platform or inside a sphere. This "sphere" is not essential, like the human body is not, it simply is some sort of small space-ship: a container for the ("natural" or electronical) brain inside. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/28/03 10:50 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: disembodied persons Rachel, Rachel you wrote: 'You can only really have an interesting exchange on the assumption that the other has some inner life. If I had an exchange with a disembodied sphere (the possibility of this "thing" being highly doubtful) I would feel conned to find out it had no consciousness. I would no longer regard it as an "exchange".' I want to ask you how you know, not feel or desire but actually know how I am anything but an evolving software program sitting on this server successfully deceiving you that I am human? If you don't know but only presume that I am human, based upon my use of language and wits, how can you one minute feel satisfied and the next conned simply because what you think I am has changed? It might change back again also. Heaven forbid if people ever developed affections with 'robots'. HAL 9000 FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on falling in love with robots Mike, remember the SF-film on Dicks noveletta "Do Animals dream of Electric Sheep?" where "The Blade-Runner" leaves the question open, if the wife he is loving and "who" is going with him maybe a robot too? Why not loving a robot if you don't now the difference? And this was just the question you posed to Rachel. There have been some "cyborgs" around in the movies. Remember that from "Alien I". There have been more. And then the film with Robin William "200 years man" or what was its exact title. Once more a robot in love with a human, this time after a story of Asimov. As a pragmatist I have to ask "what makes the difference". If the Turing Test does not do, what will? To claim that "no robot will understand a joke" is misleading: The joke of a joke comes from "jokingly deceiving expectations". These expectiations rest on some sort of experience with what is usual and to be expected. But if you enable a robot to have expectations from experiences he even will understand jokes. Of couse this all is not of any practical relevance now. But we are on a PHILOSOPHICAL forum here, so it is not false to think a bit on what makes the difference of a robot and a "true human". Is is more than the difference of "biological matter" from "physical matter"? We don't know this moment. The AI-People simply are forced to think on what indeed "intelligence" and "learning" and "thinking" may be, not being content with some perhaps outdated and vague notions of "personality" and "soul" which may be as "artificial" and misleading concepts as was "God" for the analytical philosopers. Of course I am aware that some people may be shocked by this perspective, but I have nothing to lose, I am going for the ugly one already — and laughingly so. I am only a lonesome robot And many a mile from home I have a chip for my brainy The rest is some sort of foam I'm going this time for a human To know how the humans are I think they are mostly funny But of course it's another star. I am only a lonesome robot And many a mile from home I have a chip for my brainy The rest is some sort of foam And now, ladies and gentlemen, try to prove me wrong without doing and NMR-scan or an X-raying of my head. All the best from Hubertus. FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hmph. I believe in humans Well Michael, I don't feel or desire that you are human. I KNOW you are. And I would feel conned if you admitted to being a robot. And if you changed back to being the human I cannot doubt that you are then I would be distrustful. Kind of like a normal human being would be: in touch with and varying with the facts as known. And basicaly we all believe others (who look like humans) are human. Except Bush. R FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hmph. I believe in humans Well Michael, I don't feel or desire that you are human. I KNOW you are. And I would feel conned if you admitted to being a robot. And if you changed back to being the human I cannot doubt that you are then I would be distrustful. Kind of like a normal human being would be: in touch with and varying with the facts as known. And basicaly we all believe others (who look like humans) are human. Except Bush. R FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Sorry and spheres Sorry I just sent a message twice, because impatient with silly technology. Hubertus, when we think of subjectivity it doesn't seem to some people that we need bodies. It does to me and I agree with Searle that artificial intelligence can only be articifially created biologically. And as you know from Lakoff (this is not name dropping because I know you know this) research has it that concept formation is based in biology. So how could you talk to a sphere? Where talk is the thing we know. How would a sphere have concepts with which to communicate? It is not logically necessary to be embodied, of course, nor that we need human biology for intelligence. But maybe intelligence supervenes on biology. But also I kind of think being spiritual depends upon being embodied. It emerges from relations with others or maybe from nature but in both cases (surely it needs some reason like this)bodies are the relational other which is needed. I know philosophers go in for thought experiments but if they lack intelligibility, they won't take. Can't you just think of this without spheres and come up with a different more naturalistic example? What is the kernel of this idea? R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 1:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on trusting and being conned Dear Rachel, I just thought on the difference of your problem and mine. You feel conned if "somebody" like me pretends to be a human and turns out to be not. But as Mike justly asked you: How is it, that you have been happy before and now are not anymore? There has been a famous case here same years back, when a womens doctor practised to every womans satisfaction for at least 10 years but then by accident was shown to have never had a medical studium or diploma (I think he has been a male nurse for some time, getting some practical understanding, and then reading a bit too). The women — most of them — urgend the upervisors to let him continue, but of course this was impossible: He had cheated them, and he had shown that one can be a very good doctor without having any diploma. This would be acceptable in some Indian tribe for a witch-doctor, but not in our "scientific-professional" world. There is another example: The famous physicist Feynman (Nobel laureate), when studying at NY Columbia (I am not sure, but in think so), since he was bright and witty, was approached by some fellow student to enter their anti-semitist circle, they would feel honoured. He declined — since both his parents were square true Jews. Thus the problem is not that I should feel devalued if unmasked as being "a mere robot", but YOU would feel devalued for letting you "true human" got deceived by this "mere robot". This is "human partisanship and vanity as being the crown of Gods creation". How come a damn robot to pretend to be of my cast! You would have some sort of "identity shock" then like many contemporaries of Darwin had and like the "creationists" have up today. And all this "fuss about soul and self" has much to do with this deep rooted feeling of human exceptionality. After those famous "three great insults" to mans vanity by Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud, this could be the fourth one: Not even as a thinking and adoring and planning being, as a being having moral and intelligence and relgion and art, man may be as exceptional as he used to see himself. Once more: We don't know today if this is or will be anytime the situation. This only is a model to make us all aware of the problems of "defining" the difference of humans and robots. It's about a "generalized Turing Test": If "nothing" in the behaviour and answers of a Robot would allow us to tell "him" apart from a human, would then there still be a divide other than "being born from a human wife instead of coming from some production line"? Those are hard and ugly questions! Hubertus. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 3:03 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a true human Rachel and all others, my interest in this exchange on a philosophical forum is not of course on SF-movies and —novelettas, but on the nature of what we call "human dignity": What do we defend when we defend "human dignity"? Remember that most people during most of human history called themselves simply "humans" and denying this label to all or most others. Even Schweitzer wrote that it was impossible to teach his blacks in Lambar�n� to see other blacks not from the same clan or family or tribe as humans deserving help like they themselves. This notion of a general "humanity", of a unity of all humankind, that is fundamental to Christian thought, was completely alien to nearly all of those blacks Schweitzer encountered there. He then wrote that this idea may have been alien to most peoples of the world for most time and seems to originate in Europe from the Stoics, from where the Christians took this idea later. This does not contradict the Thora and the Old Testament, where generally all people not belonging to the 12 tribes of Israel are not seen as being of comparable standing. There was "the people of God" and "all the rest", "the heathen". Thus the idea of a general human dignity depends on what you call a human and by what standard. When Jefferson, 1776 in the "Declaration of Independence", called it "self evident, that all men are created equal", the black slaves were not on his mind, and they were not on the minds of those Christian southerners in the slave-holding states for another some 100 years, while, it is true, at least some of them were uneasy on this. I am not really interested in those robots and "flying spheres". I am interested in what we mean when calling "somebody" a human. What is it, that defines a being as a human one? Surely not his body, since this could be made artificially perhaps. So what then is it? Some suggested "the soul", and this is a real problem: Is this "soul" any more "real" than "God"? What do we mean by this concept of a "soul"? Others thought to be borne from a female human is essential. But this sounds like mere partisanship: Humans are then only a special sort of intelligent animals, and could well be subdued some time to become domestic animals of superior robots or cyborgs. Then we would have a two class society again: Those superior robots being the �lite, the "alphas", the "old" humans being the slaves and "untouchables" or "aborigines". This is already the theme of several movies. Thus once more: The problem is not "the spheres". Let them be cubes or whatever. The problem is: "What do we call a human being — and why, by what criteria?" If we can be nice to pets, why not being nice to robots too? And maybe some time hence a new sort of superhuman robots may ask "If we can be nice to pets, why not being nice to humans too?" Of course we always may defend "the world we are used to — OUR WORLD", the world of our cultural traditions, the natural environment etc., like we defend our personally used way of being. But to stick to what we love and esteem and find worthwile we need no philosophy. Philosophy by its very nature is always asking: "Why should it be as it is?" That exactly makes the difference between philosophy and religion. All the best from the ugly one, Hubertus. An addendum: I will leave it to you for now, I have some other things to do. But I think Socrates would have enjoyed this sort of problem. FROM: Michael Ward (01/29/03 4:42 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Take the middle case To all, Leaving the stark difference between organic and inorganic life aside can we ever choose one human as being more 'human' than another? If we can then maybe this would give us an insight into what is essentially human. Consider that soon we can 'transport' people instantly from one place to another but accidentally your partner gets duplicated and you end up with two. Please avoid trying to say in can't happen to get out of facing the dilemma, but of the two totally identical persons which is more human than the other? Is it A or B or neither? What is it that would prevent you from equally committing to both of them, surely any such difficulty would be with your concept of identity. Until now we have always been unique and have relied upon this to differentiate one from another. This difficulty in duplication of identity seems to me to be one of the prime, possibly unspoken, objections to cloning. Or is it like printing money — where too much causes devaluation? Michael Ward FROM: Charles (01/30/03 11:12 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self: being and becoming With cloning there is the problem of being and becoming. If I was cloned, it seems that the becoming (through time & space and in relationship with others) would distinguish the copy from the original. Somewhere previously Rachel mentioned the relationship of consciousness to self. I would agree that consciousness is required in the definition of self. But how about the unconscious? If the unconscious is included in self, that also raises doubts about including AI robots or systems as a subset of self. With an electronic circuit that is either off or on, is there a place for unconscious? An aside about the possibility of Strong AI Robotics. Even with nano-circuits, how would the power supply problem be solved? Has anyone seriously considered the nature of and quantity of energy involved in running the neuro-circuits of either humans or animals? Eastern ideas about Chi or Ki offer some clues about this energy. I doubt if chemical battery cells are going to solve the problem. Charley FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/31/03 4:03 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on conscious and unconscious memories Charles, even unconscious memories in Freudian (and similar) theory must be memories, otherwise they could not be effective and not be brought out to the conscious. They are "there", while only "suppressed" into the "dungeons of the soul". At least "in principle" the energy supply could be a battery like in a laptop- or notebook-computer. Of course: Even two identical twins ("natural clones") are different from their memories and individual fates. This applies to clones generally as long as the memories are not permanently cloned too as in a mirror-disk safety-system. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/31/03 12:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Becoming Charles, I have always found illogical the concept of 'becoming' either you are in one particular state or nothing at all. This concept of becoming implies, to my mind at least, the idea that there is a foreseeable future. Now the unconscious, much is spoken of this as if it were a secondary intelligence somehow undermining our higher rational functions. Surely any form of control system that is below consciousness must be 'un-conscious' by definition. I rather think these un-conscious activities are the more primitive, in evolutionary terms, parts of the brain that provide our autonomic controls that sustain life and this includes the functions like flight or fight or sexual drives. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 12:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self & Imitative Deception Michael said: "The question still remains is how can one tell whether there is another self inside the sphere — perhaps there is no knowable answer and we are forever all alien to each other. Michael Ward" This results from a theoretical example similar to the old signal warfare trick of imitative deception. The other side comes up on a morse, voice or data net and tries to enter the net or input misleading info. The old solution is the use of authentication codes. In the movie "Blade Runner," the detective used a system of questions and an "empathy box" to detect androids. I assume that the scientists involved in the SETI program have a system to filter out imitative deception. This implies that a real self can be defined and we do not have a fate of remaining hopelessly alien to each other. Charley REPLIES (5): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 4:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on robot-partisanship Charles, I think this is the point! The "Blade-Runner" is on partisanship. The androids are "from another tribe" and thus not trusted to be loyal to humans. This is why they have to be destroyed. Completetely different in "E.T.", "Short Circuit" or in "Bicentennial Man": In the alien-movie and in both "android"-movies the alien resp. androids are seen as friends of humans, as "intelligent playmates and pets" of (nearly?) equal standing. The question of "superiority" simply is not asked in all three movies. Of course in some respects the alien of "E.T." and the androids of "Short Circuit" and "Bicentennial Man" are clearly superior to humans and are explicitely shown to be so. But all three never are using their superiority to cheat or trick or overpower the humans that were nice to them. Thus it is like in the Western movies: There are the "nice Indians" and there are the ugly ones, but most often even the ugly ones have a cause against the more ugly whites — or at least some of them. Movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "Black Robe" are fair, showing bad and nice Indians matter of fact, like there are bad and nice whites. But of course this partisanship of robots is only one aspect of our debate on the self and the soul of "robots". And in all honesty: I don't like this robot-theme either, but since I am neither fainthearted nor pussyfooted I think I have to face it, like the military — like it or not — has to face those ugly possibilities of ABC-weapons and not only cry for peace. If you stand against some Hitler he will not care what you think him to be, he will do his thing. So you have to be prepared and up to it and not only be "nice and peaceful". People like Hitler would even shoot some Gandhi or Dr.King in cold blood if they think it fitting to do so. This time I only wanted to say that not even Hollywood is taking robots as ugly or dangerous per se — not even if they are superior. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/30/03 3:14 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Ducking the issue Charles, I'm not certain what this use of identification code does other than discriminate between those who have it and those who don't. Without such a code I wouldn't be on this conference but it was given to me without any form of validation that I was human — people simply accept my behaviour as reliably human. So by that criteria behaving like a human makes you human That is to say if something walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck then it's probably a duck — or am I ducking the issue? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/30/03 3:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being Donald Duck Mike, of course — duck, duck, duck. And if I pretend to be a human, Rachel will take me to be one — till she knocks at my head and it sounds like a hollow pot. Thus is the problem of the Turing Test — the simple one and the extended one. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/05/03 1:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus, if you pretend to be human, which you can't, because I know you are, I might be able to detect it. Why not? If you can "pretend" you would be human. What other being "pretends"? And Michael, cloning seems great. I could have five or ten husbands all identical to the one I have. Increased pleasure, but increased annoyance too! But then that would all be too much, maybe. Perhaps we define human beings by the way we are rather than how we could be. If cloning comes in we might have a different conception of the self. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 3:38 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on avatars and cloned husbands Rachel, things become galopping: Look up "avatar" on Google. Those are "artificial pretenders" - while not too bright ones until now. This "Eliza" of Jo Weizenbaum was one of them. And for the cloned husbands: In my former school a boy teenie had two babies on the same day from two girls that were identical twins and that deliberately used his inability to tell them apart. And since they were identical twins they loved him both of course. The whole school had its fun, but the parents may have been less amused after the first laughter. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 2:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Definition of self. I think that we still need to define what "self" is. The concerns about distinguishing robots from humans or about not needing a body to be human indicate our inadequate or lack of definition. Is human = self, or are humans just one subset in a larger set of self? Charley REPLIES (1): FROM: Michael Ward (01/30/03 3:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I think I am aware Charles, Can self exist before awareness? To become aware I would argue that it is necessary to have the ability to discriminate between 'this thinker' and 'other thinkers'. Simply seeing the forms on the wall in Platos cave example is not what I would consider being aware. Now which comes first I do not know, 'self aware' or 'aware of other self' as both seem to require the other preceding it. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 3:50 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self — re "Philosophy In The Flesh" Rachel said: "Hubertus, when we think of subjectivity it doesn't seem to some people that we need bodies. It does to me and I agree with Searle that artificial intelligence can only be articifially created biologically. And as you know from Lakoff (this is not name dropping because I know you know this) research has it that concept formation is based in biology. So how could you talk to a sphere? Where talk is the thing we know. How would a sphere have concepts with which to communicate?" I think that Lakoff's theory about the embodied mind is too limited for a comprehensive definition of self. He emphatically states: "We cannot, as some meditative traditions suggest, 'get beyond' our categories and have a purely uncategorized and unconceptualized experience. Neural beings cannot do that." (George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, "Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embdied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought," Basic Books, 1999). Getting beyond Lakoff's 19th century Darwinist science, I refer not to the traditions, but a more developed neuroscience. James H. Austin, M.D. in his "Zen and the Brain" (MIT Press,1998) states: "In Zen, the brain resolves an existential impasse. In this context, one calls it 'enlightement' or 'awakening,' kensho or satori. It is also termed 'insight-wisdom' or 'seeing into one's true nature.' The two intuitive processes are similar in form if not in content and degree." REPLIES (24): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 7:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on loyal robots and Lakoff Dear Rachel and Charles, your remarks are real stuff for the hungry lions in the arena. Charles, the androids in "Blade Runner" surely are seen as "not of our tribe" and thus to be distrusted and "removed", since they may be illoyal and do harm to humans. But this is not generally seen in this way, not even in Hollywood: The alien in "E.T.", the robot in "Short Circuit" and the android in "Bicentennnial Man" all are friendly and helpful to the humans, even while all three are clearly depicted as surpassing humans by far in their abilities. Thus from being superior does not follow being suppressive or evil. This is the "parental view of children": The parents may be clearly superior, but they are caring and trustworthy too. This is similar to the image of the American Indian in the Western movies: Some are "good", some are "ugly", but even the ugly often have been insulted and attacked before by ugly whites. And in movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "Black Robe" the Indians are shown to be as mixed up of good and bad ones as the whites are. So from taking the robots as "from another tribe" does not include that you have to fear or to hate or to distrust them — not even if they are superior. And not even in Hollywood. Concerning this Lakoff debate: While there may be simpler explanations for Lakoff not answering Charles, the question of whether you "need" a body to build up concepts is clearly open and not settled definitely at all. And there are several different sorts of "concepts". The concept of "horse" or "dog" may be simple to grasp even for robots. The concepts of "town" or "landscape" are not even easy for humans, not to talk of the really problematic ones as are "God", "soul", "freedom", "justice" etc.. And then there are those "theoretical" concepts like "class-struggle" or "Oedipus complex" or "original sin", that are meaningless outside of the context of some special "discourse" or "creed". But I do not think that the notions of "freedom" and "justice" and "original sin" are depending on having "a human body", while of course "bodily" love and sportive exercises like swimming and running and wrestling etc. are not to have without a human body. And of course if you are blind from birth the notions of "a grandiose view" of a landscape or seascape or a sunrise and sunset or of a face and an animal and a flower etc. are all meaningless. Thus the whole optical meaning of "beauty" is not affordable for the blind, while the spiritual may well be as in "the beauty of a mathematical or philosophical argument". And of course even "normal" humans lack many experiences: We do not know how the bees see the world in UV-light, and we do not know how the bats do hear in very high frequecies. And I always wondered what image of the world a dog may have from his permanent sniffing around on the ground. We now have devices to hear radio-waves and to see in the infrared and in the UV-light etc.. But this is not our "natural" experience. Thus we cannot generally say that bodily experience is needed for building concepts. We do not know. And we don't know exactly WHAT is experienced when we "experiance Gods grace" or "the evil" or "the good". This was my question some weeks ago about how to know the difference of "a God as creator", a real force like the force of gravitation, and "a God from the happiness pill", i.e. being only a state of our consciousness. I at least know of no convincing test to clearly tell these two possibilities apart. And in this sense I once wrote that to get at some inner state of awareness as in 'enlightenment' or 'awakening' or 'kensho' or 'satori' or getting at 'insight-wisdom' or 'seeing into one's true nature' does NOT include to get at some objective knowledge like that of Newton or Maxwell or Einstein concerning the laws of nature. "Subjective" knowledge and "objective" knowledge are NOT the same. You cannot know about natures ways by doing exercises, you have to study nature. But this could be done by a robot too, if he only would design some hypotheses and try to test them by experiment. But this moment even this task may be too much for any existing robot. What about a robot arriving at "satori"? This concept is similar to Platos' "charioteer" governing the passions. This may be achievable by a robot much more easy than by a human, since perhaps he simply "needs" no emotions to be controlled. But this is strange and scaring to us humans: We call somebody who never shows or has emotions "a robot", a person "without a heart". But I am too tired now to go into the difference between a person "having no heart" and a person that has achieved "true Buddha-nature". Maybe it's similar as the difference between being "a true holy sage" and one being only "correct and well behaved". But that I leave for another debate. Hubertus FROM: Charles (01/29/03 12:39 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Lakoff I agree Hubertus, there are probably better explanations for why Lakoff didn't respond to my inquiry. FROM: Rachel Browne (01/29/03 5:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Charles, enlightenment, awakening, meditative experiences are several senses of a type of experience and I don't see why Lakoff need deny this. Hubertus, if we couldn't tell a robot from a human, then we would treat it as such but I still maintain that if I was communicating with someone who then was exposed somehow as a robot (whereby I mean not conscious) I would still think that there had been no exchange. I think a robot as it is understood at the moment is something with no internal life. But if something with an internal life (though how we would know this, I don't know) was created we would treat it as a human being. If we regarded the robots as less intelligent than us, we might treat them like pets! Though if they were useful we might treat them like slaves if we didn't regard them as having "human dignity" until such a time as the Free the Robots Campaign starts. But consciousness seems to be the essential thing. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/29/03 7:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: some SF-movies Dear Rachel and all others, this is a minor selection of SF-movies to get a feeling of what "robots" may be in the context of our debate. Since "Terminator" is not on identity, I did not include it. By the same argument I left out many many others that have nothing to do with our "human personality" topic. Have fun! Hubertus These are the nice guys ... http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091949 ("Short Circuit", 1986) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0182789 ("Bicentennial Man", 1999) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0083866 ("E.T.", 1982) .. and these the more complicated ones: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0083658 ("Blade Runner", 1982) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0085701 ("The Hunger", 1983) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093870 ("Robocop I", 1987) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0100502 ("Robocop II", 1990) FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/30/03 5:34 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the "Free the Robots Campaign" Rachel, up to now you are completely justified to look down at the poor robots as to at most pets or slaves. But things may change, and they will be not too different from us some time - like all those "heathen" were not, that got underwear from well meaning Victorian missionaries. Ah, one last remark on those spheres! Remember that in the SF-noveletta I took this idea from those spheres were members of a religious order? Why don't catholics like the idea to have the Pope peruse porno-mags or see porno-films? Because a person of "moral exceptionality" does not do such a thing. But why not? What is wrong with it? Why is it not plainly "un-ethical"? Because all things bodily are "animalic", and while it is not "un-ethical", humans should guard their soul and be given to things eternal and above the flesh. Thus these "spheres" need no body and cannot have "sexual passions", while they can be members of a "spiritual order" and sing holy hymns. Tell this to Mr.Lakoff! I think Plato would not have objected to those spheres: They were full of Platonic love, not of the ugly animalic sort. For a very good book on all this "mutual understanding" have a look into Brian Fay: "Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science", which is NOT on society, but on topics like "Do you have to be one to know one?" or "Do we need others to be ourselves?" etc.. Very philosophical but very clear thinking and writing. (ISBN 1-55786-538-8). Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (01/31/03 1:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well, Hubertus, just because the Pope doesn't think porn is good that doesn't mean porn is anti-ethical, just that it is not supported by religious dogma. Personally I think porn is OK, if not a good thing, and what is so dismal about these spheres is that kind of thing would lack a function. Have you thought about becoming a Catholic at all? Can you be religious in a sphere? Charles, I kind of the unconscious — and I a great fan of the unconscious — is not part of the self as we know it — and as we know it is of course conscious. When you think of the return of the repressed, it is like invasion by horrible and alien. Freud connects the self to the world, but I read recently a criticism of Jung as makig the self more metaphysical. By the way, you can have my dog Charles. I'm beginning to think he is a bitch. But though I like philosophy, I do think neurologists know best about the brain and philosophy can be an escapism. I'm not sure that is bad. It depends on the practical alternatives. And there has been so much recearch into Parkinson's. Am putting dog on airplane to Spokane. Big chap with large ears. Will look hungry. And will be crying. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 2:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: poor dogs and robots Honestly Rachel, it was not on my mind what the pope is delighting in. As a philosopher I am still interested in the question: WHAT DO WE DEFEND AS ESSENTIALLY HUMAN? This was the core of all this "spheres"- and SF-thing. I clearly stated that you of course may defend things "as they are". I am not personally engaged in replacing humans by "spiritual spheres singing hymns". I only wanted to get us all aware of the fact, that we still do no know what makes THE ESSENCE of a human being. In my opinion — but you may oppose that — there is no good argument in philosophy or theology to defend the human body as "essential" for the definition of man. Do you know of any important philosophical argument that would deny me the state of a human being with human dignity if I had my brain transplanted into a floating sphere? That was my question. The meaning of this "porno-rubbish" only should make us all aware of another aspect of this difference between what is "essential" or "ethical" and what is only "cultural" and "usual". The pope thinks it "impossible" to have women for priest or even bishops or cardinals, why he officially never would deny the women equal status with men. But most cultures and most religion simply think women are "too sensuous and too emotional" to be priests. You may call this rubbish, but for catholic and orthodox christendom and for all islamic religion (and all buddhist too?) women as priests are simply "impossible". This is only one aspect of the question: WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY HUMAN? Once more: You surely may defend the world that you are used to. Most people do. But as a philosopher I have the right to ask: Why should thing be as they have always been? Why not change them? The feminists don't bow to the notion that women can be no priests. They think this to be a male prejudice and nothing else. They may be right. But I cannot imagine any religion now — neither the pope nor the Dalai Lama nor any islamic ajatollah etc. — delighting (officially that is) in pornos. And I ask: What is it in our image of man that prohibits such a thing. I am not interested in these porno-thing per se, but it is a sort of acid-test on how we define "a true human". If all religions consent on the point that the holy sage never is interested in things sexual, then this is much more than a mere question of upbringing and prejudice, there must be a very deep conviction of what the true nature of a saint is. And if a saint is the highest form of being a human (is it? please check y/n!) then it is a really important question why "to be a human of the highest level is incompatible with sexual interest". Don't you see that this is a very deep philosophical question concerning the true nature of our idea of man? And of course a holy woman — like f.i. Teresa of Avila — should not have sexual interest either by the same argument. Once more: What I want to understand is our concept of a human being, of WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR BEING A HUMAN — AND WHY? This is definitely NOT on prejudices and traditions and gustos. But it may be — I don't know — on a "structuralist" concept of man. If this is the case, I would like to know. What is it then in the deep structure of our concept of man that makes the holy and the sexual incompatible. The ethnologist Mary Douglas may have found out something on this in her book "Purity And Danger", but I did not read this and so don't know. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/01/03 4:50 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus I don't know what the essence of a human being is. I suppose porn is degrading, lacking in the human dignity and saintliness that you find the highest form of being. But I don't think women are too sensuous and emotional to be priests. They are not good enough, too physical, too animal, they give birth. But woman are human too. The main argument against being a brain in a floating sphere is that you can't learn a language and so couldn't think. But then, maybe, thinking isn't that good, not spiritual enough. Katharine has been thinking about this and finds that it doesn't necessarily make people better. R FROM: Michael Ward (02/01/03 1:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Sex, emotions and feminists Hearties Sex, emotions, feminists, chauvinists and pornography. Do I see a pattern here in the last few replies that seems to be concurring that philosophy is of a higher (and later) order of human activity. Maybe once you become 'hooked' on philosophy and transcend this primeval emotional barrier there is no going back. In a way it's the brainies versus hearties argument but not that they are equal or even complimentary just that hearties is an evolutionary step before brainies. Now I fully expect an assault that emotions are what makes us what we are but let us consider that we are evolving and will continue to do so. Responses by hearties will be subjective, passionate maybe but not rational — I anticipate. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: spheres and their language Rachel, why should't robots — flying or not, including floating spheres — learn language? I think they are well underway now in the robot-labs. As I posted in an answer to Charles, robots are good in pattern-recognition already. So they can recognice a cow or a horse or some other objects an name them, giving them some label for exchange. But maybe this labe is not a spoken word but a mere number. For the robot this makes no difference. You need no sound to exchange by language — as I don't need when writing you this. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 4:04 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: brainies and hearties again Mike, I think there have been some saints around — male and female — rapt by spiritual experiences. Read Teresa of Avila and St.John of the Cross. Why not have holy spheres floating around rapt by spiritual experiences and singing hymns passionately like Ray Charles and his gospel choirs? You really should expand your imagination like a spiritual expander! Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/03/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hallelujah Hubertus, Not too sure how serious you are about expanding my imagination. There are a multiplicity of thinks I can imagine and should I take mind altering drugs then no doubt my imaginings would soar. But imagining that I have won the lottery makes it no more likely than any one else, probably even less as I haven't bought any tickets. That's a bit like the spiritual experiences — I haven't bought that idea either. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/03/03 6:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on spiritual expansion Mike, since I am no missionary I don't stare gloomily if you are not convinced. It was only matter of fact that to build cathedrals or to swing like Ray Charles and Mahalia Jackson and their gospel choirs you have to have some spiritual experience. Plato and St.Augustine guided European thinking for 2.500 resp. 1.500 years by the idea, that there are eternal ideals and a personal God behind all the things we see with our eyes. Most of what we value in European culture even today would evaporate if we could remove all things spiritual out of European History. And I really would feel deprived myself. I am thankful in hindsight to have been guided to at least some of those mysteries of religion and myth and fairies etc., since otherwise I would not understand most of history. And I insist on the holy and the evil being very, very different from things ethical and only concerning "good" or "bad" behaviour. But I will not quarrel with you over this. It's only matter of fact and you surely need not change your mind on this. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/04/03 12:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Moving on Hubertus I see this spiritual belief as a diversion or more likely a route that goes nowhere. It has without doubt inspired many great works of art, music and construction and quite possibly, as you described earlier, that it paved the way to western science. But can we cannot say that the scientific method would not have eventually evolved by some other route. It just seems to me that eventually all this 'spiritualism' will be re-written in the light of new knowledge and most disappointingly that people, whilst claiming to be open to new ides, still cling to the comfortable ideas of the past. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 3:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on clinging to religion Mike, there is no "past" here. People will always "experience" spiritual and religious things, as do Jean and Charles, who both don't feel outdated by this. In the experience of any true believer God is not a past idea he or she clings to, but a reality here and now, and very much alive and kicking. The difference is not between past and present but between seeing and not seeing, feeling and not feeling, being aware and being not aware. Of course you may say "they are seeing and feeling not God but mere spirits or fancies" - but how will you prove that? And surely they — Jean and Charles and the others — would not care. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/10/03 12:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Babel Fish Hubertus Whether you speak for Jean and Charles as well as yourself I cannot say — but you have made a statement that for me conflicts totally contrary to any kind of philosophical enquiry. ' They (speaking of proving spiritual existence) would not care' I find it quite incoherent that that one can both accept spiritualism as true (but unproven) and yet be truly philosophical. If on the other hand it's an emotional conclusion then it's entirely subjective, shared by many maybe, but still subjective. Michael Ward Just to lighten things up a bit: It's in reference to the Babel fish:- Quote "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic." end Quote. ref: Douglas Admans, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/11/03 7:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the Babel-fish and "credo quia absurdum" Mike, this "don't care" is NOT unphilosophical — at least not necessarily so. If you have seen the unicorn with you own eyes, then you don't care how somebody tries to talk you out of this. There are convictions and experiences that cannot be disproved. But this you could call "psychology". For the true philosopher there is a similar argument left: In the Middle Ages one important argument was "credo quia absurdum". The idea was: The idea, that God should die out of love for his own creature is that absurd that it cannot have been invented by a human mind, so it must be true. If you know only cows and horses and poultry, would you think reports on giraffes and kangaroos and elephants credible? By what standard? The oldest christians have been called witnesses. How do you know that a "witness" is lying? People claimed miracles — like that of Saulus becoming Paulus and more of that sort. How would you disprive that? Thus is was perfectly acceptable philosophically to take the Bible and the Gospel as a report and build a philosphy on it "matter of fact". You may see this today in a Popperian mood of skepsis, but you cannot deny that those medieval philosophers did something sensible and defendable. How do you know today that America exists and the the atomic-theory and the genetic theory are correct? You have to trust those people that say so and you have to find their arguments convincing. This is exactly what all true believers do. It's very hard to draw the line whereby "true science" is separated from "superstition". The argument of "falsifiability" does not apply to singular events like "God coming into this world". Some claims are neither provable nor disprovable. There is even a funny "Journal of Irreproducible Results" - look it up with Google to lighten up a bit. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/11/03 7:36 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on trustworthiness, an addendum A minor addendum on history (Feb. 12th, 2003): "The history of scientific satire, for all its good humor, opened on a savage note. In 1837, three men of science published papers asserting that squashed grapes can turn into wine only with the help of a living organism, which one of them, Theodor Schwann, called Zuckerpilz ("sugar fungus," or yeast). So silly did this seem to Justus von Liebig and Friedrich Wohler, two of Germany's greatest chemists and firm believers in the theory that fermentation is a strictly chemical process, that they used their journal, the annalen der Pharmacie, to attack the notion that wine is a waste product. In a facetious article written in a ribald style, the scientists depicted a Zuckerpilz as a somewhat unconventional creature, with a champagne bottle for a bladder. Out of its mouth spewed carbon dioxide, and out of its anus, alcohol. What is most striking about this controversy, in retrospect, is not that such eminent scientists as von Liebig and Wohler were so thoroughly wrong but that so vicious an attack appeared in the open in a serious journal. Today, scientific satire flourishes underground. To find it, one must peruse laboratory bulletin boards or eavesdrop on scientists in conversation in the lunchroom. Or, instead, one could subscribe to the Journal of Irreproducible Results." — The Sciences from: http://www.jir.com/critics.htm which is from http://www.jir.com/ likewise from this (http://www.jir.com/mtv%20story.html): The Story of Creation for the MTV Generation (Duration of needed attention span — 30 seconds) Joel Kirschbaum Hillsborough, NJ In the beginning, the creator first made a television set and, with a click of the on-off switch, separated the light from the dark. On the TV set the creator showed pictures of suns, planets and galaxies but they drew a zero rating because there was no audience. So the creator started life from the dust and water of the planet Earth. Knowing that simple is better than complex, and thus good, the creator watched from above the evolution of the plants and animals and the creatures of the seas. On seeing the ponderous dinosaurs eventually produce tiny birds, and even the duck-billed platypus, the creator laughed pleasantly and thought, 'Sometimes I surprise even myself'. The creator had an audience of but one person, Adam. And, after seeing that the solitary man had no one to talk to during the programming except the screen, contrived him a companion, Eve. The first couple briefly examined the world and then concentrated on who should have the remote control, because the creator, while making all creatures two by two, had made only one TV set and controller. One day, the serpent rolled an apple over the TV schedule, causing the R and X-rated programming to appear. Thus did Adam and Eve learn about sin. // FROM: Michael Ward (02/12/03 11:12 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: argumentum ex silentio Hubertus In your "credo quia absurdum" reply there is much I challenge, not that these are necessarily your own arguments but they fail to make sense for the following reasons:- APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of Unicorns, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. APPEAL TO FAITH: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence. PROVING NON-EXISTENCE: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. THE PROOF OF EXISTENCE MUST COME FROM THOSE WHO MAKE THE CLAIMS. 'but you cannot deny that those medieval philosophers did something sensible and defendable' — doing the right thing for irrational reasons carries no value, you may as well throw dice. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/12/03 6:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on proving and disproving Mike, sorry, you got the argument wrong. We all live all day on unproven assumptions. How do you know that the chair you will sit down on is more than a mere fancy? You "know" that by inference, because up to now the chair has not disappointed your expectations. If he would do this of a sudden, you would be very upset. Remember what I said on "trustworthy witnesses". If somebody whom you found trustworthy comes back from the Marx and tells you he has seen those little green men there, how will you have him wrong? Of course he may pull your leg and will not keep up his claim for long. But if the other day the news shout "astronauts say they saw little green men on Mars" then you will accept it, since you have not been out there. Personally I am no true Christian believer, but I find the idea to take the Gospel for a true report of things that happened not at all stupid. We still live on several myths today — and we cannot do without. As I said before: The whole of modern science has become possible only by Christian faith. Without that neither Kepler nor Newton would have laid the foundations to that. There is no NATURAL tendency in humans to study nature in the right way. The alternative to Christian faith has not been science but superstition. It's like Columbus crossing the Atlantic BY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. If he had known the REAL distance to India in the west from Spain, he never would have started. Of course false assumptions can be bad and often are, but they can be good too — as in the case of Columbus and (maybe) in the case of Kepler and Newton too. But I think this whole thing is not that important. You may have been depressing experiences of people clinging to some superstition of religious preconceptions on moral standards etc.. But then I think the wiser approach is to neil people on their own truth: Instead of trying to talk them out of their faith in Jesus or in Allah try to ask them if they think that Allah or Jesus would have approved their ugly deeds and thoughts. If they then blush and start thinking a bit this will be progress. Hubertus. FROM: Michael Ward (02/13/03 2:18 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: My world Hubertus. I agree with what you say which is 'We all live all day on unproven assumptions.' So how is it coherently possible to then say 'but I find the idea to take the Gospel for a true report of things that happened not at all stupid' The chair upon which I think I sit on is definitely part of my world — I cannot know it is part of yours. I simply point out inconsistencies in your deductions. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/13/03 12:25 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on consistency and truth Mike, when you were a little child, you took much of what you were told of witches and sorcerers ans all sorts of "unicorns" for granted. The elders said so — and the elders always (or most times) were right. When you grew older, you got some second thoughts and doubts. Even the elders were erring and lying sometimes — and you were too. On this background there even may be some progress: Today we don't burn witches, we not even slay too many "heathens" and even to held the Jews or the capitalists responsible for all evils is not that convincing anymore, and there may be a time, when not even Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat and Scharon and GWBush and Kim Jong-il are remembered as the Great Villains. And in this sense people try to make progress and get a bit enlightened. But I tend to be relaxed on this and let them their faith if it is not misused. If somebody like pere Damien or Mother Teresa or Schweitzer helps the lepers and gets the strength to do so by his faith, why should I oppose to that? Only if he/she starts to chase and kill or burn people because they have "not the right god", then I will oppose. Thus I tend to concentrate on the important things. To talk everybody out of his faith is not an important thing. You mentioned "consistency". There is a "consistency theory of truth". To know that the film you see in the cinema is not just reality you refer to the frame of reference: There is a screen, there are other people watching the film, you go out again to the streets etc., thus the lions and aliens and killers in the film must have been "virtual" by this frame of reference. But for many people there is no such frame of reference to call God a mere virtuality. There is an old saying that to see God in the light of reason is nonsense, since God himself is the light, an you cannot see the sun in the light of the sun, but all other things you see only by the light of the sun. You may find this argument outrageous, but it is not different from seeing the world in the light of Freud or Marx or Darwin or Einstein. To "see" something is a very complicated process and not at all "natural". And this fact alone I wanted to remind. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/14/03 11:33 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Childlike wonder Hubertus Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat and Scharon and Bush and Kim Jong-il were all once small children and like all small children would no doubt have had enquiring minds. These minds were then constrained, limited and eventually all but closed down by all the social, political and religious dogmas given to them by their societies and pier groups. This isn't an argument for not teaching but it is an argument for putting all matters into the fullest impartial context that we can. These days I have less enthusiasm to evangelise 'science' to 'believers' as many minds are forever closed. So I ask myself where can a difference be made and the answer I find is wherever people are prepared freely to enter into dialogue and not just rhetoric. Even though many people I know have doubts in varying degrees about their 'religion' they still commit their children to the instruction of the various faiths which conflicts with what the children actually experience in their everyday lives. Your last analogy of 'God being the light' is like asking a loaded question. Of course I've stopped beating my wife, who wouldn't! A more accurate analogy is where we all possess a light in which to see the world — the light of consciousness. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/14/03 6:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on open and closed minds Mike, the problem is that we sometimes need some very hard lessons to get at an open mind. The idea of tolerance and open-mindedness was not alien to antiquity, but it needed centries of the most atrocious confessional wars in Europe with a climax in 1550-1650 to get the authority of the churches broken by the modern supra-confessional state. Then the Age of Enlightenment started against much opposition. And it needed once more to World Wars to finally break this opposition of the remnants of the old order and bring the modern western democracy and "consumer society". And this whole transition has still to be gone through more ore less today by three quarters of mankind. Even if its shortened a bit by Western models, there will be many problems left. By modernization and liberalization and globalization many people are scared and hurt and then get rebellious — for or against. And you are right: Most benevolent and not so benevolent dictators have been very well read and well informed but got a spoilt character like Hitler or Stalin. On this you should read anything of Arno Gruen and Erich Fromms "Fear of Freedom". And there is vanity: The Great Helmsmen like to be admired for their self-assuredness and their simplifications and they get rapt by this feeling of being demi-gods and offering simple solutions. Since they fit with the expectations of their admirers and supporters, they are hard to get rid of. It's a sort of unio mystica of a people and its leader like in the cases of Hitler and Stalin. There are no simple solutions. You and me we both simply had the good fortune of being born into already liberated nations. But I am not without hope for the rest of humankind. And to be open-minded and kind and sensible is NOT dependent on whether you are a true believer or a modern sceptic. There are as many closed minds among the sceptics as among the true believers. That at least is my experience. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/30/03 11:27 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Definition of self: consciousness and unconscious This is a repeat of part of my previous message that I lost somewhere in this conference. Rachel mentioned the relationship of consciousness to self. I would agree that consciousness is required in the definition of self. But how about the unconscious? If the unconscious is included in self, that also raises doubts about including AI robots or systems as a subset of self. With an electronic circuit that is either off or on, is there a place for unconscious? ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/31/03 11:51 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self: Consciousness & unconscious Hubertus said:"Charles, even unconscious memories in Freudian (and similar) theory must be memories, otherwise they could not be effective and not be brought out to the conscious. They are "there", while only "suppressed" into the "dungeons of the soul". At least "in principle" the energy supply could be a battery like in a laptop- or notebook-computer. Of course: Even two identical twins ("natural clones") are different from their memories and individual fates. This applies to clones generally as long as the memories are not permanently cloned too as in a mirror-disk safety-system. Hubertus" ----------------------------------------------- I think that Jung's view of the unconscious is more correct than Freud's. I think that proponents of Strong AI have got a lot of work to do on some concepts that challenge the mind just being neural circuits that have reached a certain level of complexity. Some of the concepts that challenge Strong AI are those of archetypes, symbolism, and myths. I also understand that while AI can handle chess, the game "go" is another matter. I think that Hubertus missed my point on the energy question re strong AI. I think that there needs to be a new engineering paradigm. The engineering science paradigm of Maxwell and Faraday and Lavoisier is not going to work when dealing with the problems of energy and advanced neuro circuits. The old engineering paradigm does not even know how to recognize or measure the energy involved. There may be some clues in the Eastern medical arts involving chi or ki though. Charley REPLIES (1): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 2:59 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on archetypes and energies Charles, this time perhaps I don't understand your arguments. You wrote: / I think that Jung's view of the unconscious is more correct than Freud's. I think that proponents of Strong AI have got a lot of work to do on some concepts that challenge the mind just being neural circuits that have reached a certain level of complexity. Some of the concepts that challenge Strong AI are those of archetypes, symbolism, and myths. I also understand that while AI can handle chess, the game "go" is another matter. / I am not acquainted with "Go". I think what you have in mind is that "go" is more "intuitive" and without those clearly defined "draws" of chess? And in a similar way the Archetypes are "forms" and not only "reflexes" or "reactions" to "stimuli"? But if this is your point, then your idea of modern computers may be outdated: Robots today do really see "images" and not only "points" or "coordinates". Those soccer playing robots really see the ball and the goal and the other "players" and don't simply work according to preprogrammed routines. Thus to use images instead of mere "procedures" is possible for moden robots. And those Jungian "archetypes" may not be useful anymore. Humans are "pre-programmed" by millions of years of natural evolution and selection. But that need not bother any robot when replacing humans. Compare the airplane. In the beginning 100 years back some constructions tried to imitate even the wings of the birds. But today - and since 90 years — the planes are completely irgnorant of animal ways of flying. No flying animal looks nearly like the airplane of the Red Baron. Why then should any AI-robot care what the human thinking is like? No flying animal is nearly as capable as a Jumbo-Jet or a C5-Galaxy or a "Blackbird" or a modern copter. Likewise there may be some day "intelligent" robots that are much more able than any human intelligence — just by working in a totally different way. Concerning the second point: / I think that Hubertus missed my point on the energy question re strong AI. I think that there needs to be a new engineering paradigm. The engineering science paradigm of Maxwell and Faraday and Lavoisier is not going to work when dealing with the problems of energy and advanced neuro circuits. The old engineering paradigm does not even know how to recognize or measure the energy involved. There may be some clues in the Eastern medical arts involving chi or ki though./ I don't understand your argument. Intermolecular energy working in the neuronal cells is not exactly what we no from steam-engines and electrical or combustion motors, but it's energy too and no problem for the physicist to handle and to calculate, only a bit strange and requiring another sort of mathematics. Much of artificial "pattern recognition" today is done with "neuronal networks" which require special sorts of mathematics and electronics, but are effective — while still not nearly as a human brain. I will look for a good link under Google to this. I am not sure if I understood your objections, thus I don't know if I have refuted or at least cleared them a bit. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/31/03 12:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: A practical use and value of philosophy. Some might argue that philosophy has no practical use. I may have a personal experience that counters that. I will confess that 10 years ago (before I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease), except for some political economics, I would have said that philosophy is generally a waste of time. Then I was probably a good example of the American tendency to overvalue immediate practicality. A benefit of Parkinson's Disease for me was that if forced me to slow down and deal with some questions that I had jumped over, especially philosophy of mind. My neurologist has suggested that I consider the possibility of DBS (deep brain stimulation) therapy for PD. I went to a seminar where another neurologist (a leading advocate of DBS) was making a presentation to PD patients. When he was asked "how did DBS work," he gave an honest answer that science really did not know. Because of my readings and thinking about philosophy of mind, I have some major doubts about even applying low electrical currents directly to the brain (as is done in DBS). What if the brain is not just a complex neuro circuit? I am going another direction. A local dog trainer is helping me search for a dog that would be a good candidate for being trained to be my mobility assistance dog. I think there is a question for ethics here to. How many PD patients in the Third World can afford DBS? A mobility assistance dog might be the appropriate solution for them also. Charles REPLIES (9): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:27 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on Deep Brain Stimulation Charles, the following is not directly on DBS or PD, but was stimulated by your remarks: Call philosophy a "DBS of the world brain of humanity". Philosophy makes us aware of facts and problems of the world and of our being in the world that don't meet the physical eye, but could and should meet the minds-eye. This is the general idea. There is a more special modern extension to this. Today we are aware of global climate-change and global financial transfers and global developments as seen from statistics and indicators etc.. But all this has become possible only by the use of computers. Humans simply are unable to handle those vast amounts of data needed for global simulation or for simulation of future trends. We no longer live in those good old days where 2experience of the chiefs" was sufficient to solve most problems. This requires a world that is nearly constant and where experience pays. In a rapidly changing world experience is nearly without worth, it even may be a hindrance. Then simulation models have to replace experience — or at least to complement it. Today all global players in politics and economics and the military use "trend-analysis" and "path-analysis" and "scenario-simulation" with variations of "worst case", "best case" and "most probable case" etc.. And this makes the computers humming. Thus even today the computers in special application surpass human "intelligence" by far! And the word itself is applicable here: Intelligence means insight. And today we need computers like mikroscopes and telescopes to get insights into vast heaps of data that would remain meaningless without those computers transforming the numbers into meaningful pictures. Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/01/03 3:36 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: more possible uses for philosophy When I asked, in that deliberately vague way, "can philosophy save the world?", in the responses posted there seemed to be some agreement that philosophy can help to improve the world / society; Michael suggested that it is "a means to help order and understand the world", and Charles wrote that it involves "using logic to understand the human condition". This sounded right to me — but when I tried to think of an example of a way in which philosophy had helped me to understand the world, or the human condition, I couldn't think of anything! I supposed that 'thinking about things' has helped me to avoid just doing the conventional thing and 'following the crowd' in some circumstances, but I wasn't sure whether this could really be called philosophy. This posting, Charles, is therefore of great interest to me, for here you give a specific example of how philosophy has helped you. I would like to ask — Can anyone else give an example? As for practical uses for philosophy: on holiday a couple of years ago, I wrote down my hopes for what so-called 'practical philosophy' (philosophy with children, adult philosophy groups and so on) might reasonably hope to achieve. The theme was clearly one of communication... I hoped... for people to be kinder to each other when one person expresses a view that the other doesn't hold. This is something like saying that people should be more tolerant; but I would want to retain the view that some opinions are still better than others. So perhaps, I hope that people would become more sympathetic to other people's points of view; or to other people, even if they don't like their points of view. for people to have thought about, and be able to give reasons why, they think or believe something. for people to be capable of expressing their views more clearly, both in speech and in writing. It's all very well listening to people, but if they can't articulate their ideas very well, the understanding between us will not advance very far! to help people find congenial friends — because if people said what they thought, you would know whether you agreed with them. Also to form deeper friendships with more people, because if you could trust others not to laugh at your attempts to express your thoughts and feelings, you could reveal even your most secret thoughts. for people to be prepared to talk about things even when they know they will disagree - for discussion of that disagreement to still be possible (eg. in politics, or between opposing groups of all kinds). FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 7:10 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: parkinson Hi Charles As far as I know Parkinson makes many actions very difficult. But I notice, you manage to think and use a pc to express your thoughts. Be aware how valuable this is. I myself am severely paralyzed, but notice that I'm not restricted as a philosopher. In fact my state is an advantage, because I can spend a lot of time on thinking. Be careful with this ability of thinking. If you lose that then you'll appreciate i's value. Dogs can be great fun, I myself have a female cat as friend, who nevers asks stupid questions FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a not so stupid question from a tomcat Henk, the idea of Rachel and Charles after reading Lakoff ("Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things") seems to be, that to think you need a language, and to have a language you need a body, and while you and Charles and me are a bit defective now (I have bad ears) we all have grown up in a sensually rich environment with body and language as usual. The not so stupid question is, whether this theory of Lakoff is justified. What about Helen Keller? If you are interested then browse the web and get us others informed by some links on what is the general opinion on this: What is the state of the art in "mere robots" learning language without a "body". Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/03/03 2:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Nora and Tom Katherine, You asked for practical examples of philosophy helping people. There is a growing group of 'philosophical councillors) who help sort out peoples life problems. There is good read called 'Plato not Prozac' and I have put an extract from it in the documents section of this conference — it's called Nora and Tom. This is an area where I am very interested. Michael Ward FROM: Rachel Browne (02/04/03 1:33 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus, the language thing is that learning needs another and something with which to interact so that you can use language correctly. So a robot might possess a language, but not a disembodied sphere. Don't know any links, but do believe this is the current state of thought on the matter. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 4:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on talking heads in spheres Rachel, if robots understand language — which they do not very good now — then floating spheres will too, since those are only robots in a special cover. And if my brain — or yours — could be put into the sphere, the brain would still be know how to use language and to read and learn and enter messages to this conference, since the sphere is only a replacement for the lost body. This at least was the idea. But until now it is not realizable because of all those technical problems of having a replacement for the blood circulation and immune-system necessary to held the brain alive. But a technical problem is not a principal problem. And to know what bodily experience is really needed you should ask for somebody who is paralized from neck down from the very first year of his life. There may be some such people around. Then ask what are the linguistic abilities of these people that never had bodily experiences of the usual sort. I know of a woman that got into this condition by car accident when she was a girl of 11. She is a completely normal personality of your age now, but of course with 11 she was no baby and knew how to speak. Thus ask a doctor and tell us the answer. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/07/03 10:07 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Huburtus, the technical problems are grave. Learning a language requires useage and correction which includes physical interaction with others (eg pointing), behaviour (body) and sense organs to perceive. So of course someone who has learnt a language like your 11 year old can speak language because it is already learnt. But how long will the world of disembodied spheres last without someone doing the implanting of brains? The implanters might just stop doing it. It wouldn't be a freely working world. And the brains will have to learn language in the real physically embodied world so it could not really exist as an independent realm. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/08/03 8:22 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the end of the flying spheres Rachel, I think I will leave it thus for the moment. Besides the question who will build thoese spheres, I simply do not know this time — and nobody else does — what is really needed to learn a language. Of course for concept formation — if it not only formal concepts — you need some experience. You have to see some horses hopping around to get the concept of a horse. But the you generalize: To imagine a unicorn you need not see a unicorn, you simply fancy it in your mind. Little children must see any sort of animal to imagine all the rest. But of course their imagination will be more vivid if they are out to the zoo or to the farm to see in reality what they only knew from books. But while they never will see dragons or unicorns those may be the most impressive animals on their minds. And while they never have seen God or his angels, those too may be the most impressive persons on their minds. Thus once more: What is "reality"? we simply do not know what robots some day will take reality to be. But we know that they are able to play soccer without being guided by humans. They move and behave like playing animals. Why should they — the robots — not become "thinking" animals some time? But I will not speculate on this. I will leave it thus as an open question. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 6:46 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy hi folks I must say I really appreciate this kind of conferencing. But let's come to the point: Concerning democracy I'm convinced that that there are many more visions on the subject than only the formal one. I don't want to influence anybody, but is it fair to give everybody 1 vote (that's something else than respecting every opinion. I would be delighted if a lot of you gave in a few lines their own opinion about the weakness of democracy as it functions now. (the strong points are stressed often enough). If you need more lines than send me an email on: htuten@daxis.nl If this gives interesting views, than I plan to use these ideas in an article on democracy (if you want mentioning origins of ideas) Please think about the subject some time, and let me know your brain waves. REPLIES (3): FROM: Rachel Browne (02/01/03 1:38 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Welcome! Impressed by your intro on the philosophers gallery! Are you talking about democracy, the political system? How can we think it about unless in comparison to other political systems? Are we to think of democracy as it is, or is there an ideal? You don't think this might lead to references to Nazism, do you? Because this has been banned, undemocratically. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: defining "democracy" Henk, in the times of Socrates in Athens, only free male citizens had a voice — no women, no unfree, no strangers. Was it a democracy? Similar in most European states even after the French Revolution. Generally womens suffrage was introduced between 1880 and 1920 - gradually. On the other hand: In the "peoples democracies" people had nearly nothing to choose, they only had to nod and to accept the proposals of the Communist Party. As a pragmatist I am always interested in results, not in labelling. If the label on the box says "democracy" I open the box to see what is in't. And most time it is disappointing. There was a film as of 1970 showing protesters against the Vietnam-war and calling the proposers of the war "Nazis" (Rachel forgive). But the war was not escalated by "Nazis" but by two very respected, and by due process of law in the leading liberal democracy elected, democratic presidents — Kennedy and Johnson. Who then was "anti-democratic" here: the supporters or the opponents of the war? So much this time on "democracy" from Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/09/03 9:22 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: thoughts on democracy Out for a walk this morning, I met a man walking his dog who was keen to chat. He had obviously had much involvement in local and national politics, and was planning to stand as a local councillor. His view was that local councillors should, in their voting on issues, express not the views of their political party, nor their own views, but those of their constituents, who they supposedly represent. He believed that councillors should be able to vote independently. I agree with that so far, but it raises 2 questions for me: 1: Should we listen to everyone's views equally? Aren't some people better qualified to give their views on issues than others? For example, a large teaching centre is proposed to be built near where I live, at an area of open space of great environmental and archaeological importance. Presumably a professional naturalist or scientist would understand the possible environmental impact better than me. Should the feelings of the unintelligent and ill-informed about issues influence what is done? 2: People usually don't all agree — so is it democratic to do what the majority want, thus annoying the minority; or should you try to reach a compromise, possibly displeasing everybody; or may the minority not sometimes have the best idea?! Hope these thoughts are useful. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/02/03 6:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self Rachel said: "Am putting dog on airplane to Spokane. Big chap with large ears. Will look hungry. And will be crying. R" I regret to inform you Rachel that your dog did not arrive in Spokane. (At least "Customs" has not called me yet.) But maybe he got off the plane in Chicago, transferred to Amtrak, and is now on his way to Montana to dance with the wolves. I hope that they do not eat him! ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/06/03 7:04 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Determination of political truth. I am not submitting this in order to start a partisan political debate, although I am going to put forward a recent political example. I hope that it initiates a reasonable and courteous discussion about the means, if any, that philosophy may provide to ordinary people to determine what is true from a distance. Can we, and if so how do we determine who is telling the truth here? Does one's nationality make any philosophical difference? Philosophically does it make any difference if one or neither party is telling the truth? On February 5th at the United Nations, American Secretary of State Colin Powell presented what he said were electronic intercepts of conversations between Iraqi military commanders and their subordinates and satellite images of bio-chemical military facilities. Less than two hours later, Lt.General Amir Saadi of Iraq said: "a typical American show ...any third rate intelligence outfit could produce such a recording...It is simply untrue and not genuine." Before that, Iraq's information minister Mohammed Saeed Sahaf dismissed the satellite images "as no more than cartoon films." Is their any use and value of philosophy here? REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 4:20 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on truth and trust Charles, while there surely is some truth anywhere, only you and me don't get at it. Saddam Hussein may know and Powell may know, but we don't. So the real problem this moment for the audience is whom to trust. We are the jury, and we try to find out who is lying, the defendant or the accuser. Many or most Democrats and leftists will distrust Bush and his top executives including Powell now, but many or most Republicans will trust them. From a philosophical point of view this is how we approach reality: We never know anything for sure. Some trust in God, but others — like Mike — think he is a mere fancy. Thus it all depends on the frame of reference. If the source is not — or seems not - trustworthy, the message seems neither. The problem of Saddam Hussein may be that he does not seem trustworthy to most people. But there are quite a few people now even in the West, that think even Saddam Hussein is more trustworthy than GWBush — and that is a bad situation. Hubertus FROM: henk tuten (02/09/03 6:01 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: truths Hi Charles Seen from 'a distance' there are 2 truths involved. The American one and the general Moslem one. I certainly think that Saddam Hussein is ready to be removed, but what I see in reality is a clash between two world orthodoxs views (the death denying and violence admiring view of American leaders, and the Allah worshipping view of Iraqee orthodoxs). Both can in their own world be true at the same time. Real commucition supposes to find a new view that is a acceptable compromise. Not only acceptable in the English language, but in Arabian too. Mind that billions of people rely on Arabian as their first language. This way of communicating inherently supposes basic views on society. Maybe right now English and Arabian are in that way partly un-translatable. Tactics: Maybe acknowledge the in broad opinion fake reason of the Americans to remove Saddam Hussein. But then criticize the present way of accomplishing that. That way they get trapped in their own reasoning. So don't focus on trying to prevent the war, but try seriously to prevent innocent deaths. FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/09/03 9:30 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: who might be lying? It seems to me that not only may both Powell and General Amir be lying, but so may the media who report these things to us. Manipulation of what ordinary people are told about what's going on is common in wartime. In this case, philosophy is telling me not only to beware of trusting politicians who may have all kinds of reasons for lying, whichever side they happen to be on, but also to avoid accepting things as true just because they're reported in the media. What philosophy definitely isn't doing for me is giving me any way of deciding what the truth about the situation might be. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: henk tuten (02/08/03 10:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy (continued) I noticed that my first question needed explanation. My own thoughts about democracy I wrote down in: http://huizen.daxis.nl/~henkt/democracy-essay.html I ask everybody to give his/her own opinion. Not about the formal view on democracy, but about what might be serious flaws in the basic system ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Rachel Browne (02/09/03 2:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Ugh, this whole war thing is SO corrupt. Of course, Katherine, philsophy can't help with the truth! It's politics. It's bound to be an oil thing or something to detract attention from something else — America's dismal problem in Palestine or something. Where we live in London in an Arab area there is no ill feeling. It is not about people — not from where we are. R REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/09/03 7:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: It's never the people Rachel, remember that on the very day — 9-11 — Bush visited an islamic mosque in NY after the assaults to demonstrate that he did not hate the Islamic religion or the Islamic minorities in the USA. Likewise in Germany there is generally no hate in either direction. But there are some simple facts: (1) The people are never asked anywhere — neither by the terrorists nor by the leaders. The 99% confirmation of Saddam Hussein was just as much a farce as the similar outcomes for Stalin or Castro or Kim Jong-il. (2) Like the Germans who elected Hitler in 1932 the Islamic people are generally disturbed and humiliated by the transition to modernity which devalues their old ways and the wisdom of the elderly. Thus they are resentful and hate western powers. (3) At the same time a growing number of people in the islamic stated wants to become "modern", to study what they want, to travel where they want to go, to marry whom they want, etc.. So they are torn between respect for the elderly and impatient waiting for a new era of pride and strength. This conflict makes many of them crazy. It is the same situation as has been in the first years of Hitler here: The old reactionaires found themselves as strange bedfellows to young and eager engineers that wanted to build the most modern aircraft and autos and other technical devices. Thus the present was torn between the past and the future. Thus in my opinion it is neither on oil nor on religion, but on "modernization and its discontents." The Bush-people really hope as true Americans to bring democracy to the poor suppressed Iraqui as they did before to the poor suppressed Germans and to the poor suppressed Japanese and Koreans. And the tragic thing is: At least the Germans, the Japanese, and the Koreans are really and honestly thankful for that today — and they know by experience why they should be. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/10/03 12:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Truth When I wonder if the world is approaching George Orwell's '1984,' my antidote is a mixture of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and Milovan Djilas. Solzhenitsyn's writings, especially 'The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation' and 'The First Circle,' and Djilas' 'The New Class,' 'Conversations with Stalin,' 'The Unperfect Society: Beyond The New Class,' and his short stories helped convince me that there is a way to determine 'what is true.' It is interesting to me that these are 'literary investigations' rather than the works of philosophers. My guess is that modern and post modern skepticism dominates Western philosophy today, interfering with useful historical and political analysis and the establishment of a practical ethics. FROM: Charles (02/12/03 9:21 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The Gulag Collection See "The Gulag Collection" by the artist Nikolai Getman: http://russia.jamestown.org/getman/gulag_collection.htm ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/12/03 10:42 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On clinging to religion. Hubertus said: "there is no "past" here. People will always "experience" spiritual and religious things, as do Jean and Charles, who both don't feel outdated by this. In the experience of any true believer God is not a past idea he or she clings to, but a reality here and now, and very much alive and kicking. The difference is not between past and present but between seeing and not seeing, feeling and not feeling, being aware and being not aware. Of course you may say "they are seeing and feeling not God but mere spirits or fancies" — but how will you prove that? And surely they — Jean and Charles and the others — would not care. Hubertus" I agree with what Hubertus said here, except I think that the connotation of "would not care" is a little too harsh. (But then English can be a harsh language.) Is "hope" an appropriate idea for philosophical discussion? REPLIES (12): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/12/03 6:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: faith, hope, charity, these three (1st.Cor.13, 13) Charles, surly hope is one of the deepest philosophical concepts. The famous German Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977) wrote some 2000 pages on "Das Prinzip Hoffnung" ("The Principle of Hope") which is on all sorts of messianistic hopes from the Antiquity to Marx and beyond. We alway live on hopes of all sorts. The whole Christian religion is on this from Paulus to St.Augustine and Joachim of Floris to Luther and to the Lutheran Hegel and from Hegel to Marx and Marcuse. Hope is one of the greatest concepts and driving forces of WESTERN philosophy. Buddhism doesnt know it, not even Islam does — since Islam knows of no redeemer or salvator. Thus hope is a very Judeo-Christian concept. But it got a bit out of sight by positivism and pragmatism and analytical philosophy which overall have made a grey spinster of a once juicy and ebullient Ms.Philosophy. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/13/03 1:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: re Ernst Bloch I notice that the "Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy" says Ernst Bloch's views "went beyond Marxism as he matured." It describes his views: "Humans are essentially unfinished, moved by a cosmic impulse,'hope,' a tendency in them to strive for the as yet unrealized, which manifests itself as utopia or vision of future possibilities." FROM: Charles (02/13/03 2:54 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Atheist as Christian? Interesting concept (see below), but I wonder if it is wishful thinking on both Moltmann's and Bloch's part? ----------------------------------------------- Atheism in contemporary Theology J�rgen Moltmann: on Ernst Bloch "An interview with J�rgen Moltmann" by Miroslav Volf, in Communities of faith and radical discipleship: J�rgen Moltmann and others, edited by G. McLeod Bryan (Mercer University: Macon, Georgia 1986) Volf: ... Where do you see parallels and differences between Bloch's book and your Theology of Hope? Moltmann: Commonality and parallels between the two books exist wherever Bloch thinks Jewish or messianic. His deepest roots, I believe, lie in the messianism of the Jewish tradition from which he unconsciously lives. This is especially obvious in his first book, Geist der Utopie. It ends with a prayer. Later he abandoned these religious-messianic overtones and sometimes appeared to be banally atheistic. We clarified our differences once in this way: In Das Prinzip Hoffnung Bloch speaks of transcending, but without transcendence; in Theology of Hope I speak of transcending with transcendence. Bloch has written a book about atheism and Christianity [Atheism in Christianity (Continuum, 1972)]; it first appeared with the subtitle "Only an Atheist Can Be a Good Christian." I mentioned that it should be the other way around: only a Christian can be a good atheist. Bloch then used that statement as the second subtitle of his book. He meant that only an atheist who does not worship false religious and economic gods can be a good Christian. I meant that only a Christian who believes in the crucified Jesus is free from the pressure to create gods and idols for himself. On this issue Bloch and I have come near to each other. 10 FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/13/03 4:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on hope and expectations Charles, I hope our exchange on "hope" will bring the conference to its PHILOSOPHICAL life again for a while. But the others should engage a bit too — or suggest another important topic. As I said we still live in the "Era of Enlightenment". Whereas before ca. 1700 everything was argued with reference to God, since then everything is argued with a reference to the "hopefully" better future. Of course there has been some transition. Before God "vanished" from the philosophical stage (which surely was not Nietzsches fault) there was some hope to save him by some arguments of "immanence": God showing his power not by the (then discredited) churches but by his creation. This was the position of Newton and of Spinoza and of their deist and pantheist contemporaries. But if God is immanent to his creation, one may omit God altogether and be content with studying nature. And by this God eventually vanished. Now what about hope then? Hegel thought that the World Spirit realized himself in the march of history. This was "entelechy" in a grand scale like with St.Augustine and Joachim. This still was "hope", while not so much hope of a final redemption, not the great expectation of Gods return in his glory in the End of Days. And once more the personal God vanished with Schopenhauer: He dismissed Hegels vision of the World Spirit realizing himself in the march of history as an utmost rubbish. Life in Schopenhauers reading was a meaningless struggle and striving without any hope. This also was the conviction of Nietzsche who admired Schopenhauer, and it was the convicition of most of the great historians of the 19th century. Thus hope changed from God to humankind: Not God but the humans would be responsible for their future. Not God would come in the end of days to judge the living and the dead, but a better future would come by human work and inventiveness. This was the idea of liberalism and socialism likewise. And this was the idea of Marx and Bloch too. Moltmanns idea "that only a Christian who believes in the crucified Jesus is free from the pressure to create gods and idols for himself" is very good (but maybe Mike will not be convinced). I heared Moltmann when I studied one semester of protestant theology in the summer of 1961. Bloch was just for a visit in Western Germany — FRG — and then stayed there, because he got trouble with the eastern communist party — GDR. And Moltmann, then a young "leftish" theologian in an era full of new hope in the West, was eager to contact Bloch. It was the first summer of Kennedy — but it was at the same time the summer of the Berlin Wall (August 21, 1961). And it was the first summer of the "Sixties" — with Beatlemania and Marcusean Revolt etc., where Moltmann and Bloch fitted neatly. Today there is not much hope left. Today most people — even the young ones — have become cynics. While the "Red Scare" seems dead, the capitalist liberalism after Enron and WorldCom and the other great stock frauds and after the Asian Crisis (1997) and the Argentinian Crisis (2002) and the now 10-years Japanese "crisis" has lost all glamour for some time, thus even there is not much hope. The next Kondratjev has to gain force now. But a growing number of people is hoping more for a new spiritual force like in the 60s and not so much for a new "Kondratjev-force". Thus hope seems to be numbed this time and for some more years to come. And we are not sure what to hope for. The hope for "the resurrection and return of Christ" is not the hope for "the resurrection and return of the stock-market" — and both are not the hope for a "more decent and humane society". But this latter was the great hope of the "Age of Improvement" or the "Age of Enlightenment" 250 years ago. Thus we live in an age of disillusioned hopes today, in an "age of diminished expectations" as it has been called. But this still is — in my opinion — an era of worldly hope much more than an era of spiritual or religious hope. There is no way back. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/13/03 4:48 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I think hope is a deep human emotion which we can't do without. Whether it is philosophical or not I don't know. What does that mean? Faith and truth are important to us too. On the war, Charles, currently the army are at Heathrow airport and radio discussion is whether this is a publicity stunt so that we feel we are in danger so we will support Blair in the war. Which hardly anyone seems to. We are cynical. But how can we have faith or believe we know the truth or have any hope, feeling duped? But we're off on hols soon and wars always start when we're on holiday, so expect it before March 8. R FROM: Michael Ward (02/15/03 11:26 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hoping for a reply:-) What is hope, is it a feeling of desire for something combined with confidence in the possibility of its fulfilment? Hope seems to require us to have belief in freewill. By this I mean that the ability to hope is sustained by our belief in our ability to take actions resulting in realising those hopes. Were we all to be fervent determinists then we, as a group, couldn't logically hold onto the idea of hope because all future events would happen irrespective of our desires. In a fully determined world like it or not I will win the lottery if that's my fate. Many people believe that the future is written — so how can they have hope for anything different to what will be? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/15/03 6:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on fate and hope Mike, since I dont believe in determinism — and found all proofs wanting and false — I have no problems with hope. And you should be consequent: If everything is determined, then my hope is determined too, then not only my winning in the lottery is guaranteed since eons, but my hope of it is likewise. Some weeks ago I introduced — with links — those robots playing soccer. I wanted to show that to have robots display meaningful behaviour they need no soul — or else you have to concede them those. Thus I wanted to show that this is a meaningless struggle. If animals have a soul, then robots have too, and if robots don't need a soul to play soccer, then animals don't need a soul either. Philosophers waste too much time with pseudo-problems. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/16/03 1:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: You would say that wouldn't you! Hubertus You wrote: 'If everything is determined, then my hope is determined too, then not only my winning in the lottery is guaranteed since eons, but my hope of it is likewise.' The very point I was trying to make is that Determinism and Hope are incompatible. If you truly believe in Determinism then all your actions and ideas should reflect that and give up hoping. I am not convinced either way but I recognise that my wanting freewill will not make it so. I think Determinism /Freewill is a real problem particularly when it comes to crime and punishment. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 2:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on crime and punishment and free will Mike, to held somebody responsible for his/her deeds need not even "free will". There have been cultures or subcultures where even animals and objects could be ritualistically punished for some "deed", just like little children beat their puppets or things if those have "done them wrong". I must say that for me the whole topic of free will is not very interesting. This caused my example of those robots playing soccer: While a chess-playing robot is calculating at least according to strict rules, ther are no such rules in soccer, i.e. in PLAYING soccer. There are movements and tactics. Of course even then the robots are calculating, but not predetermined "draws" but "most efficient moevements". This is like going from binary logics to fuzzy logics, but not to mere chance. If you pose a robot in front of a situation and he starts calculating many possible reactions as in a soccer move, is this "by necessity" or "by chance"? I find this freedom-determination thing without value. It does not solve a single problem in my opinion. People that are buidling robots for playing soccer surely are not concerned about this freedom-determination thing — they need not be. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 3:31 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Reasons to hate. Hubertus, Freewill, or the ability to freely choose, is crucial in the reason for punishment. If Hitler was determined (by determinism) to carry out all the deeds he did then he had no ability to choose otherwise and whilst people will despise him for his acts they cannot hold him responsible for choosing to act as he did. So if determinism is true you cannot punish people to change their future behaviour as it is already fixed — maybe not known but still nevertheless fixed. Michael Ward FROM: Rachel Browne (07/06/03 1:48 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hope and freedom Have just returned from a wonderful holiday in Sardinia. And coming onto the conference the first thing that came up was Michael's message on hope. Obviously I haven't got the hang of this. Seems to be dated 2.25.03. But I don't think hope is a desire, rather it is a state and isn't connected to free will and our actions because we can hope for events beyond our control. Many people hope to win the lottery. Whether or not determinism is true, we don't know and continue in our natural attitudes and states regardless. I believe in fate actually and I hope it is good. Why should I hope for anything "different" when I don't know what my fate is? I just hope, and being optimistic, expect the future will be good until illness sets in. But Hubertus! You say "if animals have a soul robots do too" — I can't even be bothered to comment on something so repugnant (Hume's word). Then you couple "animals and objects". Ugh! Then you say "freedom and determinism" isn't interesting because it doesn't solve problems???? But it is philosophy! Well I was hopeful generally, but things are looking bad. R FROM: Michael Ward (07/06/03 7:03 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Nothing to say Rachel, I could start out by saying that I hope you had a great holiday. So I will — I 'hope' you had a great holiday. I suppose that kind of hope is easily realised or dashed simply by asking you, what drives that hope is my desire that you achieved what you desired at the onset of your holiday. Desire thus for me is motivation, it is in it's own small way the first cause of any chain of events. On a larger scale for those creationists the question could asked what motivated the creation. Why does anybody do anything — even those who meditate desire 'nothing' because even nothing in that sense is something. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/14/03 2:44 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hope and metaphysical inquiry. In a previous posting, I argued that there was a contradiction between being an atheist and holding the metaphysical idea of hope. This is a broader definitive category for atheists than just non belief in God. To clarify, what I was referring to was the reductionist rejection of metaphysics and the attempt to reduce human nature to that which can be empirically verified. REPLIES (7): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/14/03 6:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on theist and atheist hopes Charles, your lively description of your family was again a fun as always. Now to your answer: You asked: "Do you think that the opinions of the philosophical and scientific physicalist players in the mind-body problem are confirmed by recent empirically orientated opinion that suggest a Western cultural loss of hope?" I don't see the connection here. There is much technical optimism around at least in part of the scientific community. See the people around John Brockman. But there is a growing skepsis where this will get us. Thus while the concepts of hope, progress and improvement once have been in line under the general header of "Enlightenment and Progress by science and technology" they are not so today. Now that we seem to get into reach of cloning and prolonged life and fitness and genetic engineering and removing all remaining illnesses like PD or bad ears or cancer or whatever, we are not that sure that we want it to have. Thus it is not so much a growing pessimism with respect to the technical possibility of "improvements", but there are growing doubts on what "improvement" could MEAN. It's like with children growing up. They may have hoped to get out of the hands of their parents and become e-mancipated, but then they find that to find a good job and a good partner etc. has its troubles too and options begin to close again while resignation spreads. And in this way the options of mankind seem to close for many concerned people in the Western world, while the Chinese and the Indians and part of Africa and Latin-America may be the new optimists now ready for take-off to become "modern industrialized democracies" - which they had never been before. And then what is "cultural" loss of hope in the West? I happen to like modern art, and I like Rock- and Pop- and Jazz-music (while I cannot judge modern "serious" music with my ears). But many people old and young seem to think that the last really great epoch of music, art, and literature has been some 200 years back in the times of Mozart and Beethoven and Goethe. Be this as it may, there is no general conviction of progress in this. Remember how desperate Jean was on this conference on most modern developments. And Henk Tuten is concerned with Marcuse and the Frankfurt School that were very pessimistic on the Western outlook. Marcuse — and the Frankfurt School generally — opposed in the name of a more "humane" and "sensible" and "sensitive" society liberal and communist developments likewise, since they saw the people in the industrial states as "addicted to consumerism". And one may see the "bosses" as a sort of "drug-dealers" getting out more "stuff" every time. Thus consumer-society seemed not that paradise it once may have looked from afar, even irgnoring for a moment all charges of "social injustice" by growing poverty among growing wealth. Thus once more the problem is not so much an end of "progress" but a loss of MEANING of progress. And this of course is a loss of hope too. But it is not true that people want to get back to some pre-industrial state, they rather may want to get at some post-industrial state with a new humanity. You may think of it like a new "spiritual Kondratjev" besides the technological one. In my opinion optimism and pessimism are always two concerting melodies in Western society, where they change wavelike in relative dominance like the voices in Bachs concert for two violins. But overall since European Enlightenment of the 18th century the idea of progress as a secular replacement of transcendental hope by historical hope is not to die soon. We have replaced God and gods by history and by the idea of progress, we have replaced the Christian "world which is to come" by Gods grace by its Marxian and Spencerian counterpart in the man-made future. And at least for the moment these coming earthly paradises — the socialist and the liberal models likewise — seem lost in the clouds and doubts before us. But the Western world is a dynamical world, a world oriented to the future, and the idea of improvement by science and technology and labour and management is and remains the true Western Gospel today all over the world, "the Gospel according to Ben Franklin and Henry Ford" so to say. Then you write: "In a previous posting, I argued that there was a contradiction between being an atheist and holding the metaphysical idea of hope. ... Continuing that argument, I doubt that the loss of hope observed in the midst of today's 'bad news' is confirmation of reductionist claims about human nature." In the light of what I said above, I don't think this is the core of the problem: You may very well be full of hope even as an atheist, but you are helpless if you encounter the paradoxes of the very concept of progress and get confused over what to hope for. Perhaps this was what you intended to say: While the earthly options for hope seem to close, the heavenly ones may be opened again as an alternative. But Mike will not like to hear this. So be en guard and seek a cover for hiding. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/16/03 7:48 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Context of hope. Hubertus, I think that hope exists in a metaphysical context. Without a metaphysical context, if the materialist argument is taken to its logical conclusion of randomness and deterioration, the result can only be despair. Whatever a person's politics may be, the number of peace marchers through out the world this past weekend indicates to me that "hope" is an idea of great strength. Charley FROM: Michael Ward (02/16/03 1:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hope Free Charles, I too think that hope is probably a metaphysical idea but I cannot draw the same conclusion of it leading to despair. Couples who chose not to have children were called childless by 'normal' people but now in today's overpopulated world they are considered 'child free' So maybe consider that we are not 'hope less' but 'hope free'. With regard to the Peace Marchers I doubt very much their democratic voice will be listened to — more effective though at being heard are the much fewer terrorists, odd thing this democracy! Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (02/16/03 2:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Measuring Progress Hubertus, You Wrote: 'You may very well be full of hope even as an atheist, but you are helpless if you encounter the paradoxes of the very concept of progress and get confused over what to hope for. Perhaps this was what you intended to say: While the earthly options for hope seem to close, the heavenly ones may be opened again as an alternative. But Mike will not like to hear this. So be en guard and seek a cover for hiding.' Progress has a direction at least I think most of us would agree on that! Some would say it's increasing our knowledge and for this science has the biggest contribution. Others would say its towards less of pain and suffering and living in harmony. Yet others would say it's getting closer to their maker. Progress is what happens when you get up of the floor and step out of Platos cave into a bigger world — anything else is stagnation. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 3:45 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: all sorts of hope Charles and Mike, after reading your newest postings, I try to get things down from metaphysical heaven to earth again. In my opinion hope is not so much metaphysical, there can be atheistic hopes of the trivial sort: Hope that Columbia gets back without problems f.i. — which it did not. In this case one does the sensible and natural thing: asking for the causes of the accident and learn something. A similar approach gets a true Christian or muslim believer to think over his possible errors that may have caused God to chastise him. A third example would be to ask: if war in Irak should come — who is to blame: US arrogance of the Bush administration, but even generally? Or Saddam Husseins stubborn resistance to democratic principles and open procedures according to peaceful ways? Or a false concept of international order and control? Those peace-marches solve no problems. Even if the USA would restrain from war by now, this would not automaticall mean that the problem nearly causing it have vanished. Perhaps some years hence the war would come anyway and more brutal than now? But the marches do what hope generally does: They concentrate the minds on one important topic and they get out the reserves needed for survival — just like somebody buried under debris after an earthquake may survive by hope for days. But hope can detract concentration from thinking. James Bond seldom applies hope, he applies intelligence and inventiveness and uses the smallest chance to get out of trouble. While generally the Western culture is driven since 2000 years by hope as no other culture ever has been, this culture at the same time became more and more practical. Metaphysical hope turned into technical expectation and into "ideology of progress". And in this I would oppose Mike: Of course we still expect many "progresses" in single technical goals of all sorts — less war, less violence, less cancer, less poverty etc.. But these "hopes" in this or that improvement are not identical to the one great hope of progress. Improvements in the plural are not a "general improvement" — at least not in the opinion of most people. The paradox is: To have this or that nuisance removed may be agreeable, but to have ALL nuisances removed may be a horror. Thus the problem of Huxleys "Brave New World" is: "What is wrong with this world that seems superficially without fault and full of happiness of all sorts?" And then the question of hope becomes "metaphysical" again: From solving problems to asking: "what do we hope for if all problems are solved?" There seems to be a metaphysical "horror vacui", and this may be from "hard-wiring" of the brain: We are a fanciful and inventive species. For me at least ANY utopia is a horror, since I like change and openness and a future. I wont like to be part of an eternal clockwork. Thus my hope is that there will always be something left to hope for. And maybe this is the true function of religion: It makes people hope in a more than mere technical way. But liberalism does at least partly the same, since by its very nature liberalism is open and not closed. This explains why I am a liberal to the bones. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/17/03 1:23 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Utopia Hubertus, Yes, for me also the concept of Utopia (or heaven) is a frightening state. The euphoria of stagnation I cannot understand. I have thought about hope as being the driving force but I actually think that it's desire that's needed first — at least an idea of something to hope for. If this is the underlying need that religion satisfies then so be it — but if so why not discard all the packaging and just go with the product. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/17/03 5:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the forces of hope Mike, religion simply has more sucking-power. Its like eternal vacuum, you never will fill it out, it drags always, it gets you out like it got Auric Goldfinger through the window of the plane. Its eternal energy for the turbines of human souls. Only the dream of social justice has a similar force — and they are very near relatives from the beginning in the dawn of history. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Ralph (02/14/03 10:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Reply to Michael and Hubertus Thank you both for such a quality reponse. I am still trying to message correctly so pardon my disjoined or absent syntax. Michael, I mean by improvement is the acceleration of evolution. Evolution in itself is not bad or good. There can not be a value judgement when speaking of social or physical evolution. It just survives. Thus acceleration and regression are part in parcel of the whole process. There is no status quo in a constantly changing process by which to bench mark better or worse. Giving everyone a hundred point IQ boost, minimizing physical disabilities are just two ways of merely adding different numbers to the evolution equation. Our computers ten years ago compared to the computers we have now, would be an example of this type advancement. Hubertus, I get the same garbage into my computer but less comes out due to it's advancement. Microsoft Windows is like like having a very bright but fat co-worker. I feed it garbage, it gives me work and intellect but I must trim the fat to keep this ubiquitous creature going. Ten years ago, my computer could not even work with exponents. Let us all agree and put the ghost in an advanced machine this time. REPLIES (2): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/15/03 4:54 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: it not all Bill Gates Ralf, you should not forget your own computer between the ears. There may be some garbage in the OS and SW too — as in all of us. And evolution is not that innocent anymore. Ray Kurzweil and John Brockman and their likes try to be at the leading edge (see http://www.edge.org, and http://www.kurzweilai.net) but may be rather blinded by this. See my paper in Pathways Nr. 40. As — hopefully — thinking being we humans are held a bit responsible for what human evolution comes to. It's not Darwinian evolution by genes anymore, it's cultural evolution by memes (enter "memes" in Google). And there have been several books already that call us humans and our current culture "falsely programmed" — while NOT by Bill Gates. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 3:42 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Zoo keeper? Hubertus and Ralph, Evolution by genetic survival may have had its day, just as the dinosaurs did, are we now moving towards Un-Natural selection where the ability to change ourselves has replaced the ability to change our environment. I would never call this progress or regress because were I to do so then I would have some criteria to judge it by and I don't have any. I don't want to live in a unchanging zoo but many do without realising it. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Rachel Browne (02/15/03 10:07 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hope and things I don't understand this conference. What is being said, or the ordering of things. I hope to get the hang of it soon. But, on hope, it is an attitude. It doesn't imply frames of reference or anything else. R REPLIES (1): FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 3:45 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Without predjudice Rachel, Are attitudes context free? Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/15/03 9:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Values and Evolution Ralph said: "I mean by improvement is the acceleration of evolution. Evolution in itself is not bad or good. There can not be a value judgement when speaking of social or physical evolution. It just survives. Thus acceleration and regression are part in parcel of the whole process. There is no status quo in a constantly changing process by which to bench mark better or worse." I find biologist Francisco J. Ayala's evolutionary account of ethics interesting. He says that the capactity for ethics is a product of biological evolution. But that moral norms are the product of cultural evolution. Moral norms do not "just survive," in fact they may hinder the survival of the individual and its genes. REPLIES (2): FROM: Michael Ward (02/16/03 2:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Who's who? What is a life form? If one considers an idea then at some point it was created or in this analogy 'born'. It changes spreads and multiplies through it's hosts, in other words 'evolves'. If it never gets thought of again then it 'dies' In most ways ideas behave as if they were a life form, maybe not to surprising then that genes can drive society and we are just their hosts. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 3:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on living ideas Mike and the others, look up "memes" in Google! Memes are in the evolution of ideas what genes are in the evolution of plants and animals. Just as Mike described it. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/15/03 10:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Human mind as computer? Hubertus said: "you should not forget your own computer between the ears." This comparison frequently comes up, but is it true? Philisopher John R Searle in his "Chinese Room" argument and his Biological Naturalism as a Theory of the Mind challenges this concept of the brain- computer and Mind- the program. It is interesting to me that cognitive scientists are so quick to discount metaphysics, but so dogmatic in believing that every mental state has a computational structure. Searle, a materialist, is not an advocate of metaphysical explanations of the mind. But he is relentless in exposing the weaknesses in the assumptions made by cognitivism. Searle points out for example that computation is observer relative and assigned, not discovered in nature. REPLIES (2): FROM: Rachel Browne (02/16/03 9:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Searle Charles, I like that Searle insists that intelligence is biological. It is that we are natural organisms that probably gives rise to consciousness. We have no reason to believe something that is simply computational is conscious. So then it is a bit worrying if we mess around with the biological organism that we are by genetic engineering. Michael, I think that it doesn't matter whether or not we are determined. We would still hope. I quite strongly believe in fate, and that you can know what is in your fate and what isn't. Our individual possibilities are limited, but even then there are smaller hopes. R FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 1:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Aspirations Rachel, You say you strongly believe in fate does that mean that you are not responsible for your actions that adversely affect others? If you unintentionally hurt another would you not feel responsibility but explain it as 'it was going to happen anyway' I wonder. Fate sounds very mechanistic and as an engineer I appreciate, say, the cause and effect relationship of forces but I know from managing people that pressing the same lever doesn't always produce the same result (or at least the result I expect). I aspire to freedom to choose within possible choices, if I had any belief this one I would have. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 6:57 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on dissenting on the state of affairs Dear all, but especially Henk, I just thought on a strange thing: There will probably never be such a thing as a common view. This is an interesting question: Why not? And: Should there be one? I was at the same time confirmed in experiences and impressed by seeing how, when totalitarian or authoritarian regimes fell down, as in Germany after Hitler (1945) and after Honecker (1989) and in Spain after Franco (1975) and in Portugal and Greece at about the same time, and in all former communist states around 1990, there has always without exception been — after many years of censorship and suppression of "false opinions" — an instant reappearance of the whole political spectrum from far left over the middle to the far right, as if there had been no oppression and censorship at all. There is something deep in the human minds that makes one leftish or rightish or liberal or conservative and that is indifferent to stately suppression — even if exerted from kindergarten. There are different approaches to the world. And people will not change. A violin becomes no flute. They only can learn to play together. I was sensitized to this fact by my clash with Jean and now with Henk, but I know this thing from divorces I have seen: There are people open for argument, intelligent and well read and trying to be liberal, and they simply cannot agree on essential topics because they have completely different approaches to reality. The best they can do is show each other their different views and then agree to disagree. There are limits to rational discourse. Hegel — if he ever read Schopenhauer — would perhaps dismissed his writing as nonsense, while Schopenhauer explicitly called Hegel a stupid and his work rubbish. They simply denied each other the title of a philosopher. So this would be an interesting topic for our debate: What should we call a good sort of discourse and by what standard. From the above we surely should not make "agreement" the measure of quality. Look at the picture of the violin and the flute again: Bach has written trios for those two instruments with basso continuo. Thus to have a good exchange — as in a Platonic dialogue — only could mean that everybody has gained in insight and understanding by seeing new aspects of the problem discussed while not signing to any common agreement which never was to be expected. Hubertus Below two links to articles on the Irak-crisis which give not my opinion but made me think a bit. This as an example for the above. http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko1126.html http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq0708.html REPLIES (2): FROM: Michael Ward (02/17/03 1:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Frame of reference Dear All, Hubertus wrote: 'There are limits to rational discourse... They simply denied each other the title of a philosopher. So this would be an interesting topic for our debate: What should we call a good sort of discourse and by what standard. From the above we surely should not make "agreement" the measure of quality.' This very conveniently brings me back full circle, as it were, to the reasons why I joined this conference, namely, to try to understand how other people think. It's always been a source of puzzlement to me that when people are presented with the same data the interpretations are very different. Even after discourse and evaluating the reasons for the difference people still persist in their original views. It is as Edward de Bono described it — the arrogance and complacency of defending an idea within a fixed frame of reference — it isn't the reasoning that's limiting it's the frame of reference. And before anyone else jumps in I don't exclude myself from such allegations. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/17/03 5:02 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on not understanding each other Mike, the situation reminds on the concept of "pradigm" introduced in 1962 by Thomas Kuhn. And as Planck said on progress in physics some 40 years ealier: "New idead don't come about by convincing the masters of the old ones, but by the old masters dying away and the younger growing up with the new ideas" (not verbally, but this was the essence of it). I had the same experience in a firm: The old boss says of a new idea or device: "I never needed that before, and I have done good work without, so whats that nonsense!" The next boss asks "What is this Jurassic parc here — why don't we have this new idea and device working!" Henk and Jean think us all dinos from Jurassic parc, thats our problem. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/16/03 9:43 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on living ideas Michael said: "In most ways ideas behave as if they were a life form..." A difference between ideas and life forms is that life forms have to obey the classic laws of physics while ideas do not. Quantum physics, I do not know? REPLIES (8): FROM: Michael Ward (02/17/03 2:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Living ideas Charles, Can you give examples of what ways you mean please? Michael Ward p.s. anyone know what happened to Jean? FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/17/03 4:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on memes and Jean and Henk Dear Mike and Charles, on the memes I would agree to Charles, that there are some differences of course to the genes. But the general idea is not that different: There has been a genetic change that made the difference of plants and animals; then there has been another one, that made the difference of mollusca and chordata; then a third one from wich the mammals, and another one from which the primates etc.. And then there have been some little changes that caused the switch from the higher apes to man. In a similar way ther was a "meme" called "fire" and another meme called "writing" and one more called "numbers and calculation" and one the made "gardeners and cattle-breeders" and one that made "city-dwellers and philosophers", and then one that made "Christians" and "muslims" and finally one the made "democracy". Like in biology from each of these innovation started a whole new strain of similar innovations, like thos innumerable christian "denominations" starting from Luther and Calvin. This idea for "branching" is the important thing. And with memes like with genes there can be favourable and unfavourable condition and extinction and blossoming etc..Thus there a many things to be compared — even if it not the same mechanism of course. The most important difference may be that genes cannot "mix" as memes can. But this is once more an accelerating effect: Natural (genetic) evolution is to be counted in millions of years, while cultural evolution is to be counted in hundreds of years, which makes at least an acceleration by a factor of 10.000. By this "memetic" cultural evolution needed only some 10.000 years instead of 100 million years to get at results. As a model when used with care this is not bad. As for Jean and Henk: They both seem in part my victims, I have to apologize. What concerns Jean you know our constant struggles, and at least this time he will stay off a time, while there may be other causes too, that I don't know of. With Henk I had a similar fight on similar differences which got him upset. I really would like both to be back to the conference, while I have some trouble with our concept of exchange. Philosophy in my opinion — like in the opinion of Socrates — is on arguing, on trying to justify assumptions and claims in an open debate and accepting their failure if they are not up to some good counter-argument. If people enter a philosophical debate, they should know that and accept that. I sometimes should be more polite and cautious like Charles. I am a bit a fighter. But I never have been unfair: When I call something false then I give argument and evidence why I think so, and even then I never would be hurt if somebody tops me and refutes my argument or evidence by a better one. This is fair play. A philosophical conference is neither a political nor a religious one. When I was sided with Dr.Mengele I was not even insulted, I wasted no time with excuses, I simply asked: "Let's analyze together the very interesting philosphical question in what way Dr.Mengeles behaviour followed from twisted thinking!", and when the concept of cloning was called "un-ethical" I said: "We have to show by what argument this should be called un-ethical." I neither defendede Mengele nor cloning, but I insisted on getting "from belly-thinking to brainy-thinking" as is expected from a true philosopher. "Handwringing-exercises" are for the men and women in the street, not for philosophers. Philosophers should argue. So if you could get back Jean and Henk to the conference I would like it really. I have not the slightes personal objections and surely are not hurt or insulted the least. I only try to be honest to the Socratic task of a philosopher. But of course: In the end he had to die because he simply was too cheeky. He had to die with 70, so I have 8 years left to get people set up by ugly questions. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/17/03 11:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Example Michael said: Charles, Can you give examples of what ways you mean please? Michael Ward I will try to do that in the future. For now, I'll just go back to my last postings. Living things are subject to the laws of physics, for example gravity. I trip on a rock while walking, loosing my balance, and gravity causes me to fall. Ideas are not necessarily bound by the laws of physics. I can imagine (an idea) that when I trip over a rock, instead of falling to the ground, I float above the earth. To clarify, I agree with philosopher John Searle that consciousness is probably a biological phenomenon. I also agree with him that despite the claims of advocates of Strong AI, science is just at the very beginning of understanding how the brain actually works. Connecting ideas to certain neuron patterns or that culture evolves like DNA for example strikes me as being too simplistic. That observation is largely based on my experiences with various meds for Parkinson's Disease and the experiences of other people with neurological disorders. I won't bore you with the details. I have a lot of speculations about the nature of ideas. Some associated with waves, fields, and patterns of energy would be subject to the laws of physics (much of which I lack the background in math to understand). My other speculations on the nature of ideas,their relationship to Plato's Forms for example, may or may not be subject to laws of physics. I just don't know, but that interests rather than worries me. Charley FROM: Charles (02/18/03 12:12 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on memes I understand that memes are associated with the theories of social biology. While I personally admire E.O. Wilson the naturalist and his research on social insects. I think that in his interest to sum things up, like his idea of "consilience" for example, he jumps to conclusions based on something more akin to my religious beliefs than to science. I think that some scientists like Wilson (and Richard Dawkins who may be more closely associated with memes) may by personality and/or training be compelled to sometimes prematurely sum things up. I think that this is a characteristic similar to the religious people who write catechisms to keep lay people like me on the correct and narrow path. I have not seen anything on memes that is even close to the science of genetics. Science is only science if its claims can be verified by repeated tests, some of which even amateurs like me can do. It is not repeated citation of faith based claims. In religion you can appeal to the Holy Spirit for guidance! In my opinion it is a more limited perspective, but science by definition in its claims must stick to repeated, verified, tests. Charley FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/18/03 5:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: more on genes and memes Charles, I dont understand exactly what do you expect from "science". If there is a switch from the big apes to humans, then from this the whole history of humanity evolves. And if there is a switch from pre-Christian philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics etc.) to the Christian one (St.Paul, St.Augustine, St.Thomas etc.) then the whole story of Europe. What else do you expect to find out? But, as I said: Genes dont intermix directly while they did indirectly: When humans learned to tame dogs and oxen and horses and sheep, this made a new sort of system unknown to nature before, a sort of cultural symbiosis. But cultural symbiosis is not the same as cultural exchange, so when in cities like Alexandria and Athens and Rome many cultures mixed, the effect was much more interesting in the long run. Now by the internet and by the English language we on this conference coming from different background can exchange across continents, and in this way we may assemble people from all over the globe during the next years, even from Africa, Mexico, Afghanistan, China, Japan, Australia etc.. This is "memetics": Making new connections from new inventions (internet) — and from this more new inventions and more new connections, a global web of humans. That was once the idea of the New Age people (f.i. Marilyn Ferguson). The very ideas of "democracy" and "human rights" and "computer" are "memes" from the western world spreading over the world now like seeds. And this is not different from the call to mission (St.Matthew 28,19 ff). Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/19/03 12:02 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on memes Hubertus, I place your belief in memes in the same category as my belief in angels, a form of religion. I respect your right to hold your own religious beliefs, the religion not the craft of science. There are also elaborate discussions about angels in my religion, whether they are real, symbols, etc, rather like science discussing memes without any basis in experimentation. I think that language not memes is behind the evolution of culture. Anyway, can you imagine God communicating to Abraham through memes? Charley FROM: Michael Ward (02/19/03 5:12 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Just a meme Charles A meme is an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another. It's the cultural equivalent of a gene, the basic element of biological inheritance. The term was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins speculated that human beings have an adaptive mechanism that other species don't have. In addition to genetic inheritance with its possibilities and limitations, humans, said Dawkins, can pass their ideas from one generation to the next, allowing them to surmount challenges more flexibly and more quickly than through the longer process of genetic adaptation and selection. Examples of memes might include the idea of God; the importance of the individual as opposed to group importance; the belief that the environment can to some extent be controlled; or that technologies can create an electronically interconnected world community. Today, the word is sometimes applied ironically to ideas deemed to be of passing value. Dawkins himself described such short-lived ideas as memes that would have a short life in the meme pool. If memes exist they can be identified and measured, but more importantly no people — no memes. So if the idea of god dies with humanity then what of god! Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/19/03 8:08 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on memetics and angels Charles, this time I completely side with Mike. I think you are putting either too much or to less into this concept. Before St.Paul and St.Augustine and their contemporaries there simply was no idea of a personal God in the philosophical discourse of Antiquity. St.Augustines "Confessiones" could not have been written by Plato or Aristotle or Cicero or some of their disciples. Just like you cannot have a lion before there were felidae, and you could not have felidae before there were mammals. I don't see what is complicated in this and why you call this comparable to the idea of archangels. It's a concept, nothing else, like energy or truth. It simply means that any idea can be brought back to some origin of this idea. Remember that I several times on the old conference spoke of the importance of historical thinking. From this the idea of "memes" came to me quite natural. This concept of Dawkins is nothing of great importance, any history of ideas before had used the concept without a special name, but the new name made it simpler to visualize what is happening in the history of ideas. But of course you will not go to hell if you don't care. I don't care either. More important is always the question — with memes like with genes: Why did they flourish this time, why do they dwindel again, why do some ideas never get up, other have a very hot time and then vanish etc.. This is "ecology of memes" and very interesting. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/16/03 9:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on living ideas Hubertus said: "Memes are in the evolution of ideas what genes are in the evolution of plants and animals." Culture (and ideas) is not as "neat" as genetics. It does not seem to me that culture evolves according to the laws of physics. Language on the other hand is as 'messy" as culture. Charley REPLIES (6): FROM: Ralph (03/16/03 10:52 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Having a poem is like having a baby Read the discussion and find it very interesting. I agree with Hubertus. My reasoning is: Even though cultural evolution and physical evolution seem worlds apart, both are determined by behavioral conditioning. B.F. Skinner might agree with us also. Evolution of words and their meanings is a conceptual process but their usage remains behavioral. Current theory of evolution is "Endo-symbiosis" which is based on living forms intergrating bacteria to evolve or adapt..not natural selection. It is not hard to envision our words evolving not through a changing physical world but by slang, cultural idioms, etc.. Sointly!! FROM: Charles (03/17/03 12:18 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Behaviorism Ralph said: "Even though cultural evolution and physical evolution seem worlds apart, both are determined by behavioral conditioning. B.F. Skinner might agree with us also. Evolution of words and their meanings is a conceptual process but their usage remains behavioral. Current theory of evolution is "Endo-symbiosis" which is based on living forms intergrating bacteria to evolve or adapt..not natural selection. It is not hard to envision our words evolving not through a changing physical world but by slang, cultural idioms, etc.." ----------------------------------------------- Thank you for responding Ralph. Please don't take my reply in a "personal sense." I acknowledge in advance that my contributions to this forum are probably lacking in clarity and subject to misinterpretation of emotions. Something that Parkinson's has made me very aware of is the importance of showing appropriate emotions in personal communication. One of Parkinson's secondary symptoms is "facial masking." With facial masking, a person with Parkinson's frequently looses the ability to make those automatic signals in interpersonal communication. I have to remember to now tell myself to smile, frown, etc. at the appropriate times, or my facial masking can create misunderstanding in interpersonal comm. That said, I probably disagree with your entire posting Ralph. (smile) Most of this (about behaviorism) comes from my reading of philosopher John Searle. Don't blame him for my disagreement with Darwinism though. I think that Skinner and behaviorism say that statements about behavior are equivalent in meaning to statements about the mind. First and foremost, this is contrary to common sense. We all know that we have subjective conscious mental states and these are often quite different from our behavior. We all "act" in our different roles in life. Searle uses an expression "counterexample of the superactor-superspartan variety." That is the person who acts exactly as if in pain, but is not. And the person who is in pain, but does not manifest that pain in behavior. It seems to me that behaviorists cannot adequately, or probably do not even begin to address the causal component in the relation of the mental to the physical. Your statement relating the meaning of words to behavior has alot of problems for me. I think that it ignores all the words that float around in our minds without behavioral manifestation. How do you account for the emphasis that all forms of meditation put on letting these words that have no bodily manifestation just "pass by." Regarding "endo-symbiosis," I am not familiar with that term. Am I correct to understand though that you are making an argument for Neo Darwinism? If you are, how can you have Darwin without "natural selection?" Sincerely, but in disagreement, Charles FROM: Ralph (03/21/03 12:14 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Darwinian products vs self engineered beings Some copy: "The mechanism proposed by Darwin to explain the evolution of life on Earth is based on a delicate balance between a positive process, that of variation, and a negative process, that of selection. The inconsistencies encountered so far in the fossil record all seem to point towards a need for a stronger positive process, one that allows for a species to be born in far shorter times than the evolutionary times implied by Darwin's theory. It is true, as Behe noted, that an organism is way too complex to be built by refinements, and it is true, as Gould claimed, that species appear all of a sudden. Selection does account for the disappearance of variations that are not fit, but variation alone (and the set of genetic "algorithms" that would represent it) is hardly capable of accounting for the extraordinary assembly of a new organism. A more powerful force must be at work. When we find that force, we may finally write the last chapter of "The Origin of Species", which Darwin never even tried to write: we still don't know how species originate. That force may be hidden in the process of endosymbiosis, the process by which a new organism originates from the fusion of two existing organisms, or, more precisely, by which two independently evolved organisms become a tightly coupled system and eventually just one organism." .....http://www.thymos.com/science/endosymb.html (Sounds like Neo-Darwinism) Charles, Just as the gestation of a baby is a process fused from the environment and inheritance, so too are the words that are assembled to make a poem. Their births are attributed to naturally selected environmental conditions and genetic nativity. Searle's point is well taken. I would argue "Pain" is a native memory derived from an experience. Although one can mask it's expression physically and mentally it exists physiologically through the senses and psychologically in interpretation of memory.( I interpret this is what J.S. Mill called "permanent possibilities of sensation") Answering your last concern, I argue that words that float around in our minds without behavioral manifestations are simply non-sense. Try to make sense of the sentence " Crazy green ideas sleep furiously." this is an example of what I think you mean. Thank you for the reply. FROM: Charles (03/21/03 11:41 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Robot minds & human minds. Ralph, I disagree with the behaviorist view of language. My example is a simplification, especially because it anthropomorphizes my computer. But I think that it will help explain my position. (Note — To anyone interested in this type of robotic experimentation, the LEGO MINDSTORMS products are programmed using a PC. If you want to use a Mac, you will need to get some software and additional devices from Pitsco/LEGO Dacta.) Let's say that my iMac connected to a LEGO RCX (microcomputer) via an infrared transmitter represents the human brain/neurological system. The LEGO robot containing the RCX represents the human body. There is a lot of language activity going on in this system, including LEGO Designer software and RoboLab software. Most of the LEGO Designer creations never go beyond being images for the conscious (me). But those images are just as real as the mental words in my brain. Many of the programs that I write using RoboLab are never actually used to control the movements of a robot. But whether or not I put a RoboLab program into effect, it is as real as the mental words in my brain. The only things the behaviorist observes are the programs that I put into effect with the LEGO robot. These programs that the behaviorist emphasizes are only a very small part of the total language activity however. Even though most of the LEGO Designer and RoboLab creations never are put into effect, they still have a considerable influence both on the creation of computer programs and robot actions viewed holistically. Charles P.S. Ralph, if you are interested, I would like to discuss these ideas further later. But I have a previous weekend commitment to my son's scout troop to take care of. FROM: Ralph (03/24/03 12:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Robo-Chomsky vs Skinner circuitry Charles- What a fascinating example! I agree with you. As with robots, humans have a lt of their circuitry dedicated to the expression of language(except dreaming I think) and just seeing the physical evidence in speech or mobility cannot define it's holistic nature. When you choose not to put the program in effect they remain real as mental words for you. The key word is that they are mental, not physical and remain as sense-less memories. The are sense-less because we cannot sense our own mind's functions just as the Lego robot can not sense the iMac..the infra beam is there or not there and it knows no difference. In the same manner our mind-motor connection has to be there for language. Before words were spoken, they had to written.We are not born with words but we are born with the circuitry for language. Let me know if I understood your analogy correctly. FROM: Charles (03/25/03 5:26 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Robo-Chomsky? (Note: I am going to resend this, putting it in the correct string.) Ralph, I think that you probably understood my analogy. But I will leave out "correct," because our perspectives or world views being different perhaps makes being correct not really a useful concept here. Your combination "Robo-Chomsky" was interesting. But I do not see any connection between my rough ideas about mental symbols being real and Chomsky's natural language. About the only idea that I probably share with Chomsky is that the behaviorists are wrong. Basically my idea is simply that language is real whether or not it is actually expressed in behavior. Maybe a better example of my position could be seen through the art of radio telegraphy (Morse Code). A word has several manifestations or modes in this art. Either in this order or the reverse: It is transformed in the mind symbolically from word to "dots and dashes" before taking on an overt physical mode through nerves/arm/hand, and materially transformed to a higher frequency via telegraph key and radio transmitter. I argue that in all its modes, the word is real, not "sense-less." The word's continued ability to change its symbolic nature and mode, suggests its real nature. And does it make any fundamental difference to the word, if the transmitted word is never received? What if the rf waves just keep going out into the universe without ever being intercepted by anyone? Even if the rf waves approach entropy when moving through the dimensions of space and time, this would have no ultimate effect on the the word. Theoretically the rf signal strength will be eventually distributed into a universal state of entropy. (While curiously the rf waves simultaneously constantly cycle through zero.) But the symbolic nature of the word is not changed by a reduction in signal strength. If a signal can be intercepted, theoretically it can be amplified to a useful level, retaining the word's realism. And anyway, the causal relationship of the word is not with the higher frequency electro-magnetic wave approaching entropy. The word is brain caused and remains so. Even if the mental brain states are electro-chemical in nature and suggest future death, a metaphysical understanding of word remains, suggested by the word's continued potential for transformation into a different mode. Charles (Not really a philosopher, just a radio amateur experimenter — N7FLA) ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Rachel Browne (02/18/03 1:08 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Jean Just skimmed the messages and haven't really read them and back later, putting the niece to bed, but Michael, Jean has said that he doesn't like the conference. Thinks it is run by Californians. Pity, though! R REPLIES (4): FROM: Charles (02/18/03 3:51 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: California philosophers Is anybody from (and/or living in California) participating in our conference? Anyway though, if my average one dollar/month investment in the Washington State lottery brings me a big win this year, I will sponsor a California meeting of our philosophy conference in 2004. Maybe Hubertus can give us the odds of that happening? Jean will be invited to attend also. Charley Countryman FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/18/03 4:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on odds and probability Charles, the odds — 1/x — are very low of course, while not zero. And if there is very much luck - x, a large number — then this multiplies with the odds to x times 1/x = 1 and you will have us all to SCal to meet for the first time and driving on the roller-coaster at LA-beach. Then even Jean and Henk would see that I am not the manslayer and grim Rambo I seem to come on the conf sometimes. Thus I hope that you are lucky — and we others then too. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/18/03 5:37 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: who is running our conference? Rachel and Charles, Henk too thinks this conference is run — or at least peopled — by the false people. They have a right to think so of course. Nobody is obliged to take part. But I really regret this sort of "sectarianism". I prefer pluralism of many voices. And I am sure that not even Jean and Henk would agree on the same conference but woul start to different ones. Like one has said of some peoples (f.i. Polands): If two of them come together, they start three parties. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA states that no religious preferences are allowed. This was essential, since otherwise the history of the USA would have been a history of permanent religious warring. People did not escape Europe to continue this nonsense in the USA. Thus the US are proud to be pluralistic and to defend freedom of speech and congregation above all. But if pluralism is seen only as a right to be in ones own party and sect and not exchanging with others than this is sad. Of course I "feel" what Jean is thinking: California sounds like UFOs and New Agers and Satanists, while Jean would prefer philosophers of Socratic cast gathering under olive trees near Athens like 2.400 years ago. And this is indeed a very different outlook. What Henk really is intending I did not understand from his page. Thus I will have to look at his page from time to time to see what is going on there. In my opinion pluralism is not only doing ones own thing but also listening to others and learning something new and thinking it over. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 1:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Who cares? Hey, What does it matter who is running this conference as long as we can freely exchange ideas. You may all be characters in a Red Dwarf simulation game for all I can determine from this keyboard — real or not it's still stimulating and isn't that what we all need, stimulation. Lister. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/20/03 11:35 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Catechisms, religious and scientific Michael said: 'If memes exist they can be identified and measured...' I think that the idea of memes is an indication of at least two philosophical errors. First it focuses on the beginnings of humans (and human nature) rather than on the way people are. I contend that we do not know the beginnings of humans with any certainty. So philosophy should deal primarily with the way people really are. I would like to see the evidence that memes can, or better yet, have been identified and measured. Lacking such evidence, I think that a more constructive course for philosophy to pursue is the role of language in cultural evolution. The second error is related to the first and is shared by both modern apostles of Darwinism, like Richard Dawkins, and by creationists. Both Darwinism and creationism display an obsession with 'summing up,' coming to definitive conclusions even when faced with incomplete information. Neither side deals with uncertainty, chance, and chaos very well. Theories from both these ideologies extend from reasonable conclusions based on observation to speculations needed to keep their ideological houses from collapsing in the sand. Also to me, memes bear a remarkable resemblance to the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think that there is much truth contained in that Catechism. (I also think that there is much truth in both Martin Luther's 'short' and 'long' Catechisms, what I was taught and what my son is being taught both by me and at his school.) But there is also the reality of uncertainty (which I differentiate from skepticism), chance, and chaos. Catechisms, whether they be scientific or religious, do not deal with that reality very well. A primary purpose of catechisms is to put everything in a tidy package, even if that means jumping to some unwarranted conclusions. Charley ----------------------------------------------- —------------------ Charles A meme is an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another. It's the cultural equivalent of a gene, the basic element of biological inheritance. The term was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins speculated that human beings have an adaptive mechanism that other species don't have. In addition to genetic inheritance with its possibilities and limitations, humans, said Dawkins, can pass their ideas from one generation to the next, allowing them to surmount challenges more flexibly and more quickly than through the longer process of genetic adaptation and selection. Examples of memes might include the idea of God; the importance of the individual as opposed to group importance; the belief that the environment can to some extent be controlled; or that technologies can create an electronically interconnected world community. Today, the word is sometimes applied ironically to ideas deemed to be of passing value. Dawkins himself described such short-lived ideas as memes that would have a short life in the meme pool. If memes exist they can be identified and measured, but more importantly no people — no memes. So if the idea of god dies with humanity then what of god! Michael Ward REPLIES (4): FROM: Michael Ward (02/20/03 12:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Fuzzy logic. Charles I think in all respects I disagree with your position regarding memes and Catechisms because: Firstly catechism is defined as:- 1.CHRISTIANITY question-and-answer teaching: instruction in the principles of Christianity using set questions and answers 2.CHRISTIANITY religious questions and answers: the series of questions and answers that are used to test people's religious knowledge in advance of Christian baptism or confirmation 3.CHRISTIANITY question-and-answer book: a book containing questions and answers used to test the religious knowledge of people preparing for Christian baptism or confirmation 4.body of principles followed unthinkingly: a body of basic beliefs and principles followed unthinkingly 5.interrogation: a close and intense session of questioning on a particular subject, especially forming part of an examination or an interrogation. This is a religious concept and definition 5 above is applicable to consequences of closed systems and minds. Scientific method does not, when neutrally applied, define a path it is the best fit hypothesis to verifiable data. Secondly your narrow frame of reference viz 'I contend that we do not know the beginnings of humans with any certainty. So philosophy should deal primarily with the way people really are.' I think that the origin of humanity is the larger frame of reference we must use and preferably pre-life. You might by your methodology ague that one act of kindness by Saddam Hussein could endear him to the person receiving that kindness. It would of course be but one facet of the wider picture — you cannot narrow things down otherwise the absurd becomes reasonable. Finally I completely agree with you on packaging ideas, this is a human problem as we cannot easily manipulate untidy, fuzzy and chaotic ideas very well yet. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (02/20/03 1:42 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Definition of catechism From "Webster's New World Dictionary: Of American English." "catechism:"1 a handbook of questions and answers for teaching the principles of a religion 2 any similar handbook for teaching the fundamentals of a subject 3 a formal series of questions; close questioning 4 (Obs.)catechesis." "catechesis: religious instruction" "religion...4 any object of conscientious regard and pursuit." First, I do not agree that catechesis is an obsolete definition. Re Richard Dawkins and his memes. It is an argument to support his object of conscientious regard and pursuit- Darwinism. In a Darwinist catechesis I would expect an attempt to put it all in a tidy package (thus memes), just like a teacher of a religion puts their instruction in a tidy intellectual package. Give me a source(s) that verify memes through experimentation or statistical analysis. Are there any? I did not find any using Google. Re Saddam. When making scientific observations about human nature, the technique would have to include some means to avoid skewing of the data by the particular quirks of individuals. Charley FROM: Charles (02/20/03 3:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Frame of reference. Michael said: "Secondly your narrow frame of reference viz 'I contend that we do not know the beginnings of humans with any certainty. So philosophy should deal primarily with the way people really are.' I think that the origin of humanity is the larger frame of reference we must use and preferably pre-life." There is a great deal of interesting literature about human origins for anyone to read, very little have I found in agreement. Note that I have been specific about human origins. Philosophy is a human endeavor. Its focus should be on human life as we know it, if it is to have any value as a discipline. However human origins are hidden in the mists of time. Consequently too much focus on origins can lead to extreme and conflicting speculation about humanity. For example theories about human nature coming from selfish genes add little to our understanding of our nature as it is today. Neither does the misuse of ancient Hebrew creation myths by creationists add anything useful to our understanding of our nature. I expect that both of these ideologies coming out of the 19th century's industrial and social revolution will sooner rather than later be replaced by a new scientific paradigm. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/20/03 5:43 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on understanding memes and humans Charles, I do not really understand your line of argument, but I will do a try. I got the impression that you mix up mathematical argument with argument "ad hominem" sometimes. The concept of "selfish gene" simply says, that the gene is like a computer-program steering a robot in a concurrence with other robots of similar design. The winning/surviving robot then will be that one, that has the best adapted / best fitting program for steering it. Like two chess-robots playing against each other, using the same hardware. Thus the fighters/contesters are not the robots/ computers, but the programs, i.e. the "genes", that only need some hardware to express themselves. In this way the genes generating the better brains in the long run will outsmart the genes generating the less able brains, and this is "the fighting of the selfish genes using apish bodies". The problem seems to be that because we see the "apish bodies" fighting, we tend to think that the bodies are the important thing. But as you know from your study of Asian martial arts and fighting techniques it's the mind, not the body, that wins. But the mind per se is invisible. It uses the body as an instrument for fighting. Likewise the memes: If you have a better idea — say the liberal democracy instead of authoritarian obedience to a king — then this better idea — a meme — wins over the less effective one. In this way the scientific Occident won over the rest of the world by generating better ships and better fire-arms than the self-concerned Orient. The West had the "memes" of natural science, the East had the memes of yoga and Zen. But with yoga and Zen you cannot build effective ships and fire-arms, thus the Western memes won over the Eastern ones. And this is not on being "more intelligent": The Zen-master may be much more intelligent than the western user of fire-arms, but this is of no value if any stupid western soldier can blast off the Zen-master with a shot from his rifle. Once more: It's NOT the more intelligent Westerner that wins over the less intelligent oriental, but its the more effective western "meme for building fire-arms" that wins over the less effective oriental "meme for studying yoga or Zen", even if the oriental PERSON may be much more intelligent than the western one. And I don't think that we need to know the origin of humankind to ask what today makes the difference of humans and animals. Culture is a sort of artificial nature, like movies and novels are a sort of artificial reality. Thus children learn to adapt not directly to nature — as animals do — but human children learn to adapt to their culture and social environment, since this IS their "natural" environment. I you grow up in the Bronx/NY or in Compton/LA you learn how to adapt to the conditions there and not to the country-life near Kansas-City. And the kids in the school of your wife adapt to another life than those in the school of Mary Seifert. But they all understand the difference between love and hate. And the natural question is: What is it that makes this difference, and what is it, that makes this difference important. And to find out we need not know "how it all began". We only have to find out why it should be important. And this is to a great part historical! There have been really thousands of years when slavery and the suppression of women has NOT been thought "un-natural" or "un-ethical" in most parts of the world. The question why this has changed cannot be answered without historical reference. As I said on the old conference: It is NOT BY COINCIDENCE that the time of European witch-hunt and the time of rising European modern science have been the same (ca. 1450-1750): Both developments mirrored and drove each other, neither of them was "natural". Thus what we call "human" or "humane" is not "natural" either, it cannot be understood without cultural and historical understanding — mostly. And by this argument Marx and Weber tried to understand human cultural history by "cause and effect", by memes adapting behaviour and thinking to new challenges. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/20/03 7:57 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Re memes and humans. To respond to Hubertus, who said about one of my previous postings: "I do not really understand your line of argument, but I will do a try. I got the impression that you mix up mathematical argument with argument "ad hominem" sometimes. The concept of "selfish gene" simply says, that the gene is like a computer-program steering a robot in a concurrence with other robots of similar design. The winning/surviving robot then will be that one, that has the best adapted / best fitting program for steering it. Like two chess-robots playing against each other, using the same hardware. Thus the fighters/contesters are not the robots/ computers, but the programs, i.e. the "genes", that only need some hardware to express themselves. In this way the genes generating the better brains in the long run will outsmart the genes generating the less able brains, and this is "the fighting of the selfish genes using apish bodies". The problem seems to be that because we see the "apish bodies" fighting, we tend to think that the bodies are the important thing. But as you know from your study of Asian martial arts and fighting techniques it's the mind, not the body, that wins. But the mind per se is invisible. It uses the body as an instrument for fighting." ----------------------------------------------- I think that the the use of the computer/program metaphor in understanding human nature is only useful for what philosopher David Chalmers calls "easy problems" when compared to the "hard problem" of consciousness. The easy problems are not trivial. They are the problems about the objective mechanisms of the mind. The sort of problems that science can deal with. Also practical use can come from these easy problems, such as treatments for neurological disorders. Borrowing from Prof. Chalmers, I relate the problem of ideas to the hard problem of consciousness, "the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience." There is no proof for memes and the theory behind them does not answer the hard question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to idea. REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/21/03 1:53 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on consciousness and knowlege Charles, sorry, I am still not sure that I understand you — or that you understood me. I never saw or see humans as "robots". I only used an analogy. I always got a bit desperate by this interest in "consciousness". The validity of mathematical or physical arguments does NOT derive from "consciousness" but from the facts of nature. If somebody by religious conviction (= "conscience") has a false concept of biology and illness, he will be outsmarted and outdone by somebody who has a "better" concept of biology and illness, where "better" simply means "more in line with the ways of nature". What he may THINK of this is completely irrelevant. You even may call the faith in modern science a "pseudoreligion", but when it comes to healing ills or building airplanes and weapons etc. this "pseudoreligion" outsmarts all "true religion" simply because it is more "in line with nature". And I don't see where in this argument anything like "consciousness" or "dualism" comes in. It is simply irrelevant. There are objective rules of chess. There are good and not so good moves. It is completely irrelevant if the robot who does the better moves by a better program has any idea of what he is doing, any "consciousness". He need not have one, he only needs to do the better moves. Likewise if you have the better ideas on how to make efficient weapons you will overcome those people that have less good ideas of how to make weapons, and this has nothing to do with what you or the other guy are thinking or feeling on this. But to have "the better ideas" is a memetic thing: If in your cultural tradition (memes!) there shows up a Newton and Maxwell and Einstein, then you will have the better concept of nature and by this may be able to build atomic-bombs. And by this you can outdo any culture that has (by lack of the needed memes!) no modern physics and by this does not know how to build atomic bombs. This has nothing to do with what you THINK on this, and it has nothing to do with dualism or holism but only with the actual similarity of what you think nature is doing and what nature actually does. Even if you are the best shot in the world, if you aim at the false target you will not hit the right one. This is naturally so, and has nothing to do with consciousness but with knowlege. Consciousness is not knowlege. On this the whole Asiatic thinking is utterly wrong. The stars don't care if anybody thinks they are guiding his fate. The facts of nature don't care what we think of them. Facts are facts — independent of any consciousness. We have to understand the facts, not our thinking on them — or only in part so. Popper is much more relevant on this than is Searle. But, as I said: I am still not sure that I understand you. Hubertus. FROM: Michael Ward (02/23/03 7:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Taking a break. Hubertus Your posting 'on consciousness and knowledge' defines an area of thinking where I find most 'believers' will not go — even for a simple thought experiment. To paraphrase 'Even if you are the best thinker in the world, if you aim at the false target you will not hit the right one. I meet with others in a monthly 'Philosophers Caf�' where the majority of members are what I describe as 'believers'. As much as I try to have them explain how there world hangs together there is the persistent avoidance to spell out what has convinced them that simply thinking something does not make it so. I am prepared to be proven wrong - believers I find are not prepared to be tested. I have yet to hear a coherent argument put forward that can be tested and the examples you make in your posting I will use at our next meeting — thank you. Alas, I will not be corresponding with you for about two weeks as I taking a holiday to southern Portugal where I hope to catch up on some of my Philosophy of Language course I have been neglecting. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (02/25/03 9:23 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Are facts just facts? Hubertus said: "Facts are facts — independent of any consciousness. We have to understand the facts, not our thinking on them — or only in part so. Popper is much more relevant on this than is Searle." —------------------------ I do not agree Hubertus. There is some "social construction of reality" in all "facts." If there is one true fact about life, it is about the uncertainty that surrounds it and shapes it. I assume that you are talking about Professor Searle's "naive realism." I have not studied Professor Popper's logic of science, but doubt if we have to choose between the two. It seems to me that naive realism would apply to every conscious moment. My guess, unless you can be more specific, is that Prof. Popper's logic does not. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/21/03 11:44 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: A 21st Century View of Evolution I have posted a document that includes a Research Summary and Abstract of a recent paper by Professor James A. Shapiro, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Committee on Genetics, University of Chicago. Also see: http://www.iscid.org/ especially if you think that all scientists are in agreement about the basic ideas of evolution. REPLIES (3): FROM: Michael Ward (02/23/03 8:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On a mission Charles, There are scientists and there are people on a mission. Those on a mission I hold with more disdain because they have a subjective thesis to prove rather than an objective relationship of facts. To use the analogy of Hubertus it would be extremely unlikely that Darwin hit the Bulls eye but he was most likely on target! Also I don't think we can weigh truth by numbers of people supporting or opposing but we should explore every possibility we can think of before discarding the incoherent. Michael Ward FROM: Ralph (02/24/03 9:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: 21 st Century view of evolution-a reply Charles, That was an interesting posting. I studied biochemistry a few years ago and understood these natural genetic engineering strategies are reponses to intra-cellular environment- not extra-cellular. Not that evident in the paper is the idea that these are only repair processes. Although human gestation will pass through many past evolutionary states, what we become is environmentally determined.( the idea that a monkey, in front of a type-writer given an infinite amount of time, will compose literature) In conclusion,I believe our individual genome is the "Tabula Rasa" on which the environment writes our life. Disabilities or arrested development is a fault of our repair mechanisms, as is disease. Truly an interesting subject. I thank you for the posting. FROM: Charles (02/25/03 11:56 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: re alleged rhetoric & sophistry I will just let the sites speak for themselves. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/21/03 1:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Counterbalance Meta-Library A resource library that you may want to visit. Counterbalance Meta-Library, offering new views on complex issues from science, ethics, philosophy, and religion. http://www.counterbalance.org/ REPLIES (2): FROM: Michael Ward (02/23/03 8:56 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well worth a visit Charles, I visited http://www.counterbalance.org/ and not that I have seen all the site but my initial impression from content and origin is that the protagonists of religion feel under attack and need to respond using the very knowledge that is attacking them. Unfortunately religion has been on the back foot for many a long year now and is tottering towards its final demise. Giving up on ever winning the argument it now sees its only survival in playing for a draw through rhetoric and sophistry — but maybe I should speak more bluntly? Michael Ward FROM: Charles (02/24/03 1:15 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I started to recommend you visit Fatima. I hope that you enjoy your vacation to Portugal Michael. After reading your comments though, I will refrain from any temptation to influence your travel plans. It is not clear to me, if I am included in your charge of rhetoric and sophistry. But from your comments, I assume that you think that I am peddling it. This does disappoint me a bit. I think that I have been more open about myself than most of this list (probably too much). But I have heard your complaint. Charles ----------------------------------------------- Charles, I visited http://www.counterbalance.org/ and not that I have seen all the site but my initial impression from content and origin is that the protagonists of religion feel under attack and need to respond using the very knowledge that is attacking them. Unfortunately religion has been on the back foot for many a long year now and is tottering towards its final demise. Giving up on ever winning the argument it now sees its only survival in playing for a draw through rhetoric and sophistry — but maybe I should speak more bluntly? Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/22/03 7:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: some starter to society-debate Dear all, the following I posted in Nov 2002 to the old conference, but it may help to get a new debate — if it happens — on solid ground and off some wild speculations. I am surely not opposed to the spiritual things, but "soup and soap first", then "the gospel". Even Ray Charles needs something to eat and a free society. Under Saddam Hussein Ray Charles would not praise the Lord in a gospel-service. Here the old posting: Dear all, the following is selected from the Human Develoment Report HDR 2000 (http://www.undp.org/hdr2000/english/book/cover.pdf), from pages 15+16 of the "overview" there. / Human rights and human develoment share a common vision and a common purpose — to secure the freedom, well-being, and dignity of all people everywhere. To secure: — Freedom from discrimination — by gender, race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. — Freedom from want — to enjoy a decent standard of living. — Freedom to develop and realize one's human potential. — Freedom from fear — of threats to personal security, from torture, arbitrary arrests and other violent acts. — Freedom from injustice and violations of the rule of law. — Freedom of thought and speech and to participate in decision making and form associations. — Freedom for decent work — without exploitation. Human freedom is the common purpose and common motivation of human rights and human development. The movements for human rights and for human development have had distinct traditions and strategies. United in a broader alliance, each can bring new energy and strenght to the other. Human development is essential for realizing human rights, and human rights are essential for full human development. The mark of all civilizations is the respect they accord to human dignity and freedom. / This is exactly my own idea of what in a practical sense should be the first aim of all our endeavors. In the context of "soup, soap, and the gospel" I would call this "soup and soap". Then we need to know the meaning of "the gospel". But I personally prefer another scheme: I like to speak of a threefold hunger — a hunger for "bread", a hunger for "love", and a hunger for "meaning". "Bread" here includes "soup" and "soap", while "love" and "meaning" are left for "being together with other humans" and for "being part of a meaningful world", respectively. Thus the hunger for "love" is only in part covered by the UNO-list above, while the hunger for "meaning" cannot be covered by such a list at all and has to be fed from sources like religions and philosophies, or otherwise. And then: We have to build a world for humans, we have to deliver. Thus it is absolutely irrelevant how solutions and answers — if they only are solutions and answers — are labelled. To call anything "leftist", "rightist", or "conservative", or "liberal" etc. is an exercise in meaningless verbiage. People need help and answers and solutions. It is the content of the box and not the inscription on the cover what counts. As Deng Hsiao Ping once had it: "Be the cat black or white, in the end she's got to catch mice." Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- —--------------------------- REPLIES (5): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/22/03 8:01 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a continuation on "good society" The following somehow went to nirvana, thus I post is again as an answer to my own posting to fix it. Dear all, there have been some questions to this conference around lately that did not trigger the debate that should have followed. There was the question of Kati Hunt on the value of philosophy and if it could improve the world, and there was the question of Henk Tuten of how to improve the existing concepts and realities of democracy. And there is Charles' and my question — following those drifting spheres — of what defines a human being as compared to a mere robot. Related to this last question there has been much debate time and again on "conscience" and on "freedom of the will", but at least in my opinion both concepts seem a bit sterile. What do we really ask for? All those questions above have something in common, and that is an underlying question on how to improve humans and human conditions by understanding what this means: "What is a human, what defines a good human condition — and what are the changes needed to make the world a better place for humans?" That seems to be a somewhat sloppy way of formulating the common problem. "What do we mean by 'human dignity'?", "What do we mean by 'human progress'?" We still live in the era of "Enlightenment". But the once great idea of "progress by science and technology" seems to come to a grinding halt. We feel disillusioned — most of us. "Really existent" socialism didn't fulfil expectations (see North Korea and Cuba), but liberalism seems to do neither. This in part explains what is sold today as "return of the religions". But not only Mike is not happy with this outlook: If the "return of religions" only means that people discard reason for faith and clear thinking and analyzing for vague hopes ("hope" was a topic here!) and prayers and superstition, this is not a progressive but a regressive development and nothing to be greeted with joy. And if the "return of religions" means a new "clash of confessions" and a return of crusades and witch-hunting and stakes burning etc., this would be the horror coming back again that Enlightenment tried to end. The great charge against "modernity" has been always, that it is "meaningless and void", that "improvements" per se do not give sense and set no goals to human hope and striving for a better world. This was the charge of Herbert Marcuse against "consumerism" — which is only a variant of the general leftist charge against "capitalism". But these charges of "consumerism" and "capitalism" and "materialism" in the sense of "greed and envy" have come from the churches at the very beginning of Enlightenment 300 years ago. All these charges today from Islamic mullahs against the "immoral and materialistic West" are verbally the same as have been the charges of the Christian churches 300 years back and since. But Marcuse and the Student Revolt and the Hippie- and "New Age"- movement and those Zen- (Alan Watts) and Guru- (Osho) movements that flourished in this spiritual environment of the 60s and 70s never were meant to bring the Christian churches back in, which heavily opposed all those movements anyway — mostly. All those movements were not about "suffering, death and resurrection of Christ" but they were on "make love — not war!", on "Hair" and "Aquarius" and on combining Marx and Freud and "the Indians" in a new lifestyle of mutual understanding and loving each other and loving and respecting nature — nothing more but nothing less. This dream was NOT about God or gods, it was about man and humankind. It was materialist but in a spiritual way — very much what Jean suggested. It was "Enlightenment turned spiritual" — while definitely not "religious". It was a yearning for "neo-romantical harmony" without the idea to get back at medieval cathedrals and the unity of standish society under emperor and pope. Thus there is really some consensus on what a better society could and should be: Neither capitalist nor Christian nor Islamic nor Confucian nor Marxist — but "human and humane". And now our task would be to define what this means: What is "human and humane" in our best understanding. What sort of society should there be? But we should always be aware that there was never and nowhere a really good Christian or Islamic or socialist or liberal society outside of small communities of some dozen members. Thus simply to design once more a "Great Society" will not do. We should start asking what made all those grand designs grand failures in the end. For a start I try one first answer: There never was and never will be the identity of the governers and the governed. Politicians are not "we the people", and the priests and mullahs are not the believers, and the socialist "apparatchiki" are not the "workers and peasants" and the "bosses" of liberalism are not the consumers. There always is this fundamental and maybe unavoidable difference of the governers and the governed. Thus every new design of a better society would have to take into account this problem of power and its use and misuse. "To kill the old bosses" is no solution, since then other people will be "the new bosses" — and maybe much worse than the old ones. So what to do? Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/25/03 10:57 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The necessity of a label. Hubertus, I do not argue with the list of freedoms you posted. But I think a use and value of philosophy is putting labels on and analyzing how the ideas of freedom are developed. Every modern tyrant has probably claimed at one time or another that they were working for freedom, both Hitler and Stalin for example. Charles ----------------------------------------------- Hubertus said: "We have to build a world for humans, we have to deliver. Thus it is absolutely irrelevant how solutions and answers — if they only are solutions and answers — are labelled. To call anything "leftist", "rightist", or "conservative", or "liberal" etc. is an exercise in meaningless verbiage. People need help and answers and solutions. It is the content of the box and not the inscription on the cover what counts. As Deng Hsiao Ping once had it: "Be the cat black or white, in the end she's got to catch mice." Hubertus " FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/26/03 6:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a benevolent dictator Charles, you clearly are right on this. But you didn't get the point: In view of Platos "Republic" I have asked "Why should we call this republic a good one, if nobody seems to like it?" The same with Huxleys "Brave New World" (which he did not commend of course). And likewise Hitler and Stalin: Show me the people that are calling those "good societies" good by experience? This exactly is my question: Where do all these grand schemes go wrong in their concept of what is "good"? I try to start it the other way round: Ask yourself — or ask your family and friends - what they call "good by experience". And from this start to think what a good societey would be. If so many people hate or fear the US or the Iraq, then start to list up what they are opting for instead. Why is a shooting drug scene not the paradise? What's wrong with slums? What's wrong with war and violence? What's wrong with Mary Seiferts school? If there is something to be improved, why do we think so? That exactly was my question. Back to the realities! And exactly these were the questions of the 60s, of Marcuse and of the musical "Hair" and of those "flower children". They too were wrong, but they had a point. And I ask for a solution: What should the better world look like — that is no simple question. And how should we arrive there — that's not a bit more easy to answer. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/27/03 11:27 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The "good"and politics. Hubertus, I have some reservations about your argument. For example, putting Marcuse and the "flower children" together in one category. I do not know the history of the New Left in Europe, but in the U.S. the development of the New Left was not directly out of the "Hippie" movement. If you look into the background of much, if not most of the New Left leadership in America, they had more ties to the old Left than to flower children. I guess what I am arguing is the importance of clear definitions and identification when doing social analysis. (I admit that is a major problem for me. I think studying philosophy has helped me there, but much more improvement on my part is needed.) And rather than looking for things that make a society good, maybe the focus should be on the process. For example, the American Civil Rights Movement is a broad based movement that continues to raise important issues and demand change. Good things have resulted, Voting Rights Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, and etc. But I would argue that the best result is the actual process of identifying, asserting, and defending Human Rights. Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/02/03 7:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the good society Charles, thank you for your answer. I completely consent. I have read much on history and sociology and economics to get hold to the facts. And I always asked for what has gone wrong with communism — and why. When I once spoke of "those stupid leftist" it was NOT on the ideas of a "just society" per se — or only in part so, since I dont even agree to all goals there, not to speak of the ways. But I really understand what those leftist have in mind when asking for a more just society, since of course I am much aware of what is the lot of those "wretched of the earth". We never shoul shut our eyes and ears and hearts to the evils and atrocities of this world inflicted by humans unto other humans. What I always objected to — and in this even siding with Marx — is the tendency to make up a grand theory instead of asking for cause and effect. He himself used this charge against the Churches and the "idealistic" philosophers like Hegel. The "scientific" theory of Marx was great — and wrong. It was much too simplistic. And just by this "mythical" simplicity it was convincing. To show history as a great fight of the good (the suppressed) and the evil (the suppressors) is simplistic but attracting the masses just by being simplistic. "Real existing socialism" could not deliver, since his concept of modernity and effectivity and achievement rested on a false idea of human behaviour. Thus I think you are right on those achievements of the civil rights movement: Its a very slow process of learning on all sides, but it is not a stand-still. The case of Trent Lott was encouraging. What I try to get at is a vision much more driven by experience than by grand theory. In this my comment on Platos Republic "How can we call a societey good where nobody wants to live in?" is just in line with my comments on those "leftists" but also could be used agains "liberals": If the "real existing society and political order of the USA" does not convince people the world over, as it may have done in the 50s perhaps, than what's left? (There was a nice word-play after the fall of the Wall in 1989 here: "What's left — what's right?" — both with double meaning.) The famous "I have a dream"-speech of Dr.King on August 28, 1963 from the steps of Lincoln Memorial was one of those great speaches that were understandable and agreeable for all mankind everywhere on the globe. And this sort of thing is what I ask for as a start: Besides all sophistery and debatable points, we know what a good society should look like. No atrocities, no lies, no wars, no suppression, no exploitation etc.. The deeper problem are thos trade-offs: What will be the price of a good society? Will it be too high? Will we trade "freedom for justice" as the Taliban did — or as did Calvin in Geneva or Plato in his "Republic"? In this sense I am asking for the limits of a good society. Could it be that what is the ugly side of US-capitalism and US-society is just the price to pay for the freedom and tolerance in the USA? What do you think on this, or what did to your knowledge people like Dr.King think on this problem? People who live at "the underside of the USA" surely want to know. Maybe they should not. Maybe the truth will be unacceptable. Like some people find it unacceptable that of 400 cubs from 6 lions (two male, four female) exactly and by mathematical necessity all but 6 (two male, four female) have to die prematurely. There is no way out. It MUST be so. This is our "hope-theme" again: If people cannot bear the truth, they may change to hope. But even to agree on what a good society should look like is much harder than to agree on what human relation should look like. If you were the boss of a great society like GM or GE you were interested in "the spirit of the enterprise" as much as in all those strategical and economical and technical things of the daily proceedings. In this sense I am asking for a best compromise to find for "America Inc." or "Germany Inc." or "World Inc." The problem of the Marcusean revolt — and of the New Left and Old Left likewise — was their inability to put the ideals of a "good society" and "a good economy" together. From a leftist point of view it looks like you can have only one of them — or you can have false dreams. And my question is: Should wa accept this gloomy idea as the last answer? I don't think so. I think that a liberal "but" humane society is possible. And I hope not to resemble those that won't accept 394 dead out of 400 lions-cubs too much in this. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/25/03 9:36 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Tabula Rasa Ralph said: "I believe our individual genome is the "Tabula Rasa" on which the environment writes our life. Disabilities or arrested development is a fault of our repair mechanisms, as is disease." "The clean slate" of life. Uncertainty would be among the environmental and physical factors that write on our slates. Charles REPLIES (2): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/26/03 5:57 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: spoilt car in spoilt environment Charles and Ralph, I think our individual genome is more like a spoilt car in a spoilt environment to get along with anyhow without too much bumping and crashing. Like a stunt car. Hubertus FROM: Ralph (03/03/03 11:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Uncertainty is environmental pollution Charles, good point! For me being uncertain is the same as being ambivalent. When I can't decide between my choices I become uncertain. In my opinion, philosophical questions create ambivalence because there are more answers than questions in the world. This may be the root of why philosophical inquiry cannot change the world for better or worse. Many answers create ambivalence thus creating uncertainty, polluting society. Discussing the answers leads to the creation of a "private language" losing social context altogether. Chales, I'd be interested in learning your views concerning uncertainty. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Ovi G (02/27/03 9:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: questions on use and value of philosophy Hello everyone, I'm new to the conference as well as to philosophy, and if that's not enough, I'm also a ... Californian. I've read most of the posts and there were some very interesting discussions but I would attempt to start from scratch: the use and value of philosophy. In trying to get better understanding I would like to split this attempt into three separate, yet overlapping, points of reference: 1) philosophy as a personal activity 2) philosophy as a group activity and 3) philosophy as an academic branch What are the uses and values of each of these? Which ones are common to all? In philosophy as a personal activity, for example, I may clarify my thoughts and realign my concepts, become more confident, better able to help others etc. I could also be responding to, and satisfying my need to 'keep churning' and 'reach deeper' while feeding my desire for better understanding of self, others and the world around us. I can also 'learn the language of philosophy' which can help me engage in clearer and more 'aligned' conversation with others in the same or different field. And of course, I can benefit from its therapeutic effect, satisfy emotions and reach higher 'spiritual' experiences. (I am aware that there are some disadvantages and negative implications too) Philosophy as a group activity, such as a Philosophers' Cafe and this conference, would add to the uses and values but I'll leave that open for now. As an academic branch I could start saying that philosophy is at a time of change and redirection. Applied ethics and linguistic philosophy, for example, are growing their roots into the 'philosophical future' to come. Their value increases and could be more useful in a world in need of a cure against increasingly powerful combative ethical dilemmas and confused talk. Before closing, thank you for the opportunity to participate and for the good exchanges so far in this conference. Oh yeah, and please keep those Californian Barbarians from running things. They're a bunch of weirdoes. I'll leave you with three questions: What are your thoughts on the uses and values on each of the three points listed above? What use(s) and value(s) do you 'get' from philosophy? What does philosophy 'get' from you? Take care, Ovi REPLIES (8): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/02/03 8:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a philosopher from California Dear Ovi, since I am not from California I should take care, but I am from Germany and that is at least as bad, maybe even worse. Since I am tirede a bit, this time only three little answers to greet you: As to philosophy as a personal activity: I would not be on this conference either if not for personal interest. And the others too. But of course everybody has another point of view and started from another background. Thus we have to learn to be tolerant and factual. This makes the difference to a religious or partisan forum — which is already on question 2. Philosophy is on arguing, neither on preaching nor on feeling. For example you may oppose cloning or abortions or the Bush administration or whatever — or you may support all these — but you should give arguments for us others to think it over. I never have trouble with people opposing me, you could call me a stupid or jerk or pothead or whatever: I will not be hurt or upset as long as you attach some evidence or argument that makes me think a bit. Let me give only one example: During the Nixon years (1969-74) I had the opportunity to debate with "tru communists" who worked as technical personnell to the supercomputer that did the calculation for me during the night. And once I said "the communists have a big overhead of bureaucrats and managers". That got them very angry (while they normally were really nice and good chaps). Why? They explained: Managers are "people of them", slaves and slave-traders to those ugly bosses and exploiters. Their own leading cadres were "people of us", chosen for their exceptional abilities to lead the working poor to a better future. This was a question of solidarity then, and my mistake was that of "formalism", comparing superficially by similar technical function what was completely different by a deeper understanding. This explanation I could accept. While it did not make me a communist, I got some real insight. If you are member of a church you never would call the pastor or priest a "manager" or a "bureaucrat". Thus details can be very important. And this would be the answer to the 3rd question: Good philosophers try to find out the importance of good arguments. BUT: Of the four most famous German philosophers of the 19th century, only one — Hegel - was a true academical one, a "full professor" according to current standards, while the other three — Schopenhauer, Marx and Nietzsche — were "outsiders" and never would have become (or would haved asked to become) "full professors of philosophy" (Nietzsche was a professor, but of Classical Antiquity, and Schopenhauer was assistant professor of philosophy but was never accepted by the academe, which he despised likewise, while Marx was a journalist who had studied philosophy). And I think this relation of "one professional against three outsiders" is more the rule than the exception in philosophy. Even Socrates was no professional philosopher but a stonemason, making statues and tombstones. If you have some interesting questions or answers and arguments, that counts. All else is of no importance to make a good philosopher. Thus welcome on board — and no niceties! Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/03/03 2:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the value of Emotions in philosophy Dear Hubertus, I clearly grasp what you said about philosophy as a personal activity, the only problem I seem to be having is the part about 'no feelings.' I am still in the early stages of trying to make sense of personal foundations, and for me, I seem to be unable to rule emotions out so easily. I can understand having an argument or debate where Reason behaves as Plato envisioned it, but aren't real emotions working beneath it all? I understand what you said about controlling emotions when someone disagrees or even insults; heck, I couldn't possibly get upset if they call me a pothead or jerk either. But having an argument with an other would place me in #2 (philosophy as a 'group activity') whereas in #1 ('personal activity') emotions seem to be quite 'demanding'. So far, I guess I am not arguing against anything you said, but my problem starts when moving from 'personal philosophy' to 'group philosophy.' The 'group philosopher' thus seems to become the 'personal philosopher' minus his emotions. He is to present his position on an issue, debate and argue his points against others which chose to engage in 'group philosophy.' There, 'reason' should solve our disputes since the strongest logical argument ought to win. No one should be upset, and if they are, it is because they brought their 'personal philosopher' to the group — a clear no-no. This is something I perhaps 'wish' for, and have definitely argued strongly for in the past, but I ran into some obstacles along the way. I haven't yet found a 'group' where 'personal philosophers' and their emotions were absent, but if I did, wouldn't then the Philosophers' Cafe sound more like a court of law, or even a science convention? And what against the charge that philosophical questions cannot be solved in this way? This would imply a mathematical solution to our ethical dilemmas, for example. In all cases there would be a simple right or wrong, good or bad. The judge renders the verdict (whether the jury likes it or not) and this is unchangeable until Reason demands it. And by being emotion-less in 'group' resolution how do I relate to those 'personal' philosophers who make up the group? And what if the issue debated involves something 'very personal' and 'very rational' to them? Well, I hope you understand where my problem lies with this whole thing. I personally would love for reason to lead us to 'the truth' but it obviously isn't. No form of absolutism would ever stand a chance, in my opinion, unless we transform ourselves into robots. And why aren't more people convinced with such systems which completely tilt the balance in favor of reason (i.e. Kantian ethics, metaphysical materialism etc.)? Could it be that emotions play a bigger role than Plato's Reason when it comes to 'group philosophy'? Or perhaps a mutual 'relationship' between the two? It must have been something to work with 'true communists' on a project. I assume you were on the West side. I must share that I grew up on the East side (Romania). I clearly understand why they would get upset when you said 'communists have a big overhead of bureaucrats and managers.' I don't understand why you think you were wrong. If you take 'manager' to mean simply an 'overseer of operation' then you couldn't have been wrong. The communist system was known to suffer from the same old problem elsewhere: too many chiefs and too many Indians trying to become chiefs. The true communists wouldn't really want to admit to this charge. They were different kind of managers than those 'slave-traders' in the West. They had a true cause, they were the 'slaves' running the system (can't help by adding: through Reason). They were, not they. But of course, we all know that history did not much work in their favor and beneath it all there were brutal enforcements of State ideology that usually worked itself negatively on the emotions of those who were supposed to be the true beneficiaries of the system. I could blame the communists for turning me into a Californian, but that would be false. They definitely had a lot to do with me ending up in California, and that's just another story. The 'us' versus 'them' mentality you presented is, of course, not just a problem for communists but for all human beings — if I may add, and I couldn't agree with you more that details can be very important. But if a Manager, whether he oversees aspects of a small church or rules the whole kingdom, can be generally viewed in the same terms. There are differences between the Priest and the Plant Manager, or the coach and the King and, in a specific sense they are referred to by different names, but in the general principle sense they are the same. The priest takes God to be his CEO but he wouldn't call him that. Naturally, managing and leadership crisscross at this level since others are involved in this 'group'. As 'overseer of operation' and 'overseer of people' things get a little more fuzzy. And it seems we're right back to Reason (or Faith?) becoming the deciding factor as the proper approach to resolving our problems. Would I be correct adding a new definition to 'group philosophy' that matches closer to observation: 'personal philosophers engaging in communicative philosophical arguments without a 'specific method of operation' and without a 'specific overseer of people.' And by 'overseer of people' , I mean a dogmatic philosopher ensuring that strict methods of operation are followed by the group. And as you saw, I am not so sure emotions can be ruled out completely from this engagement. Which way I control them (peacefully or struggling against them) I cannot deny that they are there, and that they are more important than reason would initially had me believe. At the charge that philosophical arguments must be resolved through pure reason, why doesn't that appear to be so? Do emotions have a legitimate role in influencing and be candidates for consideration in our philosophical arguments? Thank you for your comments and insight. I think it would be a tremendous learning experience for me. I must clarify myself, that I am not against reason. I had been influenced by the 'scientific part of my mind' but I guess I would like for you to go down this lane would me and see why Reason seems stuck and Emotions so demanding. I look forward to your response. Take care, Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/03/03 10:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On being an emotional philosopher posted on 4th March 2003, 5:15 am Dear Ovi, thank you for your great entry. No, I didn't say that you should lock up all emotions and sound like a logical robot. But on this conference some monthes ago there popped up the argument, that one should not do something "un-ethical". And this played on Dr.Mengele, the Auschwitz-MD, and on the current possibilities of cloning and "human genetic engineering" and PID etc.. And then I said: The task of a philosopher cannot stop — as a layman or -woman could — with the mere notion of "un-ethical", since this would be only emotional, but he/she should do the next step and ask: "by what standard do we call this x-behaviour, that makes us shudder, 'un-ethical'?" This is the core of my constant urging: "Don't moralize — analyze!" Of course you should have emotions and you may of course voice them on this conference. But then we all together should start to think what is it, that makes you going in this case. This is meant by "philosophy is not on confessing — that would be religion — but on arguing, on giving evidence and argument for rational people around to try to convince them or to be proven wrong and learning." Marx was a truly great philosopher, but he was wrong in certain important respects. Some people don't understand this. They say: "If somebody is wrong in important respects, how come we call him a truly great philosopher?" Because a truly great philosopher — like a truly great artist or musician or architect or novelist etc. — makes us see and hear and think new realities we never before dreamt of. I think that most of what Freud said is plain wrong, but at the same time I think he has been one of the greatest thinkers of modern times. And Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were VERY emotional. Schopenhauer actually called Hegel a stupid and pothead and worse, he was outraged. While Hegel would have dismissed Schopenhauer as irrelvant to philosophy. But consensus today seems to be that both were really great philosophers. Because both had great insights and good arguments for them to defend. Up to what age have you been to Romania? If you had a communist upbringing, you must have heard something on Hegel and Marx of course, while perhaps in California you may have heard of Freudo-Marxism from the Frankfurt-School and of Marcuse and Fromm and Habermas. I don't know your background, perhaps you enter something on that to us others, without being too personal, only to have us better understand where your argument and outlook comes from. And be sure: Nobody here will object the least to a former commie from California via Romania. Everybody is accepted at face value — while struggle is not avoided. I like this sort in the way of wrestling and call it "Royal Rumble". I can be very blunt, but it is never personal or hateful. If I call something rubbish, I have a cause to say so, but that does not mean end of debate from my opinion, I accept the same bluntness from everybody else. I am used to this from my kids and nephews and my late wife: We all were very direct but very much laughing and open at the same time. Thus don't misunderstand. This is a problem of "virtual" conferences: You need some time to understand the participants by temperament, while in a "real" conference you have some additional feedback from the frowns and smilings and voice and body-language. Thus don't be pussy-footed and speak out and don't shut up your emotions, but keep arguing to make us others think and either agree or disagree and looking for a better argument to overcome yours. Have fun! Hubertus. FROM: Ovi G (03/04/03 2:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: emotions and communism Dear Hubertus, Thank you for clearing it up the 'no emotions' topic. I must have misinterpreted what you said, but I hope I did not leave you with the taste that I am an emotional wreck wishing to argue from the heart. It was not so much on being an emotional philosopher, but more about the value and importance of emotions in 'group philosophy' and the relation between reason and emotions in philosophy as a whole. And analyze we shall. If I had to pinpoint my position on a philosophical map I would definitely fall closer to the analytical branch and can't help it much; at least for now. But I think that would become more obvious in the future. I grew up under Ceausescu's regime, left at 17 and lived in California ever since. I was too young to understand the system, but I can tell you that I inherited and built a 'focused hatred' against the government from as long as I remember. But of course, with increased age and less hair on the head, I changed my views by analyzing the communist ideology from an impartial point of view. I don't remember Hegel so much, but I do remember the trilogy of communist gods fed to us on constant basis: Marx, Engels, Lenin. At the time I did not care much for any of them, and argued (from the heart, then) against all of them -which did not fall well with all my teachers. As far as excess bureaucrats and managers, I had the fortune of experiencing it first hand. Not only the amazing web of communist bureaucracy, but at times the level of 'control' and abuse managers felt it was their duty to fight and inflict upon anyone who did not share their views. I couldn't agree more with your statement 'Marx was a truly great philosopher, but he was wrong in certain important respects.' And I would like to expand your statement not just when applied to Marx, but to all philosophers. What I believe to be Marx greatest mistake was his view that change in society must happen through violence and use of 'any means' force. Second, his perspective of emphasizing a political, historical and economic lens to society and its structure left us with a valuable lesson that human nature is more important than we want to believe. There are, of course, some more positive and negative lessons you would probably like to share. Now when it comes to Hegel and Marx I can't help but wonder. I know that Marx was a student of Hegel, and was tremendously influenced by him. But what amazes me is that they stand so opposite in their philosophies. From what I know about Hegel (and it is not much) is that he was an idealist, while Marx took the opposite extreme — that of materialism. And maybe here you can enlighten me: what was that Marx accepted of Hegel's views and how did he twist it to such extremes? Glad to see you're a direct-man, Hubertus, and despite my first impression I could assure you there was nothing more I wished for Christmas, than 'conversation with another direct-man'. No pussy-footing here, the only problem remains finding something to disagree strongly about. And learning from Marx's lesson of never forgetting our human nature, then it is just a matter of time. That is perhaps my best way of learning and improving. So please don't hold up. And again, thanks, Hubertus, and I look forward. Take care, Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/04/03 8:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the error of Marx posted on March 5th, 2003, 3:15 am Dear Ovi, thus in case it's needed, we will have "royal rumble" like Obelix had with the Romans (I hope you will play the Romans but I will share the boars with you afterwards). Now on Marx and Hegel. One has to see things in context: Hegel was not so much an "idealist" but "the last of the Neo-platonists" so to say. He was an admirer of Leibniz and Spinoza. The whole 17th century of European philosophy — including Newton and Deism and Shaftesbury tried to save God as the great supporter of a "godly" order of the world. They hoped to replace the creed of the churches — a creed that had been broken by well over a hundred years of confessional wars — at least by a new creed of the unity of what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful by a unity of Gods wisdom and nature's — his creation — ways. Thus they really thought that by insight into what is true you will become "sensible" even in a moral sense, and to know what is true you should ask what is beautiful, since what seems ugly cannot be true by Gods wisdom. And Hegel tried to save this great idea of a universe created by God and by this alone making sense. Hegel was a Lutheran (be careful: Charleys wife is a staunch Lutheran too, but a nice one), and Luther himself was an Augustinian monk, thus all three — St.Augustine, Luther, and Hegel — defended the peacekeeping order of the state. Against this background you have to see the furious opposition of Schopenhauer and Marx against Hegel: Schopenhauer said "This systems thing is all rubbish. There are the laws of nature, but otherwise there is nothing. Alle living being are thrown into this world and striving for happiness and survival there and confronted daily with frustration and suffering. There is no God, there is not the slightest connection between the beauty of natural law and the lot of mankind or animalkind. Nature doesn't care. We should care. We should become pityful to all creature. Hegels grand vision of meaning in history assured by a hidden "world-spirit" is a great lie and a false hope, forget it all! We are poor dogs in a terrible world." This was the accusation of Schopenhauer. The accusation of Marx was similar: "What is this rubbish that the stately order of Prussia or England is established by and under the blessings of God! The stately order is nothing else than an order of expropriateurs and exploiters and liars and suppressors. And God is only a booboo to scare the people and held them down and in order. Thus forget it all and fight the suppressors!" In this way Schopenhauer and Marx argued in the same line: There is no God, there is only nature and its laws, and there are those humans and human greedy nature, and we have to understand humans like animals striving for survival (Schopenhauer is born 1788, Darwin 1809, Marx 1818). And in this same line later Nietzsche (b. 1844) and Freud (b. 1856) were to argue. Thus with Hegel in 1831 died a whole great tradition of Occidental thinking of the world as "Gods grandiose creation including mankind and the state as a moral order". Then a new era of "cynicism" started that only asked for cause and effect and human aims. And in this light the conflict of "idealism" and "materialism" is only misleading. This was not the point of divide. The point of divide was this breakdown of the former idea of an overarching great order of God including mankind in this order. Life became a struggle for power and happiness and a better future — without God. And in this sense a meaningless and hopeless struggle. The great error of Marx was — a lack of cynicism: He was blind to the fact that there is never such a thing as "government of the people, for the people, by the people" (as Lincoln had it in his famous Gettysburg- Address). Those who govern have ALWAYS their own interests in mind, let them be liberals or communists. They try to stay in power and fall to the most twisted forms of self-deceit and vanity like Hitler and Stalin and Ceausescu and Chomeini. And the paradox is: The better the intentions the more twisted the self-deceit. Marx would have done mankind a great favour if he had stressed this idea as did Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who both were more honest (or more "cynical") in this - as was Freud. "Idealism" and "materialism" are only words of not much importance. As the dissident Alexander Sinovjev from the former UdSSR said: "Marxists claim that Marxism is a good theory in need of a good practice. More to the truth is the other reading: Marxism is a bad practice lacking a simple theory to explain it." Try to use as a first approximation "the general theory of human vanity and greed and false hopes". But I suppose this is not far off from what you think already. My own stand in this is in line with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Freud: To make the world a better place to live in, one has to understand what makes people going. And this is not only power and money and sex. There are those monks and nuns in several cultures that vow "poverty, chastity, and obedience" — without even being neurotic! Thus humans are NOT simply "intelligent rats". But this is a debate for another occasion. And now put this together with my quest for the good society. Your standard greeting "take care" reminds me on this mantra of the people on Huxleys "Island" (1962). Did you read it? All the best from Hubertus. FROM: Ovi G (03/05/03 8:55 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on cynicism and German philosophy Dear Hubertus, I enjoyed your answer tremendously and it is very interesting to dig further into this. The historical perspective viewed from the position of 'believers' and 'cynics' points to the eventual deterioration in the 19th century of this 'divine order' system. This new 'era of cynicism only asked for cause and effect and human aims.' Religion finally lost its grip on the State and as Authority, leaving (Western) mankind vulnerable, responsible and accountable to find his own way. The seeds of this alternative were planted hundreds of years prior and reached a culminating and turning point at this time. Individualism has reached its climax. It only needed a new World Order. Philosophy recorded another 'cynical movement' in the past — that of the Greeks around 4th century BC. The Greeks were also going through an era of 'defining mankind's position' and finding Order. The obvious main difference is that the Greeks did not have to struggle for individual freedom fighting against an established 'monotheistic' Order. And unlike the 19th century, the Greeks allowed for alternatives for mankind in this Order. Besides the Cynics, there were the Skeptics, Stoics and Epicureans, for example. And of course, you could believe in any god you wanted. I don't mean to paint it in such nice colors, but the outlook of mankind was a little more positive and optimistic more than 2,000 years before Hegel's death. While the 19th century turning point did open the door for alternatives, the situation was more bleak than that of the Greeks. The 19th century cynic was different than the 4th century BC cynic. Even though Diogenes rejected established social values, his outlook on virtues and life was positive. While the cynical 4th century BC Diogenes came out of his dog-house and claimed 'I am a citizen of the world', the cynical and often depressed Schopenhauer of the 19th century stated that 'Man is a wolf to man.' If I was to be a cynic, I think I'd prefer Diogenes' version. In a 'dog-man world' at least I can imagine some friendly puppies and discriminate between vicious and friendly dogs. In a 'wolf-man' world (in the way wolves were observed in the 19th century) man lost his domestication. It's a wolf-world where man lives in a vicious state. Even if man must organize, it must organize itself in packs looking for prey. Is this the answer mankind learned from the peak of Enlightenment? The pessimistic inclinations of Schopenhauer, and later Nietzsche and Freud, are perfectly understandable. But their negative implications have already been felt (and are being felt) and the 'facts' left behind at least prove that cannot be the whole answer to mankind's puzzle. Life is tough! That has always been true. But add Schopen-Nietzschian philosophy as the center position and life could become even tougher. I also think that Schopenhauer-Nietzsche-Freud were amazing GREAT thinkers and there is a lot to learn from them, but the value of philosophy to make this world a better world, at least in this respect, fails the test. This would be a world with NO chance for HOPE. A couple of months ago in New York, I had a great opportunity to engage in conversation with an intelligent 19 years-old college student. When he felt at-ease, he began talking about something that was very fascinating to him: taking over the world. I joked and laughed, but he was dead serious. Even though academically brilliant, he spent the next 45 minutes (safely and discreetly) laying out the details in which I learned that he is not alone, they are organizing a pack of the elite few which has already started to lay the foundations for the Master Plan. His role was scientific. His position was to engage in studies which would lead to genetic cloning. (part of their Master Plan involved cloning the whole world or something like that). He lost me in the scientific details of how is that possible, but he seemed very convinced and knowledgeable. Others in the group would have different roles. Their organization would be more like a parallel network rather than serial, masterminded and organized by a 'shadow-type' CPU. When it came to philosophy, he laughed and referred to philosophers in negative terms. Except for one: Nietzsche. 'Nietzsche is our god,' he said. This is just a side note from personal experience and by no means I claim this is the only outcome to a 'pessimistic philosophy' mingled in with other factors of our present times. I have to say I felt chills hearing Nietzsche's name that time. Child-play or Adult-Insanity? Although Nietzsche victoriously proclaimed that 'God is dead,' that day I hoped I could have convinced this young man that 'Nietzsche is dead, too.' But I couldn't. I still hope one day somebody could. It seems you're striking some good chords in me and I would love to expand more on other points you 'stimulated' but it will get a little longer than it should be. So I have to cut it here. By the way, I hope I am not overshadowing anyone else. Hubertus, it is a pleasure, and please keep connecting those dots (whenever appropriate) in German philosophy. It is fascinating. And this bring to mind that Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant and started from a similar metaphysical position. Marx seems to later have adapted Hegel's methodology while reversing his metaphysics. And while Schopenhauer influenced a pessimistic Nietzsche, he also influenced somebody worth of mention: a more optimistic Wittgenstein. Even though Wittgenstein seemed to have struggled with Schopenhauer's will to live, he has made concrete positive contributions to philosophy. I never read Island but from the review at HuxleyNet I think it would make for a great read. Such a sad ending though. Couldn't the new society learn the lessons of the past? Couldn't greed and evil be balanced out with love and good. It will never be Utopia but at least some will keep their hopes for a better life alive. Thanks Hubertus. Take care, Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/05/03 9:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a preliminary reply Dear Ovi, it's 4:20 am local time and I am bit tired, so will answer tomorrow. Only some hints to ponder: — People want to live in a house and town and not in the wilderness. Plato-Aristotle-Thomas-Hegel built houses, Schopen-Nietz-Freud showed only ruins and wilderness like in "Matrix". And Marx — while trying to be positivistic too, in fact delivered the new myth of a new house for his followers. That was his paradox and his tragedy. — Marcuse in Island tried to show a society that could be called a good one, and since he wrote this in California of 1962, he showed his ideal world as some sort of Buddhist ashram. But as he felt himself he failed. And this by the same cause by which Marcuse and the Hippie-Movement failed: They all had and have no idea of how to combine the idea of the ashram or the village or the pueblo with the requirements of MODERN world. They all go back — as already did Platon in his "Laws" — to those bucolic times when shepherds and fishermen lived the simple life of virtue and frugality. But this is not our world, and most people definitel don't want it. What we are desperately in need of is an idea of a MODERN good life, NOT going back to those bucolic shepherds and fishermen of Plato and Rousseau. — The real meaning of this hefty opposition to the idea of "communist managers" (apparatchiki", "nomenklatura") was of course that "solidarity counts". This is the same in christian or muslim communities: "we against them". People want to know where they belong, where they can trust and find help. The want to know their village. A manager is somebody who kicks you around in the best interest not of you but of some boss. If you are out for a contest — say the Olympics or any other championship — you agree to be kicked around by your tutor, since you picked him for your own advantage. And this makes the difference: Being a subject of self-esteem and not an object of other people. This much this time. "Awareness!" as they say on the Island (the link was well known to me). All the best from Hubertus. FROM: Ovi G (03/06/03 8:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: pondering Dear Hubertus, Thanks for the hints to ponder, and I think I'm getting clearer about your positions. And very quickly: some people also want to clean up the house they live in, not going back to antiquity but learning from the lessons of history and establishing 'overseers of operations' in different parts of the whole, each with specific roles and relationships as 'overseer of people.' No need to rush. I am the kind that takes sleep, rest and 'relaxation' very seriously. Talk to you later. Take care, Ovi ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Michael Ward (03/06/03 12:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Our destiny? I want to put forward an analogy that a philosopher and a scientist carry out the same task. I propose that all philosophers should try to do is understand the world of humans. That is to be able to associate coherent ideas together to form the 'bigger picture'. Having then formed this 'bigger picture' it is then up to humans to decide what we want to do with this neutral information. Much has been spoken about 'improvement' and 'pollution' but both are just different perspectives of the same thing — change. When some philosophers become as arrogant as some scientists they expound where we are going wrong, as if there is no other possible yardstick to measure change from other than there own personal desire of how things ought to be. If the only thing that defines humanity is that we are the kind of beings that successfully struggle — then so be it. If that is true now it should always be true, consider that human life could be infinitely extended, what would motivate us over endless time if we were not struggling? Michael Ward REPLIES (75): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/06/03 7:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: struggling for what end? Mike, glad to see you back from vacations to vocations. But you instantly get a punch on the nose now. Even amoebas struggle for light and some other conditions in an unisotropic or unisotopic world, meaning a world in which neiter direction (tropos) nor location (topos) is irrelevant. When you go for vacations, you look where this will be — direction and location matters. Otherwise you could just as like stay home. In the same sense humans and humankind sind eons are on the quest for some holy grail or for some better world to live in "where milk an honey are flowing". This is the grand design of history. The founding father of neo-platonism, Plotinos, once thought, that the whole creation was torn off by some devil from its home in God, like a stone thrown with enormous might into the sky, and like the stone will fall back to the earth by the force of gravitation so the human souls will fall back to their origins in God by the gravity of grace. This was a point that was remembered by Simone Weil. Thus there is one place of eternal vacations to the true believer, that is "the place where God is, home of all lost souls". And the true believer of Islam dreams of the paradise, and the true believer of Marxism dreams of the just society. My problem is, if a "Bacardi-world" — sunny beaches with palm-trees and sunny people young and sexy and drinking Bacardi etc., as you may know them from the TV video-clip - will be the right thing to chose for eternal vacations. We all have much more problems defining what is good than defining what is bad. Remember Jean (I miss him): He definitely was NOT happy with our world here and now, he would have liked to have a world designed by Schweitzer and Gandhi and Guenon and their likes, not by those ugly bosses or by people like me or by those mad "Californians". And I constantly and instantly asked: "YES, but where will you plan your vacations, how will you convince us others to follow you if you don't know where to go?" What I said was simply: "If we all try to justify our plans and deeds by the argument that they will somehow improve the world and further progress, what then should be called an improvement or why should we call our goings a progress?" When Bunyan wrote his "Pilgrims Progress" he had no doubts on where the pilgrim should go, but we today have - mostly. But we want to improve this world, we are not only "struggling for nothing save death" like the fly in the honey. But maybe we are buttering the milk of the world to then use the butter as a raft, as was the idea of some Buddhist stories of India. Hope the best! But now I will go to bed since for some hours at least it will be a better place than in front of the computer. Have a good time. Hubertus. FROM: Ovi G (03/06/03 8:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: philosophy and science Dear Michael, Nice to hear another 'voice'. I was feeling a little guilty, to be honest. So far, I've been adding more 'stuff' to Humbertus' — probably already busy — schedule. Interesting to see your analogy and find myself in agreement (and that kind of shocks and amazes me at the same time). For some time, I've been pondering the science-philosophy issue. I'm trying to make a smooth transition from scientific-minded life-analyzer to 'philosopher.' I totally agree with your 'bigger picture' and one of the roles of the philosopher is to understand it. The problem arises when we try to 'associate coherent ideas together.' We each build subjective coherent ideas and we 'feel' and 'think' that we know they are coherent. But once we start talking to others we realize how different our coherent ideas are and how stubborn we can be about them. Philosophy is inclusive. Science exclusive. Philosophy does not have a particular method nor a final destination. Philosophy ponders all questions. Science concerns itself mainly with 'how.' And in my opinion, and based on my own mistakes (and some which probably I am doing now), perhaps this is why scientists (or scientific-minded people) have a tendency for arrogance. Science has the only 'working' method mankind has at its disposal to better understanding, they say. A scientific fact is more solid and coherent in the face of observable reality. Building 'theories' (or houses) out of these proven and provable facts excludes those who do not subscribe to its specific approach or lack its understanding. Science aspires for the 'exact' while booting out the 'inexact.' Philosophy must welcome both. (Otherwise it will eventually dissolve, and that cannot happen.) Science is universal. Philosophy is pluralistic. Science (until recently) has closed the door to subjectivity. Philosophy welcomes it. Therefore, my first impression in the transition process: 'What the hell is this philosophical mumbo-jumbo cacomania sh-t!' Naturally, the scientific-minded philosopher will approach the subject from a different perspective than others. And that can sometimes be a problem, too. A scientist can easily find his place in philosophy and keep his method. (i.e. the branch of materialism can offer him everything he wants including a comprehensive metaphysics) The problem arises when he expects everyone else to play with the same rules, as you pointed out. The solution in #2 ('group philosophy), at least for me, out of this 'mumbo-jumbo' would place communication and language in a higher priority. And as you said 'a philosopher and scientist carry out the same task ... all philosophers should try to understand the world of humans.' It is this constant intermingling between science and philosophy that I find fascinating. Some philosophers may attack the scientist but they have to remind themselves that there are some tremendous benefits from keeping the door open to the scientist. If philosophy is to prosper from change, the specialized scientists can only bring fresh ideas to the table. This idea exchange can only benefit philosophy as a whole if it is to better understand the world of humans. It always had. And in a constantly dividing world, philosophy is the only activity that binds all the slices and layers of mankind's quest for understanding. And finally on your 'ought' comment, I must admit I am still having problems with this one. Should I not have an 'ought' to my philosophy? At this time I can't picture that. Not in the sense that I force people to accept it, but at least to put it out in the open, defend it and adapt it. More like an open-ended 'ought.' I would love to hear your thoughts on this, if you don't mind. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/06/03 9:14 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: to Hubertus Sorry for misspelling your name, Hubertus. Ovi FROM: Michael Ward (03/07/03 9:48 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Struggle on! Hubertus. Your posting headed 'struggling for what end' My answer to this question is 'struggling to survive' nothing more nor less. It is a matter of fact disorder in the universe is increasing and yet life is an increase in order which runs counter to the 'natural' trend. You also say this is the 'Grand Design of History' — this is pure bunkum! — do you really think there is any external plan or holy grail to be found? If we choose not to struggle for life (or afterlife) then whether it's Extacy, Religion, Bacardi, or any other kind of Spirits doesn't really matter — lets just go for pure Hedonism and be honest about it. However, if anyone has got insider information that there is some purpose over and above 'just struggling' then provide the source. Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/07/03 10:32 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The joy of travelling Ovi, We are as you rightly describe subjective in our ideas so the task we face is trying to be successfully objective. That would mean we should stand outside of humanity (clearly difficult) to be able to see the bigger picture. If in some small way we can begin to recognise the colour of the spectacles we are wearing to look at the world through then we ought to be able to compensate for this rose tinted picture we call reality. You say science asks 'how' with this I agree unfortunately scientists ask 'why'. This isn't job demarcation as I also think that philosophers shouldn't ask 'why' because until you know all the 'hows' how can you start asking why? I disagree that science aspires to the exact, if the data is inexact or variable then it would wrong be change it — accept it for now and move on. I presume the 'ought' you refer to is not asking why — the addiction humanity has is the need to know why, it presumes that there is always an answer to this question and if you look long and hard enough you will find it. Well people would say that wouldn't they because they know what they want the answer to be. I find getting to destinations rather disappointing it's the pondering whilst travelling I enjoy the most. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (03/07/03 2:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Apples and Oranges Michael's analogy is true to about the same extent we compare apples and oranges. Similarities are important, but so are the differences and nuances. The reductionist model of thinking can both enlighten and confuse, depending on the circumstances in which it is used. For example, compare the work of two neuroscientists, one working on very specific modeling about Parkinson's Disease and one developing overall theories about the Mind. The PD researcher may be interested in grand theories about the Mind, but this is not a prerequisite to success in medical research. There is no necessary connection between forming the "bigger picture" and coming up with accurate models of Parkinson's as a decline in brain function. Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/07/03 6:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: no problem Dear Ovi, since I am not God, misspelling my name is no sin. I even do it myself! My problem is more that I owe you (IOU) some more answers to your last posting but found no time. Sorry, will be better soon. There is much to be exchanged on communism, liberalism, Islamism etc.. And once more to clarify my general problem: I know the value of religious experience, I know the value of great land- and seascapes and of being alone sometimes or being together with good friends etc.etc.. But I try to be honest to our times. We live in a world of modernity, of industrial and postindustial society, of scientific progress and of bid money and big expectations etc.. So what I am asking for is a sort of a good society that is compatible with the best possibilities of humans in this modern world, and NOT evading into some ashram or pueblo or pre-modern times of shepherds and fishermen or evading into daydreams and religious or pseudoreligious visions etc.. What went wrong with the great visions of Huxley and Marcuse? They had no clear idea of how to combine their concepts of a good life with modernity. They offered once more a world of pre- or even anti-modernity, and then by this lost the larger audience. There are suggestions not to be taken seriously. Of course you can enter some hippie-commune or some religious order and monastery. But this cannot be a solution for some 10 billions of humans worldwide in 50 years. Even if it were feasible in a technical sense, people would not heed the offer. There will be an industrial state for a long time to come, not a return to pre-industrial society (save by a Third World War perhaps, like in the "Mad Max" films). Thus I would never suggest such a pre-modern "solution". But meanwhile I have a question: There is much hatred against the USA everywhere and bsides much "Bush-bashing" today. What are your experiences. You can be open, since — as you know — most Americans are. Surely Charles (who is from Spokane) will not be upset if you say ugly things about the USA, but you should give evidence for your charges so they can be debated. All the best from Hubertus. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/07/03 7:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On Grand Design of History No, Mike, I personally don't think there is such a Grand Design, I only wanted to understand what is on the minds of humans. I only wanted to remind you that many people desperately ask for such a Grand Design to give "meaning to life". They want to feel part of a meaningful whole, of "Gods Creation", be it in the sense of St.Thomas or in the sense of Spinoza or in the sense of Hegel — or even in the sense of Marx. There are many people — I am not one of them — that find the approach of Schopenhauer, Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud — that life is a meaningless struggle for surviving — "inacceptable" and "cynical". You need not subscribe to this, but you have to understand it if you want to understand human history and human behaviour and philosophy. And on the Bacardi thing: I am not sure if the spirit of the Bacardi-bottle will be better than the spirit of the Bible if you are left alone in the desert. The Bacardi-bottle will be empty soon, the Bible will not if it enters your heart. And that makes a difference. You need but one Bible but thousands of Bacardis for a long life. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (03/08/03 1:33 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: A drink problem Hubertus I suspect we are not a million miles apart on the Grand Design issue although I feel that we are quite free to make up whatever meaning we choose so that lifes struggle isn't meaningless. Meanwhile in the desert even with a bottle of Bacardi and a Bible you will still die - clearly neither is what you need. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (03/08/03 9:39 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Neutral information? Michael said: "Having then formed this 'bigger picture' it is then up to humans to decide what we want to do with this neutral information." I do not believe that there is such a thing as "neutral information." We all process our sensory experiences through our particular "world view," which shapes our conclusions. If we recognize this, then we can make rational accommodation for our bias and hopefully reach some approximation of truth. Charles FROM: Charles (03/08/03 9:55 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: So what happened to the other 99.9+ per Regarding philosophy, what happened to the other 99.99...+ per cent of the universe? Michael said: "I propose that all philosophers should try to do is understand the world of humans." The danger of Michael's idea lies in who sets him/her self up as the authority to define the world of humans. This arbitrary limitation also unnecessarily limits human development by putting certain subjects out of consideration. A wonderful thing about philosophy is that it allows us the opportunity to benignly consider "everything." We can then make a rational decision on whether or not we want to proceed. (It also gives us the opportunity to say something is stupid without going ballistic about it.) Charles FROM: Charles (03/08/03 10:17 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Destiny? Michael said: "If the only thing that defines humanity is that we are the kind of beings that successfully struggle — then so be it. If that is true now it should always be true, consider that human life could be infinitely extended, what would motivate us over endless time if we were not struggling?" That is a big "if" Michael! One thing that philosophy seems to be about is coming up with different definitions of what defines humanity. Maybe as a conference, we should spend some time on that? Charles FROM: Charles (03/08/03 11:19 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Limitations of 19th Century world view. Hubertus said: " I only wanted to remind you that many people desperately ask for such a Grand Design to give "meaning to life". They want to feel part of a meaningful whole, of "Gods Creation", be it in the sense of St.Thomas or in the sense of Spinoza or in the sense of Hegel — or even in the sense of Marx. There are many people — I am not one of them — that find the approach of Schopenhauer, Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud ." Hubertus, why do you associate the idea of Design with a subjective observation about people desperately seeking meaning to life? Is it because of a certain world view and understanding of humanity represented by your choice of Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx? (I would not include Spinozaa with this group. I do not have an opinion about Hegel and Schopenhauer.) I see in Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx a shared hostility to religion, and in Darwin, Freud, and Marx a shared 19 century reductionist and mechanical view of humanity that would make it extremely difficult to imagine a 21st Century holistic view of humanity. I do not think that your argument about those with "heart" and those who are realistic leaders applies here. I see nothing contradictory between being a realist and the holistic perspective. Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 6:29 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: this time you are right! Mike, of course, in the geographical desert it doesn't matter too much, while it may in a social or spiritual desert. But this time I am peaceful and not entering this topic again. And these Bacardi advertisements are really nice ... Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 7:01 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: everybody gets his own map out Exactly Charles, if you say "lets go!" then everybody gets out his own map and no two maps show the same location and the same ways or destinations where to start or to go. And this is my problem: How do you get people to go for this evading "better future" when the maps of the socialist, the fascist, the christian, the muslim, the liberal etc. all show different starting points and different ways and different destinations? This is why I try to get at the real thing like Mike does: Try to ignore all isms and ask for what people like to have. Nobody across all those isms really likes to have war and torture and rape and lying and stealing and poverty and illness and desolation and destitution etc., save some mad folks or some sado-masos. Thus there is some fundamental agreement among people on what is acceptable and lovable and what is not. And on this I try to concentrate our attention. This is Deng Hsiao Pings "be the cat black or white, if only it catches mice!" And in this I agree with Mike: All those Grand Designs of Hitler, Stalin, Ceausescu, Chomeini or whoever tried to play the "benevolent dictator" turned out to be misleading. And I want to understand why this should be so. What was wrong with all those Grand Designs? They replaced small but solid results by great dreams and ended in great lies. Up to this I can side with Mike. He and me only part over the question whether people can ever be content without dreams. Everything great in the world is great only as a dream. To rob him of all his dreams would bring down a human to a mere swine and robot and cynic. There are many atrocities committed in the name of God and in the name of a better future. But there are many good works of love done by the same driving forces of hope. There has been slaughtering in the name of God, but there have been the deeds of Schweitzer and Dr.King and St.Vinzenz and Fr.Damien and others too in the name of God. Thus it is not that simple as Mike seems to think — if I understand him right. And this I say lest I am misunderstood as running for "benevolent dictatorship". I am definitely not. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 7:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a member of humanity Charles, you wrote "One thing that philosophy seems to be about is coming up with different definitions of what defines humanity. Maybe as a conference, we should spend some time on that?" I strongly support this suggestion! Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 7:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on holism against mechanism Charles, thank you for this question. Of course you can have a wonderful holistic view that is at the same time mechanistic — like the view of Einsteins universe. But up to about 1800 the prevailing idea in Europe was that Gods Creation somprised a whole including mankind in a moral sense. This war "christianized Aristotelianism" or Thomism, and was accepted by the Protestant churches too. And by this I included Spinoza, who thought the whole world being a great incarnation of God, including humankind. By this he tried to guarantee that the true, the good, and the beautiful are of one origin, as Shaftesbury and the Deists thought likewise and afterwards Hegel and Schelling. And this idea of humans being part of a great order of beings was rejected by Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Mike and me as "wishful thinking". As the French Impressionists (Monet, Renoir ea.) said by their paintings against the Romantic painters: "Natures beauty is natures beauty and not Gods beauty. There is no meaning or God behind the appearances. Nature does not point to anything but to itself." This was what Feuerbach had in mind when he said that man is not created in the image of God, but God is created in the image of man, and that the study of God — theo-logy — should therefore be replaced by the study of man — anthropo-logy. Which indeed started in his time: Modern history, ethnology, primatology, ethology, psychology, sociology, culturology etc. are all but different forms of anthropology that tried to replace religious convictions by positive science. Of course you are right that there is no logical contradiction between positivism and some "Grand Design". Thus Hegel could be right. But I think most philosophers today got weary of all "void speculations" and try to be content with factual evidence for the time being. And I am not contradicting myself in this: If something said by the Buddha or by Jesus or by Muhammad or by Marx or by whom else convinces me, I try to learn from it, but I am not forced to become a true believer and join some church of those who are. I find Marx worthwhile and got many insights from him, but this did not make me a Marxist. And what is a Marxist anyway? There are — like in the Christian world — several great splittings and "confessions" in Marxism, that fight each other heavily and call each other stupid and misguided. So once more these different maps of the world. I don't need such a map. I can be content with some rules of conduct. I even can like the company and good advice of Jesus without being a Christian and signing some Grand Design suggested by some Christian confession. It's what you said on philosophy: I can (and do) read books of the great theologians without becoming a Christian, like you may read books of the great Zen-masters without becoming a Buddhist. Thus I once more try to separate "good insight" or "good advice" from "swearing on some special map of the world" or "Grand Design". Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 8:45 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on how and why to bild houses Ovi, I think there is a very clear and simple divide between science and philosophy "in the first approximation": Science can tell you how to build a house — as you stated — but not WHY to build the house and neither WHAT house to build. And philosophy starts when you try to put those latter questions in a methodical way. But this is only surface. The deeper structure is shown by this: "From facts don't follow acts" Science like physics (I am a physicist) tries to get at the facts of nature. Those are what they are. But when we read a novel or view a drama or a movie, we are not interested in facts but in decisions: "What are people doing or saying in certain situations — and does it convince us?" No facts can answer these questions, since those are questions not about given facts but about human intentions and their justification by moral or artistical argument. No act can be justified by a mere fact, it always needs a creative and willful mind that intends some goal to be achieved. And "in the second approximation" you will see, that philosophy and science cannot really be separated completely, since knowledge of facts modifies our tactical and strategical goals, and since to do science is itself a moral decision and not a necessity. Instead of becoming a scientist you can become a preacher or a politician or an artist or what else. To do science is not natural. Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/08/03 10:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: whys and hows Dear Michael, Recognizing 'the colour of the spectacles' in the meaning against those who paint a false picture of reality, I am in much agreement. My own way at looking in 'the spectacles we are wearing' is more like they need sharper focusing, rather than adjust the image to black and white, or wipe out the pretty tint. In this way 'focusing' our 'vision' involves a positive process. Self-focus then seems harder, yet worth the price, to achieve. I want to reach this 'true reality' but at the same time keep some true color. Either way, we'll end up in the same reality but maybe we'll feel it in different ways. You raised some great points in the why-how topic and hit my 'pondering' button. I 'hear' what you are saying. I also think that there are some who wrongly address (and answer) the 'why' questions, but in my own experiences I encountered some difficulties with simplifying the 'why' and the 'how' so easily. My own error, I believe, was that I automatically assumed that all 'why' questions were in the domain of supernaturalism. Starting from this position then I discriminated between the 'why' and the empirical 'how.' And I wished that language was so simple, in fact there are situations when the 'whys' are completely indistinguishable from the 'hows,' which show that in some situations they are used to ask the same questions. (And this is true in some scientific-type questions too) Secondly, excluding the 'why' would leave me empty in some areas of human inquiry where it is a legitimate and answerable question. As it is clearer in the cases where human intent is involved, the 'how' is one thing, the 'why' is something different, AND together they combine to create the 'whole' picture of reality. In this cases the 'why' is possible to be asked and answered and very legitimately so. And finally, there are some cases where 'why' questions do not necessarily imply a purpose or teleological end. My position has changed as to not try to limit and impose that people stopped asking 'why' to a position where I accept 'why' from all sources and then used the 'focused spectacles' to see what kind of 'why' is so-and-so referring to. Glad to see a travel lover, as I am one myself. And to see last week in the paper, this is now officially a 'disorder.' I wished I would've kept the article. Where did you go on vacation? Yeah, sometimes the greatest 'pondering' is done on a plane. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/08/03 10:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: good society and current brief Dear Hubertus, I'm sure there would be plenty of opportunities, and we can always leave whatever issues dormant until the right time. There would be plenty of chances to 'pay me back.' You're right, there's plenty to be exchanged. No need to get bogged down with extra baggage. This 'good society' then, cannot be 'a Disneyland illusion', nor can it be a 'Return to the cave-days.' This society must be, as you say, 'compatible with the best possibilities of humans in this modern world...' How do we begin defining the concepts for a good life and how do we fit it in with modernity and good society? I think we agree on many points. I also don't think that escaping reality is the answer for society, but whether I like that or not, it got mankind to this current reality. The modern times have stripped more and more of mankind's illusions. Fine. There's no Garden, no Heaven, no God. Fine again. We're not in the center of the Universe and there's nobody watching over us. Science cannot answer ultimate questions. Fine. Take the world as it is. Utopia is impossible. Fine, fine, fine. But I still see good and bad in the world, no matter how naked the truth is. Accepting the 'bad' — I understand, but I must also accept the 'good', very much present in this reality. And if I wanted a better world, I must focus on the good, not just my own good life, but also the good society. Or at least, the possibility for a better life. Hubertus, my positions regarding current events falls closer to the liberal side. I don't believe war is necessary; I do believe that 9/11 provided a temporary 'focus' for Americans in general. Conservatives seem to have rediscovered their smiles, while most liberals are extremely 'disturbed.' Conservatives claim they are 'fixing' the country, while liberals see it more as a 'destruction.' The churches seem to have benefited from flocks of believers, despite the overall scandal of the Roman-Catholics. Local governments are struggling everywhere, piling on debt and reducing services. The Federal Gvt. has stepped up the 'battle' against the state of California and its 'looseness.' Touchy issues are re-surfacing stronger than I've ever seen: abortion, church-state separation (or unification), corporate corruption, rights of States to enact laws independent of the Federal Gvt., affirmative-action, etc. I'm having the feeling there is a 'silent war' going on, and the conservatives are on some kind of mission, while liberals seem to be re-organizing and preparing for 'major battle.' The regular (consumer) American is in my opinion struggling. Incomes are getting smaller, services, goods and taxes higher. There is a general sense of dissatisfaction for the working common-man and there is a lot of 'Bush-bashing' at this level. And despite all this despair and struggles, there seems to be a sense of 'moving on.' And since this is more like a personal interpretation and loose generalities, let me know which point you would like more evidence on or wish for me to clarify. Hubertus, which resemblances do you recognize from history's past in comparison with today's events? Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/08/03 10:51 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: science and philosophy Dear Hubertus, I agree that science is limited in the WHY and WHAT, but as you see in my 'whys-hows' reply to Michael, there can be exceptions to this rule, and if overlooked can lead one the wrong way. And here resurfaces the 'is to ought' issue again. I agree that 'reading from science' only, can be very problematic in establishing a 'fulfilling' world-view. Very nice way to put the 'fact to act' issue, and facts have to play a major part in the decision to act. Tendency to ignore 'scientific facts' can also be problematic, and I also agree that science and philosophy cannot be separated completely. In my opinion, philosophy, religion, art, science, and astrology spurted from the same seed. Unfortunately, I disagree that doing science 'is not natural.' I believe every normal human being is 'doing science' pretty much daily. The 'scientific-mind' is present although disproportionately used in degree. It is a natural function of the human brain and cemented in our evolutionary process. I don't mean academic science or calculus etc. So the way I look at it, we're all philosophers and scientists in general terms; the difference is, some are better at it than others, some are trained, others not. Take care, Hubertus. FROM: Michael Ward (03/09/03 8:32 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Round 1 Charles wrote 'I do not believe that there is such a thing as "neutral information."'. This clearly a big difference in principle between us, assuming we are talking about the same thing, f.i. the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s — in what way can that be anything other than neutral? Alternatively under the leadership of Hitler millions of people were put to death, is this also not neutral information? In the USA most states permit the ownership of guns which by themselves do not kill people. However put the gun in the hands of an irrational, emotional human who wish to impose their will on another then it's a different situation. My point is that information is neutral like bullets it's how you use them that matters — or do you see a different analogy? Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/09/03 8:33 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Rational opposites. Charles wrote 'A wonderful thing about philosophy is that it allows us the opportunity to benignly consider "everything." We can then make a rational decision on whether or not we want to proceed.' Aha! — Charles you expose another significant difference between people, viz what they consider rational. We probably all consider ourselves on this conference as 'rational' and yet we hold to both varying and opposing views. Admittedly we don't take up arms and annihilate each other but we do try something similar to the ideas of others we find no validity in. The single thing that I find most difficult to understand is the reluctance of people to fully engage. I put this down to the inability of people to separate their 'SELF' from their ideas. That is to say if I challenge a persons ideas I am perceived as challenging them (or their self). This links in with my previous posting about neutral information as I also think the SELF is neutral. Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/09/03 8:34 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Dream On Hubertus wrote 'He and me only part over the question whether people can ever be content without dreams. Everything great in the world is great only as a dream.' I said earlier that humanity is defined as a struggling type of being — struggling for life. By life I include other things than a simple three score years and ten. It is our thoughts, call them dreams if you wish, that give us so much more to struggle for than the amoeba. We struggle to survive by having less wars, disease and poverty — well perhaps most do! But we also struggle to realise our ideas (dreams) like putting a human on the moon, or talking with others thousands of miles apart. Yes dreams are the important catalysts to our actions. Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/09/03 8:58 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Fiesta time Ovi, Presently I differentiate the why question into two types the first is the 'why did he/she do that' and the second 'why did some non human entity/force arrange things that way'? The latter are supernatural in nature and beyond any form of acceptance other than by faith of individual experience. You can, if you believe people have freewill, attribute a reason for why he/she did that which can then be traced back to yet earlier decisions. Unfortunately many if not most of the earlier decisions are of the former kind and thus beyond questioning. (I don't think you can question and experience but it can be interpreted differently) I went to Portugal, a warm and gentle country with people to match it. It was also fiesta time just before Lent though you wouldn't think it was a religious festival judging by some of the costumes the dancers weren't wearing! As to pondering on an aircraft it is a way of escaping to inner space where there is some room to stretch oneself. Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/09/03 9:26 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Testing the water Ovi wrote: 'But I still see good and bad in the world, no matter how naked the truth is.' As I cannot find any absolutes in the world (that haven't been invented by humanity) I have a furtive admiration for Utilitarianism. Which broadly states that acts are good/bad only dependent upon how much pain/pleasure they cause. I find this quite a sensible, if not entirely practical, way of reaching decisions. Whether water is at 6 deg C of 60 deg C is neither good nor bad until I put my foot in it — only then will I decide which was the lesser painful choice My comfort zone will be somewhere between the two as indeed it is when considering killing people either by the death penalty or by assination to prevent war. (Saddam f.i.) Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/09/03 6:34 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on how to evaluate the State of the Nation Dear Ovi, you wrote — re my question concerning the "mood" of US society as you feel it in CA: ""Touchy issues are re-surfacing stronger than I've ever seen: abortion, church-state separation (or unification), corporate corruption, rights of States to enact laws independent of the Federal Gvt., affirmative-action, etc. I'm having the feeling there is a 'silent war' going on, and the conservatives are on some kind of mission, while liberals seem to be re-organizing and preparing for 'major battle.' The regular (consumer) American is in my opinion struggling. Incomes are getting smaller, services, goods and taxes higher. There is a general sense of dissatisfaction for the working common-man and there is a lot of 'Bush-bashing' at this level. And despite all this despair and struggles, there seems to be a sense of 'moving on.' "" My picture of the USA surely is not "rosy". The movies are full of criticism — "Falling Down", "Dirty Harry", "Erin Brockovich" etc.etc. Thus not even the "Dream-machine" of Hollywood shows a "nice" face of the USA. But there are the soaps and sitcoms ("Prince of Bel Air" etc.) — and I think they are more true to the "normal" American. Hollywood abides by the formula "show the problems of the day to get people to the box-office." Thus "Enemy of the State" or "China Syndrome" or "Mission Impossible" or even "Magnolia" and "American Beauty" are not meant to show "Mr.+Ms. Everybody". What I try to find out is: What is justified in the notion of many critiques that the USA get worse and are not a model of a better society for tomorrow anymore — if ever they have been. If this impression could be confirmed — not only by people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky — this would be very important. This would mean that liberalism is in a similar way a false dream as communism has been. And in both cases it would be the practice and not the theory that was not up to expectations. And in both cases one could exactly name the fundamental error of the theory, its blind spot. While in the case of communism the blind spot was (mis)taking the Nomenclatura (falsely) for the true "representation of the workind class" instead of (rightly) for an olygarchy following its own laws and standards, so in the case of US liberalism the blind spot would be (false) ideology of the American dream that everybody gets his chance while in fact at least 90% of the populace are without such a chance like in the lottery. There was a cynical joke in the former DDR shortly befor its fall: "Why are people looking thus grey and exhausted? Because since 40 years we are going upwards." But perhaps it is like with "Waldsterben": It never happened, it only got felt some day. There are ALWAYS some 20% of all trees "ill", it simply is the normal state of affairs. Thus it may be that there ALWAYS are lots of people in Gods own Country that are or feel "falling down" while in fact their relative number does not increase while it does not diminish either. When Reagan came to power in 1981 the situation of the USA didn't change from one day to the next, but the general feeling improved dramatically by the sunny and self assured temperament of Reagan. Maybe the Democrats are always wailing like the left in Germany is too. Great hopes go with great frustrations. California has long been the great hope as a model for the future. The paradox is (as seen from afar) that this futuristic beacon of hope shuts down electricity for some time like any former East-Bloc state. But of course the liberals claim that this was only because of "leftist overregulation". Thus they would clearly deny that this has been a fault of liberalism per se. We just have this experience in Germany: The left won the last elections (Sept. 2002) by a margin, now only 6 monthes later they are over 10 points down while the opposition is over 10 points up since the left stirred hopes of change and then could not deliver. Now there is a stall: People fear change, but at the same time they need change, so everybody is paralyzed. This seems not too different from the situation in the USA: After the crash and before the war everybody is full of fears. As FDR said nearly exactly 70 years back: "We have nothing to fear so much as fear itself!". Thus I man not sure that anything of what you said on the "feeling" in CAL could be taken as indicator of real problems or only as indicator of imagined problems, while the problems of the former communist states (or of N-Korea and Kuba today) surely were/are real. Thus I am still looking for a clear indicator of trouble. I still hear the communists of the former DDR speaking hopefully of the "rotten capitalist states" soon falling down and apart "by their inherent crises" — while in fact 15 years later those "rotten socialist states" fell down and apart "by their inherent crises". The population of the USA has grown from the times of Kennedy 40 years back by some 100 million people or about 50%. But the overall wealth is still one of the highest in the world and the USA are still 3rd on the UNO "Quality of Life Index". Its very hard to know exactly what is going on. Hubertus FROM: Charles (03/09/03 7:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Information: data within context. Michael, Information and data are two words that are used loosely in the English language. My dictionary seems to contradict itself saying at one point that information is data, but then that information is processed data. Your speed of light example, I would consider to be raw data. It really does not mean anything unless it is put into some sort of context in which it can be manipulated (in a "good" sense). In middle and secondary school I learned that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. My physical science and later physics teacher gave an overview of how this fact about light was established through experimentation, so I have some reason to accept it. But until it was put into the broader context of electromagnetic waves (including radio waves), it really had no meaning or information value to me. The speed of light (and radio waves) became information to me in a context where humans used the data for their own purpose, e.g. the science news about signal delay between Mission Control and various space probes. Even more so with data about human activity: The "numbers" or data have no neutral meaning. The numbers have no meaning or information outside of a context. Your example of guns in America is a perfect example of this. Both sides of the "Gun Control" debate in America use the same statistics to come to opposite conclusions. Charles FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 6:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: California and change Dear Hubertus, We are not disagreeing very much. There is much of the same attitude right here. America is on a quest to find its focus eventually lost after the wall came down. Liberalism by itself is not the solution, in my view also. Successful change involves a harmonious balance between conservatism and liberalism. Unfortunately, as you and the world are noticing that is not what is happening now — and when the pendulum swings too far, there is much friction. The US is going through a transitional period and it is not the first time. Historically speaking, this is not the worst it has been through. But I have always been impressed that through this struggles, the US seems to bounce and rebalance faster than you would expect in such a complex society. It isn't rosy, but it has never been either. The problems of capitalism and individualism are very obvious, as Marx and others had observed in the past. If adaptation to one's environment should be the norm, then Americans are not guilty for seeking 'dreams' and placing such increased value on capital in their search for happiness. But in doing so, they seem to fall into the individualistic-capitalistic trap. Parents still tell children they can be anything they want, or, work hard and get an education and you would become happy etc. The truth is fortune and fame are godly AND the truth also is, money and status ought not to be so much so. This is a philosophical dilemma. I submit that the use and value and philosophy is much more positive in modern times than it appears. What people need are different methods of therapy and they are getting it mainly through false external means and/or wrong internal ones. I also submit that philosophy can offer the 'pill' for self-medicine. The idea that everybody gets a chance in America is to some extent true, but that they will achieve their 'dreams' is not. The socioeconomic factors affect what that chance is, but if everybody competes for finite resources and everyone 'dreams' they're entitled a bigger chunk, you will soon find a society in much need of therapy (or philosophy). Two of the movies you mentioned, 'Magnolia' and 'American Beauty,' are two of my favorites. 'American Beauty' looks from the perspective of struggling middle-class suburbia and in my opinion, covered a great deal of 'Mr. + Mrs. ALotOfPeople.' The problem is that most of these people seem not to (want to) understand the movie. (If you ever have time, check out the personal reviews on http://www.netflix.com — the 4stars vs. the 1star clearly dominate the ratings last time I checked). 'Magnolia,' in my opinion addresses more than just the thousands of aspiring young opportunist for fame and fortune who end up as 'Children Of The Night' selling their bodies for money in a Hollywood alley. It is a lesson for the millions who may fall into the same 'illusion.' Escaping to Paradise has always been an illusion and continues to be. If I hear young and aspiring out-of-towners ask me about Hollywood and California I'd tell them to take one pill of 'Magnolia.' And repeat once daily until cured. If that doesn't do it, then, Welcome to California, may I suggest philosophy and good luck. By the way, I would also recommend 'Memento' if you didn't get a chance to see it. (although not in the same line with the appearance vs. reality issue, but nevertheless philosophical and psychological). The reason for California's power failure was greed and mismanagement. It was not extremely felt, but it was extremely hyped up. Either way, you're right — a good number of people were left without electricity and that brings back childhood memories, for me. But it also signaled an alarm and re-focus of energy regulation and at the same time it catapulted a renewed effort into new sources of energy. Science, capitalism, government and innovation seem to have responded quite well already, and results of the California crisis are already being introduced. The manufacturing costs of solar panels has decreased by 50 percent as a result of mass-production, generous government issued rebates for new installation of alternative energy (if I remember correctly as much as 50 percent), local governments facing financial cuts have started implementing long range cost saving systems, new money have been infused in wind-mill generators and the first self-sustaining energy homes are already being sold in parts of California (in some cases, the excess is sold to the electricity companies for a profit.) It will, of course, take much longer to see a bigger impact but some solutions are already available and are finding their way in this process of change. I also believe that the paranoia of the 'energy crisis' had another positive effect by leading some to inquire 'what else do we take for granted' and 'what other modern-life-dependent systems need we look into and prevent collapse.' And bingo, Southern California is mainly a desert, a very thirsty desert which is running out of sources of potable water. We are in a water crisis and we didn't know it (or believe it). I'm afraid that it is far from over, but it temporarily avoided imminent collapse. And again, I think that people have started to respond. For example a $5 million grant from the Federal Gvt. to the city of Long Beach Water Department to further improve a process that would reduce 20 percent off the water desalinization costs. And I even recall an entrepreneur's (denied) attempt to drag giant condom-like tubes filled with fresh water and towed to a barge for transport down the coast from somewhere in the Northwest. There have also been some mishaps and will continue to be so. (e.g. government water board authorities dried-mouthed from screaming at each other, deadlocked in reaching distribution agreement and missed the deadline which only left them dried-mouthed even when they stopped their screaming) Hubertus, I will be responding quite infrequently judging by the tempo, so I hope we can adjust. Thanks Hubertus. So many issues, so little time. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 6:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Dear Michael, Your view seems perfectly solid if focused on the natural-supernatural point of view. It allows you to differentiate sharply between two extremes. The first of your questions deals with the natural, and is therefore logically possible to be answered empirically, while the second question shouldn't even be asked because it is unanswerable. My original position was that philosophy should be inclusive to all human inquiry. Here are some 'ponderings' for you: Could we both agree on a picture of reality in which we both see a world with both 'why-people' and 'why-ask-why people'? Would philosophy be more beneficial if we excluded the later? Should we stop talking, how would we possibly be persuaded and convinced that we may be wrong or confused or brainwashed or whatever? Wouldn't that in effect, reduce our linguistic range and limit our quest by excluding those with the desire to know? And finally, 'Why do people ask why questions?' Half-naked Portuguese dancers at a religious fiesta? That sounds like a blast. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 6:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: why Dear Michael, Your view seems perfectly solid if focused on the natural-supernatural point of view. It allows you to differentiate sharply between two extremes. The first of your questions deals with the natural, and is therefore logically possible to be answered empirically, while the second question shouldn't even be asked because it is unanswerable. My original position was that philosophy should be inclusive to all human inquiry. Here are some 'ponderings' for you: Could we both agree on a picture of reality in which we both see a world with both 'why-people' and 'why-ask-why people'? Would philosophy be more beneficial if we excluded the later? Should we stop talking, how would we possibly be persuaded and convinced that we may be wrong or confused or brainwashed or whatever? Wouldn't that in effect, reduce our linguistic range and limit our quest by excluding those with the desire to know? And finally, 'Why do people ask why questions?' Half-naked Portuguese dancers at a religious fiesta? That sounds like a blast. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 6:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: oops sorry for the double! (never press the stop button because you forget the subject; got it) FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/11/03 8:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on open and closed societies Dear Ovi, I have the same problem with work overload, so nothing to excuse for delays. I think the most important sentences in your text relating to our exchange on the USA are the following: / The reason for California's power failure was greed and mismanagement. ... But it also signaled an alarm and re-focus of energy regulation and at the same time it catapulted a renewed effort into new sources of energy. Science, capitalism, government and innovation seem to have responded quite well already, and results of the California crisis are already being introduced. The manufacturing costs of solar panels has decreased by 50 percent as a result of mass-production, generous government issued rebates for new installation of alternative energy (if I remember correctly as much as 50 percent), local governments facing financial cuts have started implementing long range cost saving systems, new money have been infused in wind-mill generators and the first self-sustaining energy homes are already being sold in parts of California (in some cases, the excess is sold to the electricity companies for a profit.) It will, of course, take much longer to see a bigger impact but some solutions are already available and are finding their way in this process of change. I also believe that the paranoia of the 'energy crisis' had another positive effect by leading some to inquire 'what else do we take for granted' and 'what other modern-life-dependent systems need we look into and prevent collapse.' And bingo, Southern California is mainly a desert, a very thirsty desert which is running out of sources of potable water. We are in a water crisis and we didn't know it (or believe it). I'm afraid that it is far from over, but it temporarily avoided imminent collapse. And again, I think that people have started to respond. (...government water board authorities dried-mouthed from screaming at each other, deadlocked in reaching distribution agreement and missed the deadline which only left them dried-mouthed even when they stopped their screaming) / Why important? Because in my opinion the rise of the USA to world power then and now as compared to "old Europe" and "old Asia" (including those Islamic powers) has been made possible in the first ling by openness to new ideas, to everybodys freedom to show his special solution and prove it, and to a permanent exchange and contest of ideas in the sense of "concurring memes". The real Gospel of the US always is and has been: "If you can convince us and prove your idea useful, we will adore you!" And this is exactly contrary to what is common in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world: There always the first reaction to any new and surprising idea is: "That is not what the fathers said, that has never been done this way, so please forget it, you are disturbing the old wisdom and order, you are vain and arrogant!" There always are those kings and Ajatollahs and Secretaries of the CP and bishops and Popes who know best. In the USA nobody knows best, everybody is learning always and thus by trial and error the US have eventually become the worlds #1 power. And on philosophical matters I would not like to take a "philosophers pill" but would stick to exactly that sort of philosophy that is genuine American and despised by most "old Eurasian" philosophies as "flat": Pragmatism. Pragmatism is not "analytical" per se, but is "anlytical in view of results". Pragmatism is on understanding the interaction between human ideas and human practice. And exactly this is my approach to a good society. This is why I ask not for a "Grand Design" or for a "Grand Hope", but for sticking to everyday experiences of what is a good society — and why — and what is not — and why not. The contradictions of self-admiring lies and pathetic practice in Kuba and North Korea is well known to you from former Romania and all other former Stalinist states. Inability and unwillingness to be honest to the facts pervaded like in a neurotic. But a philosopher is not simply a psychologist or sociologist or politologist with a long beard. He has a different and important task. He has to ask not what we FEEL when being happy, but what we MEAN by claiming to be happy. What me interests most this time are the "paradoxes of progress and improvement": Progress seems to be a progress to the rainbow - if you come near it vanishes. And THIS is a very philosophical problem and is NOT on the minds of (most) sociologist or politologist — but may well be on the minds of many of todays psychologists. And a note on the movies: I didn't know if I know "Memento" this time, since maybe it's known by another name in Germany. Of course there is always the great page "www.imdb.com" where I just looked it up: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0209144 http://us.imdb.com/Plot?0209144 http://us.imdb.com/Gallery?0209144 http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1029/moss_carrie_anne2.jpg No, I definitely have not seen this, but the page tells me that it is available in VHS and DVD in Germany. Next month I will have DVD on the computer, then I will view it with subtitles, which I need for understanding because of bad ears. Thank you for the hint and tell me of more of your favourite movies. Magnolia is very special: Some find it great (I saw it two times in full lenght in the cinema), but many find it "the most boring movie I ever saw". And if you check a movie by imdb, then enter the links directly as I did above. By the way: A very "American" film is "War Games": http://us.imdb.com/Title?0086567 http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0086567 I cannot imagine such a movie to be made in Baghdad or even in Berlin. All the best from Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 8:42 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: variable speed of light Charles, Michael and Hubertus The 'speed of light' example being taught in physics class as absolute and constant may not be so for long. If interested, there is a very interesting article in April 03 issue of Discover magazine, in which the 35-year-old Cambridge physicist Joao Magueijo challenges Einstein's theory as wrong and is proposing what he is referring to as VSL (varying speed of light). He even admits 'it's an act of brutality against physics,' but it would resolve the mysteries of inflation theories. And Hubertus may find it interesting that his ideas exploded while vacationing in Goa, a former Portuguese island colony off the coast of India, which 'seems to inhabit o cosmos of its own, a special space-time where the 1960s never ended.' Magueijo says 'It's a fun place, very psychedelic. The hippie scene is completely crazy. Some of them live in the tops of trees and go around completely naked.... Most of my insights came from this period.' Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 9:38 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: ethics To Michael , To be honest, I do not have an ethical 'theory' I strictly follow — since none of them, in themselves, seems to offer the solution to our moral disagreements. I'm afraid that if I supported and promoted one particular theory, the outcomes can be 'dangerous' to those who just want the answers and bypassing the analysis of that particular theory. Most people I run into simply want the 'bottom line.' It's like they want the answers to the test, without studying for it. And I suggest this is very much part of our 'human nature.' We don't want to spend too much brain energy on issues that are not a priority, interesting nor important to us, and especially if we think we already have most of the answers already. If I say to a person that morality's ultimate starting position is 'Act only to maximize the total good and happiness of the greater majority' or 'Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal rule' or whatever — it may lead one into serious moral problems when faced with 'exceptions' to those rules. And I think most philosophers agree, there are wholes in every single moral theory mankind has proposed and every single one fails the test of misappropriation. I'm falling off the one-theory view. I am more interested in the processes involved to reach these 'solutions.' My own personal moral stand involves an adaptive process of 'all' major moral theories surrounding a personal virtue and value ethics. I avoid relativism, strict subjectivity and strict objectivity by promoting 'analysis of particular moral situations from different perspectives with the goal of reaching the 'better' solution.' Of course, people don't like to hear this; they rather hear something like 'Do unto others as you want done unto you.' This, along with other maxims, would suggest that it implies fixed answers to morality. Although they appear so, these answers really say to them 'just as much or less' as I do. This reverse approach would attempt to stimulate the agent's internal cognitive process opening the door to variable perspectives (including the objective perspective) and attempt to sort out the 'better good'. In short: 'Give them the process, not the answer.' Which is, I believe, nothing but what Hubertus said earlier — 'Don't moralize. Analyze' (There are amazing similarities between the people in this group, yet we fall in such radically different positions. Why? Getting a clearer understanding is what keeps me in suspense.) And on the other hand, adding everything back up in order is the hardest part. And 'human nature' again, I am sometimes wrong in my process which naturally upsets me, but I try turning it into positive energy by focusing on what I did wrong. I escape pessimism from a stubbornness of who I do not want to be, but at the same time I feel that I can display strong reasons for why not being this way. Hope for me, is not faith. It is not supernatural. It is a very real part of 'human nature.' Most of us here seem to be in consensus that there no answers to ultimate mysteries, at least none for now and it looks like none for much later. At least we're running out of new approaches. I believe that the answers we need are already known, we simply cannot easily agree on 'mutual common decencies'. And that is a very slow process of adaptation, it seems. Of course, there are many downsides I am aware of, but I'm sure they'll come about. Michael, if you wish, we can ping-pong what are the shortcomings of utilitarianism and try to find why or how it may fail the universalizing test . Maybe others can add to that too. For an independent analyzer, that is not a bad choice, as long as he has other methods to bypass its shortcomings in practical applications. Michael, or anybody for that matter, you don't have to address all my points since I am becoming aware of my inner-long-windiness, but please slice away at will. Sometimes I escape from cyberspace and philosophy for a couple of days at a time, so I try catching up to most topics and issues with longer messages. Hope you understand. Thanks. FROM: Ovi G (03/12/03 10:17 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Not "Magnolia" Dear Hubertus, I won't even try explaining this one, in my previous message I was thinking of a different movie and NOT "Magnolia". The puzzle should emerge by replacing "Magnolia" (which I did not see) with "Mulholland Dr." (which is what I meant). You're right, I have to see the movie first, maybe then I can understand it. Sorry for the shock. Here is how it should've read: 'Mulholland Dr.,' in my opinion addresses more than just the thousands of aspiring young opportunist for fame and fortune who end up as 'Children Of The Night' selling their bodies for money in a Hollywood alley. It is a lesson for the millions who may fall into the same 'illusion.' Escaping to Paradise has always been an illusion and continues to be. If I hear young and aspiring out-of-towners ask me about Hollywood and California I'd tell them to take one pill of 'Mulholland Dr.' By the way, did you see "Mulholland Dr.?" If not, I highly recommend it. Take care, Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/12/03 5:33 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: no, I don't explode Dear Ovi, such sorts of communities have always been around. But they never could become standard, they always remain "Islands". Every ashram or cloister is similar. But this never was my theme. My theme — like that of Aristotle and Thomas and Hegel and Rawls — is that of the "standard modern society". By nature man is a social primate, thus "the way of the Indian" (or of the Aborigine or the Bushman) is the natural way. But some 5.000 years ago this way was left for the "way of the great powers". And you are living now in the most modern part of the greatest power history has seen. Those people in Goa climbing on trees like their ancestors would never invent the radio or the computer or the modern ship or plane — and they need not. Their way of living is simply as if history had stopped somewhere 10.000 years ago. But history has not done this. 90% of our current problems are "man-made". But this points to no solution other than the old one of the "Big Flood" and a new beginning from scatch with those happy shepherds and fishermen after the deluge. Unabashed Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/12/03 5:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: perhaps open a new thread Dear Ovi, Mike, and all, since this thread gets overloaded I suggest to copy this long posting of Ovi into an new message and start the debate from this anew. And please state once more, what the point of debate is: Applicability of utilitarian proposals? I did not understand exactly. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/12/03 5:46 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: not seen Mulholland Dr. Dear Ovi, my daughter saw "Mulholland Dr.", and I know a bit about it, but I will see it later myself from DVD. Thanks for the hint. And perhaps you see "Bulworth". Have fun, Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (03/13/03 12:14 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Why Ovi, Q.Could we both agree on a picture of reality in which we both see a world with both 'why-people' and 'why-ask-why people'? A. I think that actually exists in varying degrees within each of us. It isn't the asking why that's misplaced, in my opinion, it's the creation of hypothetical answers that turn into solid fact that misleads investigation. Q. Would philosophy be more beneficial if we excluded the later? A. No, not at all variety of ideas is just as beneficial as variety of DNA. Q. Should we stop talking, how would we possibly be persuaded and convinced that we may be wrong or confused or brainwashed or whatever? A. Q. Wouldn't that in effect, reduce our linguistic range and limit our quest by excluding those with the desire to know? A. I'm not sure about our linguistic range but desire is the only motivation for doing anything — if you don't desire why act? Q. And finally, 'Why do people ask why questions?' A. I'm afraid not many really do ask questions — apart from questions of the kind 'would you like fries with that Sir' Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/13/03 12:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Progress Ovi, You Wrote: The 'speed of light' example being taught in physics class as absolute and constant may not be so for long. If interested, there is a very interesting article in April 03 issue of Discover magazine, in which the 35-year-old Cambridge physicist Joao Magueijo challenges Einstein's theory as wrong and is proposing what he is referring to as VSL (varying speed of light). He even admits 'it's an act of brutality against physics,' but it would resolve the mysteries of inflation theories. The progress of a concept resulting from new data is precisely the difference between science and religion one is progressive and the other regressive. Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/13/03 1:01 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Keep smiling Ovi and Hubertus, We humans created ethics so it's not surprising that there are as many systems as I'm sure there are people, my observations so far have led me to conclude that my ethics are that there are no ethics. This however doesn't stop me feeling this way or the other about a particular issue as I too am a prisoner of my past experiences. All hard ethical rules produce absurdities in extreme circumstances and 'anything goes' can hardly be described as a system. To arrive at the 'better solution' means considering all possibilities for all time or having a cut-off level below which effects are ignored. Neither seem very attractive as a rule but maybe we don't need rules at all, though looking at the anti social behaviour of some people that's hard to swallow. I agree with 'Don't moralize. Analyze' but decisions are often beyond analysis and I also sometimes go with what I feel is best. Keep smiling Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/13/03 3:42 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on progress by religion Mike, modern science and technical "progress" may bring us back to the trees again (if some are left over in Goa to climb up to), while religion and superstition — as I have proven on the former conference — have led us to modern science. Thus be careful! Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/13/03 3:50 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on handling complexity Dear Ovi, did you know this one: http://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htm ? It even links you to "Brave New World" — full text. And did you see "Gattaca"? Try it and think about it (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119177). And try "The 6th day" (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0216216). Both no great titles, but something to think about. Are you interested in SF? .. and Mike: You are an engineer, and since I have somewhat similar experiences as a physicist from the industry I do very well understand your approach to reality. But things can be complicated. I am asking for a "good" society — not a "just" one, not an "achieving" one, not a "right" one (in the sense of the churches or the Islam or what else of Grand Design there may be), just a "good" one, a society where it is good to live in. My sole but deadly objection against Platos "Republic" has been: "Why should we call a society a good one if nobody seems to like it?" This single objection kills at least 90% of all utopias. No architect would dare to force his client into a house by saying: "You will hate it, but it is good!" But Ceausescu tried exactly that on the Romanian people. And likewise did Hitler and Chomeini. But I surely do not. I really do ask: "What would we call a good society in all honesty — and by what argument?" It's no easy question! And have a look into this one below. It explains why stupid people become dogmatic if things don't come out as they should in their opinion: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201479486/qid=1047589342/sr=2-3/103- 9716957-2463068?v=glance&s=books read all readers reviews and click hints to similar authors. And perhaps try something from these for perspective: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078795330X/qid=1047590976/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1 /103-9716957-2463068?v=glance&s=books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1H4YMC3CSK7B/ref=cm_lm_lists /103-9716957-2463068 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750697016/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-9716957- 2463068?v=glance&s=books&st=* http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0066620813/qid=1047591391/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1 /103-9716957-2463068?v=glance&s=books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521314194/ref=pd_sim_books_1/103-9716957- 2463068?v=glance&s=books I havent read those (save Dorner + Perrow) but will order several of them. And you get the idea: To go back to Goa and there onto the trees will be no solution for 10 bn people! I am thinking on the real thing. And that's the literature above about. Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/13/03 10:23 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: constants and variables Dear Hubertus, It wasn't my intent to bash; what I thought interesting is that Magueijo was inspired by this sort of community. It was while vacationing on this 'rebellious' back-in-time island that he was able to clear and refocus his thoughts. His rebellion against the ultimate 'constant' of physics fits well with Goa and with his original starting question: What if Einstein was wrong? I didn't mean to offer Goa way of living as a means for a modern society, but what I found amazing, was the contrast between civilized and uncivilized, modern and old, Cambridge and Goa, progress and stagnation, people in business suits and people walking around naked, 4-star penthouse and tree-top living, rules and no rules, traditional standards and anything goes etc. It was this interaction between extremes that I was trying to highlight — the synthesis and amalgamation that gave 'fire' to an idea that, if proven, would once again change humanity's way in its' quest to make sense of the Universe it inhabits. There is a bigger point here, I believe, in that the ascent of one of mankind's greatest achievement in trying to understand his world — science, is making a full circle back to Heraclitus' 'Everything is in flux,' of 2,500 years ago. The belief in absolutes may have driven and benefited mankind and perhaps will continue to do so for a long time to come, but our place in the Universe may be better adjusted if we allow for the 'changeable' instead of 'fixed.' Magueijo 'brutality' and rebellion against physics may seem destructive and disobedient, just as Goa's way of live is to the West's modern progressive authoritarian world, but the positive outcomes will only benefit mankind and offer a new vision, no less significant than Einstein's toppling of Newton's. Magueijo's theory will not just demolish, but offer the first layers towards new ideas and explanations, and correct old problems. Not only it 'could actually explain where the cosmic unity of the Universe comes from' but it will also open the possibility that, theoretically at least, mankind can get past the constant 299,792,458 m/s. And of course, philosophy would adjust respectively. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/13/03 11:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: science and religion Dear Michael, You said: "The progress of a concept resulting from new data is precisely the difference between science and religion one is progressive and the other regressive." In my reply above to Hubertus, I said, "not only it 'could actually explain where the cosmic unity of the Universe comes from' but will also open the possibility that, theoretically at least, mankind can get past the constant 299,792,458 m/s." 'Cosmic unity' dealing with religion and 'variable speed of light' with science. The Eastern religious concept of unity merging with Western science. In this view, progress and regress are necessary opposites in a world of change and balance. Take care, Ovi FROM: Michael Ward (03/14/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: What will be Hubertus wrote, modern science and technical "progress" may bring us back to the trees again (if some are left over in Goa to climb up to), while religion and superstition — as I have proven on the former conference — have led us to modern science. Thus be careful! Hubertus It makes one wonder just how many life forms in the universe must have gone through such a cycle — and as I have no goal for our future (direction that is) next time round it may be different. Live long and prosper, Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/14/03 1:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: doing a cycle or turning a screw? Mike, even after a third World-War people would remember that there has been such a thing a "modern science". Thus it may be no cycle but a turning of a screw. And its modern man, not cave-man that would sourvive. I recommended before to read the "classic" SF short story "Forgetfulness" (Joseph Campbell jr., 1937, to be found in many SF-samplers) which offers another solution: Technique will be much more developed than it is today, but just by this become invisible like the James Bond gadgets and his car and like the electronics in modern cars and other devices. This moment the greatest problem — not only in Iraq and North Korea — is not technics but humans. As always. And read the Robot-Stories by Asimov. It's fun. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (03/14/03 1:51 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The 'good' society. Hubertus, I have thought much about this but so far only reached the perplexing position that we humans are not really sociable animals. Sure we like the advantages that living in a multifaceted society provides but equally we also have a counterbalancing goal to rise to the top above others. On first sight this this seems a counter productive and I suppose on the face of it is but on the other hand it does permit the constant re-invention of the wheel which is still the dynamics behind 'natural selection'. We are what we are — struggling to be something other than what we are. Like coping with change I suspect we should just accept coping with competition. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/15/03 2:57 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being effective in contest Mike, you are an engineer and positivist, asking for cause and effekt like me. How do the birds and the beavers know how to build nests? Not of course by going to school, but by applying some built in programm like any numerical programmable (NP-)machine. Like f.i. a "dull" chess-computer beating Kasparov. This "pseudo-intelligence" is preprogrammed in the genes. But the strength of humans is to have not the result but the ability preprogrammed: Not a special human language, but the human ability to learn and to speak infinitely many languages, to apply the principle of language-construction. Just as you use the principles of engineering to design anything feasible to the task at hand. By this your "principles" are like memes from which to construct solutions. But the overall principle of contesting remains intact: During pre-human evolution it was a contest of the "selfish genes", now it is a contest of the "selfish memes". And the question (that disturbed Nietzsche!) is: "How could notions like sin and decency and forgivenness and clemency and remorse and brotherly love and the golden and silvery rule etc. be advantageous in this contest?" Likewise many conservatives ask: "How could ideas like democracy and freedom and human rights be advantageous in this contest?" Hitler and Kono never got it. They did not understand how the liberal US could surpass all others in civilian and military strength. Hitler and Kono thought to be strong you have to be hard and disciplined. But this is explainable: By notions like sin and decency and forgivenness and clemency and remorse and brotherly love and the golden and silvery rule etc. and by ideas like democracy and freedom and human rights you creat an atmosphere of working together in a trusting and flexible and creative way that gets results surpassing all solutions brought about by mere discipline. By this difference even the Eastbloc fell down since he was not flexible and inventive. Thus what looks like weakness is indeed strength. Charles will esteem this, since eastern martial arts, if applied masterly, overcome any mere bodily strength. Skill, quickness, and mentality overcome dumb muscles. To be competitive and struggling need not mean to be beasty or nasty. The kingpins of great institutions very seldom are the bullies but most often are sensible and softspoken people of quick intelligence and clear principles and a big chunk of "EQ" and emotional discipline and a grasp of what is essential to the task at hand. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/15/03 3:04 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a further note on Platos "Republic" Mike what explains my judgement of Platos Republic as a "brilliant nonsense" is a simple fact: A society and a good living together is much much more than simply doing "justice" to each other. And this, the whole richness of human togetherness, the very nature of sociality, is what missed Plato. Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/15/03 10:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: loose points Dear Hubertus, Covering up some loose points we've been discussing: You said: '[The philosopher] has to ask not what we FEEL when being happy, but what we MEAN by claiming to be happy.' Yes, but if the philosopher doesn't consider feelings he would never have a true meaning of happiness. My position remains the same: emotions are very important to the task of the philosopher, whether he admits it or not. They must be understood and consulted under the light of reason before she can formulate any definition or theoretical meaning. Thinking of what would mean to be happy and feeling happy are necessary considerations for a formulation that fits closer to our 'human nature.' You said: 'since this thread gets overloaded I suggest to copy this long posting of Ovi into a new message and start the debate from this anew. And please state once more, what the point of the debate is: Applicability of utilitarian proposals?' Hubertus, I think the issue was 'Can utilitarianism (or other ethical systems) be universalized?' But I think that whole issue is dormant for now, since there seems to be mutual agreement that 'all fail the test.' The point was not about denouncing utilitarianism or any other ethical theories, but more 'can we promote ethical maxims without understanding 'the mechanics' beneath them?' I've seen 'War Games' a while back and laughed very hard at 'Bulworth.' (which reminds me to rent it again soon.) I did not see 'Gattaca' and '6th Day' but I'll put them on my list. I'm not into SF much. Thanks. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/15/03 10:12 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on progress and improvement To Michael and Hubertus, There have been several resurfacings of 'progress and improvement' and I think it might deserve some attention. I think there is a possibility for criss-cross on this issue. For example, Michael's original analogy stated 'Much has been spoken about 'improvement' and 'pollution' but both are just different perspectives of the same thing — change.' And Hubertus said 'What interests me most ... are the 'paradoxes of progress and improvement,'' Michael also brought up the 'progress' of science as opposed to religious 'regress.' I think that 'progress' leads to a paradox, but I'm not sure 'improvement' would. Here is my case: My positions would start: 1) 'Progress' is NOT the same as 'Improvement'. 2) 'Progress' is paradoxical, 'Improvement' is not. 3) 'Progress' can lead to error in judgment. 4) 'Progress' is hopeful but unachievable, while 'Improvement' is hopeful, yet achievable. Although interchangeably used in general language, 'progress' implies a step towards some kind of fixed and ultimate destination, while 'improvement' deals with current change (for the better). Progress involves growth and advancement towards a new realm. Improvement involves enhancing and fixing the current one. Under these definitions, the popular general expression 'new and improved' falls apart. Sure, we can improve something which leads to what can be considered new — and in this sense can be referred to as progress, but is that the better definition? The modern (Western) concept of the word 'progress' falls closer in line with Aristotle's teleology, implying a fixed destination. Despite the interchangeability of the words in modern usage, 'progress' is nothing but 'IMPROVEMENT' from past to present. 'Progress' becomes paradoxical and problematic when modernity changed and mixed its original meaning of improvement from past to present, to that of present to future. 'Progress' was born. And I suggest a reason for 'why' that happened. Once again, I think, the answer is human nature: the human brain's 'improved' capability for pattern recognition, memory storage and cognitive processes resulted in an 'improvement' over his environment, conditions and technological advancements. Looking back, from present to past, one easier starts observing a pattern, which he may name 'improvement.' Part of human nature and brain function is also the ability to close loose chains and patterns stopping them of being short of perpetual looping or more modernly, 'paradoxical.' It is here that the error of 'progress' occurs. 'Progress' is the closure of the 'improvement' pattern from past to present to future. The shift to 'progress' was launched in the seventeenth century when the quarrel between ancient authorities and modern thinkers reached a climax. In the eighteenth century, as the struggle between reason and superstition intensified, modern thinkers applied the scientific idea of 'progress' to also include 'social' and 'moral' progress — an idea that has been carried forward to this day.. The problems become more obvious as the human perspective closes the loop into a false belief for a fixed future. The observations of past improvements are assumed to be a linear teleological progression. It is here where the word 'progress' shadows the word 'improvement' and the meanings become perplexing. It is also here where is normal for one to place his (hope, faith, belief, bet) into 'progress.' And here is another problem: although he 'believes' in it, he may never know exactly what it is. And when one becomes a worshiper in the belief of 'modern' progress — which he cannot possibly know its final destination or control the future — it is very similar to a belief in the supernatural. In this sense, it is just an 'illusion' which serves the biological function of closing a loop, in the same way as the concept of God may to a true believer. Someone may argue that, surely that cannot be possible, because the 'modern progress worshiper' has factual proofs regarding human progress. And what may those be? 'IMPROVEMENTS' from past to present. One of the 'qualities' of 'progress' in this interpretation is that it provides a sense of power over fatalism and human destiny. Humankinds' achievements of the past are its proofs and hope for a controlled and omnipotent destiny and future which would eventually culminate in, perhaps ... becoming ultimate masters of the Universe (gods). Human nature again catches us in the beautiful melody of wishful thinking closing yet another brain loop. Although I point out to 'progress' as a superstition, illusion, or false faith — there is no reason for despair. The solution out of the modern 'progress paradox' would be, once again, the linguistic and conceptual separation between 'improvement' and 'progress,' while the focus must be shifted from the later, to the former. While 'progress' implies exponential growth, 'improvement' doesn't. Focusing on 'improvement' is a proven fact and very much achievable, while at the same time it does not strip mankind of the hope for a better life and a better world. Possible points of argument: 1. 'Progress' does not imply a fixed destination. Even so, 'progress' is still misleading and a 'false' idea which can be easier explained by 'improvement.' (Ockham's razor) 2. Shifting the focus away from 'progress' will strip mankind's ability to look forward to a better future and leaves humanity stagnant. Thinking about the future is not 'progress.' Mankind would still get to think about anything he/she wants, creative imagination can still flow, sciences shift to improvement would devote more energy and resources into current human affairs. Sorry for the length and please fire away. Take care, Ovi FROM: Michael Ward (03/16/03 12:34 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On progress and improvement 2 Ovi There are a number of issues in your 'on progress and improvement' posting with which I both take issue and request clarification. I cannot see the paradox you talk about other than the changing use of language because I see progress and improvement as virtually identical descriptions of change and steps towards a particular goal. For instance knowing your genetic disposition to disease may help you evade its onset on the other hand such information may cause you increased insurance premiums or even no affordable insurance — would such information be social progress? I think I overstated my position on the 'progress' of science, what is closer to my view is that science increases knowledge and increased knowledge leads to better decision making hence progress. Progress that is to a goal where humanity is freed from pain. (shades of utilitarianism here!) I'm not sure what you mean by closing the loop — is that not just another way of speaking about answers? You say we might end up as 'gods', this is a view I endorse from the viewpoint of us here today. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (03/16/03 2:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Importance of philosophy Hubertus said: "But the overall principle of contesting remains intact: During pre-human evolution it was a contest of the "selfish genes", now it is a contest of the "selfish memes". And the question (that disturbed Nietzsche!) is: "How could notions like sin and decency and forgivenness and clemency and remorse and brotherly love and the golden and silvery rule etc. be advantageous in this contest?" Likewise many conservatives ask: "How could ideas like democracy and freedom and human rights be advantageous in this contest?" ----------------------------------------------- I think that this is an example of the difficulty that can be created when science and philosophy are taken to be the same. One of my main interests in philosophy is that it offers a forum for broad discussion of issues, the believer can talk to the atheist, the philistine can talk to the artist, citizen can talk to the foreigner, scientist can discuss humanities and etc. It seems to me that this can happen because philosophy uses a more universal language and vocabulary than the specialized ones of religion, science, art, and political economics. The specific areas also make certain assumptions that philosophy does not. It seems to me that philosophy makes very few if any assumptions. To be more specific, Hubertus says: "But the overall principle of contesting remains..." It seems to me that this is a statement of Darwinist dogma. (Before you Darwinists start throwing stones, bear with me for a moment.) I do not believe in Darwinism. I do not believe that there is any such thing as an overall principle of contesting. To me contesting is just one of the many small realities of my current daily existence. But there is no universal rule that says "contesting is the way it is!" And I do not see how you can have a broad philosophical discussion about issues related to rights and justice using a specialized language and world view from one limited branch of science, in this case Darwinism. Charles FROM: Michael Ward (03/17/03 12:01 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: No big picture Charles and Hubertus, I suspect you know what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway. I perceive philosophy (the love of knowledge) as the root from which all the various disciplines evolved. It is no surprise to me today that people begin to see things less blinkered than yesterday and that similar patterns recur in the various sciences. I started this thread by proposing that Philosophy and Science have similar methodologies - i.e. the goal of asking questions and from the data deducing answers. Darwin or Copernicus it really doesn't matter, both had ideas that pointed in a direction that produced even more knowledge. Likening it to a jigsaw when the pieces fit together they give you a little bit more of the picture, taking the pieces apart because you don't like what you see or it doesn't fit into your beliefs isn't either the philosophical or scientific way forward. That way of conduct is best left to the mystics and spiritualists — and that route looks increasingly more like a dead end. If a concept is to be swept aside it has to be replaced with something that's a better fit than was there before, what's a better fit that evolution of genes and/or memes I ask. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/17/03 5:20 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on philosophy and Darwinism Charles, your statement on philosophys broad and open approach is great! But on Darwinism I am not convinced this moment. Of course I will not throw a stone at you. But I think the concept of "survival of the fittes" is a very general one that explains itself: You prove to be fitter if you survive. But this does not prove that you are "better". Thus after an all out Atomic-war some beacteria and cockroaches may be the only survivals, while this would not prove that Plato or Luther or Einstein or Mozart or Picasso were of less value than a roach. The interesting question is: Without a "higher civilization" there would never have been a Plato or Luther or Einstein or Mozart or Picasso — they are not possible in a "horde" society. The big cities and empires, taken as crucibles, have been essential for creating "advanced" concepts of literature, philosophy, religion, science etc.. Without the mathematics of the 17th century there would have been no Newton and likewise Einstein is unthinkable without the much more advanced mathematics of the 19th century, and quantum-mechanics as a basis of modern electronics used in computers and TV etc. was impossible without mathematics available only from the 20th century. And if you have the better cannons or rockets or airplanes you can subdue the rest of the world. This once more does not prove that every culture on the world is "less good" than that of the USA which are on the technical leading edge, it only proves, that we have no clearcut concept of what "better" means. In a Darwinian sense, the American way — an open, contesting society — simply is more fit to current requirements and by this overcomes all contesting cultures, like the European have overcome all the old cultures of the Orient during "imperialism" in the latter part of 19th century by their more effective weapons. Once more: The principle of "survival of the fittest" only states: "If you are fitter - i.e., better adapted — for survival, then chance is that you will come out ahead of the rest. But let's not ask what 'quality' means!" In this respect the cockroach may be "fitter" for surviving a Third World-War than humanity. I only wanted to understand why a liberal and open society like the "crucible" of the USA could be more "fit" for the modern world and its requirements than the more authoritarian and disciplined societies of Hitlers Germany or Konos Japan or Stalins Communism or Chomeinis Islamism. The USA is — as Ovi rightly said in view of the handling of electricity problems in California — a learning and adapting and flexible society. And exactly by this American scientists and artists assemble the most Nobel and other prices today. They are more open and contesting and inventive than the rest of the world - mostly. Jazz, Blues and Rock have been invented in the USA, while of course the Beatles and the Stones have been invented in GB — but once more in the "crucibles" of Liverpool and London. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/17/03 6:38 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on truth and explanations Mike, "in principle" I would agree, but ... There are two ways to answer questions: By checking the evidence and trying to "falsify" any hypothetical answer to the question in the line of Popper, or by "speculating" and constructing answers from nothing but installing a "holy office" to defend the speculation. You may call the theories of Plato, Aristotle and Thomas "speculative" in this sense, waiting for some Descartes and Kant to demonstrate the speculative nature of those "explanations" and "big pictures". And in this same way astrology had to be replaced by astronomy, alchemy by chemistry, superstition by physics and biology etc.. But all this was not "natural". Neither the priests and theologians nor the common true believers could be interested in replacing the "great" truth of a "big picture" of "Grand Design" by "a merely scientific truth". Why should they? Why should anybody admiring the grandeur of Astrology or Alchemy or Cabbala be interested in studying astronomy or chemistry or mathematics? It's NOT natural. People generally are NOT interested in the truth, they are interested in convincing explanations — and this is a very great difference! The modern "creationists" despise the Darwinian "scientific" explanation of the manyfold of living beings and prefer the Biblical "explanation". In what sense is any "scientific" explanation of history preferable to some "mythical" explanation in the line of Hegel or Marx? The Hegel-Marxian "explanation" of history gives hope and meaning to the true believer, while the "scientific" explanation by Darwinism and systems-theory etc. does not, but represents the world and its history as fundamentally without any meaning. No wonder that many people don't like those "scientific" explanations. Thus in my opinion you mix up two completely different endeavours: The quest for truth "per se" and the quest for explanation "for me". Exactly by showing that there ARE laws of nature Newton startet and encouraged the quest for "objective" knowledge. Once more: There would be no modern science if not Kepler using the data from his teacher Tycho Brahe had proven that the orbit of Mars is elliptical. But Brahe and Kepler only studied this orbit to prove that it was "perfect" in a Platonic sense. Thus their approach was metaphysical, not "scientific". They would have been deeply disturbed if the orbit had turned out irregular. More to the point: The difference of "metatphysical" and "scientific" in the modern sense was nearly not known to them. And for Newton to be successful the most modern mathematics of his time was needed like it later was needed for Einstein. The idea that you only have to pose some good questions and then have a look and get at some good answers is completely outside what actually happens in the history of science. There simply was no "need" to replace Aristotelian speculations by some modern "science", since in its own context Aristotelian "science" WAS a valid science. Those Aristotelians were no stupids, they were very good philosophers. To apply a "scientific" methodology is nothing that comes "natural". When Planck started to study physics, one of the best physicists of his time thought it would become boring, since not much of importance seemed to be left for discovery. Then the whole of atomic and nuclear and solid-state physics started and made the 20th century the "century of physics". It was like Columbus sailing for India and hitting on a new continent. Newton was much of a mystic. He never had in mind such a thing as "modern science". It all was "dumb luck and serendipity". Hubertus FROM: Charles (03/18/03 1:12 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: "Better fit?" Michael said: " what's a better fit that evolution of genes and/or memes I ask. Michael, There may not be a better fit (at least not yet). I would just like the "hard corps" Darwinists to stop acting like the papacy of biological science and admit that they just have a good theory, not dogma. I would find arguments about natural selection a lot more interesting, if its advocates would admit that Darwin's science was influenced in a major way by 19th century economic and social life. I am organizing a task orienteering problem for my son's scout troop this weekend (fauna survey in a canyon). Right up front, I am going to tell the scouts that I do not know very much. But if they bring back an unidentified plant sample or insect in a collection bag/jar, we will "look it up" in the appropriate guidebook. I think questions are good. It is absolute certainty that I have problems with. I think that today evolutionary biology is as dogmatic as the biblical creationists. Both groups should "come clean" and admit how little they know. Maybe that would make both science and religion subjects that young people could get excited about learning and doing. I recently read a paper by computer and AI researcher Amy L. Lansky, Ph.D, entitled "Consciousness as an Active Force." I am still thinking about it, so I won't take a position on it. But one section that interests me is her translation of the Hebrew YHVH to be "I am what I will be" rather than "I am that I am." That reminds me of what I think evolution is about. Not about certainties of method, e.g. natural selection, but more about the potential of uncertainties and change. She concludes by quoting philosopher Rollo May, who she says identifies consciousness with love: "For in every act of love and will -- and in the long run they are both present in each genuine act -- we mold ourselves and our world simultaneously." (http://www.renresearch.com) FROM: Charles (03/18/03 1:47 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Limits to questions? Hubertus said: "There are two ways to answer questions ..." Why only two ways? My compass has 4 primary directions, with 360 degrees that can be "infinitely reduced to more." How about other dimensions? Shouldn't we distinguish between the applied arts like economics, engineering, and urban planning and the way of never ending questions, philosophy? Maybe in a time of war and its seeming limitations by necessity, we should be more appreciative of philosophy and its questions. Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/18/03 5:30 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: of many ways of asking questions Charles, we are all bears of little brains like Pooh, so we tend to get this complicated world down to simple alternative: God and the devil, Democrats vs. Republicans, pro-Bush and anti-Bush, pro-choice vs. pro-life etc.etc.. All these dichotomies above — and many more not mentioned this time — are grandiose oversimplifications of course. But once more: We all are of little brains like Pooh. There may be those 360 Grades on you compass, not to count the minutes and seconds of each grade, but in practice there are mostly 4 directions to decide: left-right and forwards-backwards. And along this a note on what you just posted on Darwinism: Modern concepts of Darwinism are not naive. they are much elaborated, they are not linear in any way. Darwinism is not on "progress", its on "natural selection". There are many "living fossils" that have survived since no one else was coming up with a better idea or fighting their ecological niche. As long as you don't get in the way of the Mafia or of some car or hungry cougar, you will have a peaceful life. Where there is no contest, there is no selection either. In the realm of "memes" this even explains why astrology survived astronomy: They solve different problems, they are not contesting for the same audience or for the same problems. Likewise alchemy and chemistry or cabbala and math or prayer and maditation or Christian work in spiritual welfare vs. atheist psycho-analysis or behaviorism. They all serve different needs. Hubertus FROM: Charles (03/18/03 8:52 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Experience Hubertus, To put alchemy and chemistry, prayer and analysis, and etc. together is a fundamental error. It confuses the issues. It makes one practice appear reasonable and another as counter cultural wierdness. Give me (us) a break! No one is advocating alchemy here. Why not go with experience and what works? Just don't make arbitrary assuptions about what hypotheses are allowed. Charles FROM: Charles (03/18/03 9:46 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Natural selection Hubertus, I think natural selection = survival of the fit only because of the current authoritarian paradigm in science. (Which I think is related to the continuing influence of 19th century industrial and imperialistic life on Darwinism.) How about the possibility that evolution was about design, not necessarily creationism, possibly a self organized communitarian tendency. For a social definition of communitarian see > http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/about.html <. Note- the fact that my sister's orchardist friend shot a cougar lurking around a school bus stop a couple of weeks ago says more about the environment being out of balance than survival of the fit. Charles Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/18/03 3:03 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being out of balance Charles, I never meant to hurt you by putting alchemy against chemistry. It was just for illustration. The realm of religion is another one than that of science or the arts — so they seldom interfere. The dragonflies are living fossils, much older than the cougars, but they don't interfere. It was a long way till you could place Lutherans besides Catholics without having them beating and eating each other. This is fighting for the same ecological niche. And I don't see how the cougars going for school-pupils (or for their wastes) are indicating some "out of balance"-state: They simply adapt to new conditions. If you were the cougar you perhaps would prefer a nice human kid to a nice lamb. This is quite natural, since cougars didn't go to the missionary school to learn good behaviour. I once read that the big cities now become the refuge for strange species of plants and animals, since in the city the find better conditions for survival. Hubertus FROM: Charles (03/19/03 11:03 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Philosophy and environment Your comment about cougars did not hurt my feelings Hubertus! I only mentioned them again, because you had in a recent posting. But your posting reminds me that there are probably very different philosophical attitudes toward the environment. Maybe this is something the conference would want to discuss after the war situation in Iraq settles down, hopefully as soon and as peacefully as possible. I know my thoughts are preoccupied right now with concern for American/U.K. forces and the Iraqi people. But I will throw in one example now of how my local environment has changed. A nearby, former rural area where as a child I use to go trout fishing on Saturday mornings with my father is now "built up." We then could stand on a small bridge over a stream, toss our fishing lines into the stream, and enjoy a very quiet morning together. Usually no vehicles passed over the bridge while we fished. Now suburban homes have been built all around and a new bigger bridge has been built. What does philosophy have to say about the human relationship with our environment? Charles FROM: Michael Ward (03/19/03 1:19 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Through the looking glass Hubertus, Please excuse my responses in capitals but it was the easiest way to respond to the various parts of your posting. Hubertus wrote — "in principle" I would agree, but ... There are two ways to answer questions: By checking the evidence and trying to "falsify" any hypothetical answer to the question in the line of Popper, or by "speculating" and constructing answers from nothing but installing a "holy office" to defend the speculation. You may call the theories of Plato, Aristotle and Thomas "speculative" in this sense, waiting for some Descartes and Kant to demonstrate the speculative nature of those "explanations" and "big pictures". And in this same way astrology had to be replaced by astronomy, alchemy by chemistry, superstition by physics and biology etc.. But all this was not "natural". WHAT IS NATURAL? IT'S NATURAL TO TELL LIES, IT'S NATURAL TO KILL, IT'S NATURAL NOT TO THINK TO DEEPLY. AN ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF WHAT IS NATURAL HOLDS NO ATTRACTION FOR ME OTHER THAN SIMPLY SAYING THAT'S THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN. Neither the priests and theologians nor the common true believers could be interested in replacing the "great" truth of a "big picture" of "Grand Design" by "a merely scientific truth". Why should they? Why should anybody admiring the grandeur of Astrology or Alchemy or Cabbala be interested in studying astronomy or chemistry or mathematics? It's NOT natural. HOW CAN A RATIONAL DECISION RESULT IN SUCH A CONCLUSION — IT CAN'T SO IT MUST BE IRRATIONAL. MAYBE TELLING OR BELIEVING UNTRUTHS DOESN'T MATTER FOR THE MAJORITY — I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT VIEW AND I SUSPECT YOU DON'T EITHER. People generally are NOT interested in the truth, they are interested in convincing explanations — and this is a very great difference! The modern "creationists" despise the Darwinian "scientific" explanation of the manyfold of living beings and prefer the Biblical "explanation". In what sense is any "scientific" explanation of history preferable to some "mythical" explanation in the line of Hegel or Marx? The Hegel-Marxian "explanation" of history gives hope and meaning to the true believer, while the "scientific" explanation by Darwinism and systems-theory etc. does not, but represents the world and its history as fundamentally without any meaning. No wonder that many people don't like those "scientific" explanations. Thus in my opinion you mix up two completely different endeavours: The quest for truth "per se" and the quest for explanation "for me". NO NO NO — SORRY BUT DECEPTION ESPECIALLY OF ONESELF, AND THAT INCLUDES ME, CANNOT BE BENEFICIAL IN ANYTHING BUT THE SHORT TERM.. WHAT YOU APPEAR TO BE SAYING IS DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS, THAT MAY CAUSE ME TO THINK. WELL I SAY THAT'S TOUGH — THAT'S WHAT SURVIVAL IS ABOUT, DEALING WITH FACTS TO GAIN SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE. Exactly by showing that there ARE laws of nature Newton startet and encouraged the quest for "objective" knowledge. Once more: There would be no modern science if not Kepler using the data from his teacher Tycho Brahe had proven that the orbit of Mars is elliptical. But Brahe and Kepler only studied this orbit to prove that it was "perfect" in a Platonic sense. Thus their approach was metaphysical, not "scientific". They would have been deeply disturbed if the orbit had turned out irregular. More to the point: The difference of "metatphysical" and "scientific" in the modern sense was nearly not known to them. And for Newton to be successful the most modern mathematics of his time was needed like it later was needed for Einstein. The idea that you only have to pose some good questions and then have a look and get at some good answers is completely outside what actually happens in the history of science. There simply was no "need" to replace Aristotelian speculations by some modern "science", since in its own context Aristotelian "science" WAS a valid science. Those Aristotelians were no stupids, they were very good philosophers. INTELLIGENCE IS THE NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S WHETHER YOU ARE PREPARED TO IGNORE DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO YOUR WORLD VIEW, AGAIN MOST PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DO THIS. To apply a "scientific" methodology is nothing that comes "natural". When Planck started to study physics, one of the best physicists of his time thought it would become boring, since not much of importance seemed to be left for discovery. Then the whole of atomic and nuclear and solid-state physics started and made the 20th century the "century of physics". It was like Columbus sailing for India and hitting on a new continent. Newton was much of a mystic. He never had in mind such a thing as "modern science". It all was "dumb luck and serendipity". SO PROBABLY WAS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE! Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/19/03 1:36 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Better fit Charles, You think as I do that that there are no certainties or absolutes neither in intransigent scientists nor dogmatic believers. Unfortunately we part company on giving much credibility to ideas that cannot be substantiated. We should not shackle our children with our conclusions but give them the information (neutrally) to arrive their own conclusions. If we don't we may end up with clones of ourselves. The 'I am what I will be' or the idea of becoming seems to close the door to me having the ability to choose what I want, perhaps it's true, I can't say but I don't much like that idea. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/19/03 2:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the philosophical environmenter Charles, it's the same here. 50 years ago here around was lots of green places and free nature, now its all homes. People got money and decided to leave their flats if they could afford it, an the state supported this by tax-grants to get the construction-industry going etc.etc.. Thus it was all quite natural, like the population-bomb was quite natural that then stressed the environments. Since people have money they set their home into the meadows and woods near to them and then take the plane to fly Scotland or to Canada or Washington to see meadows and woods again. It's all quite natural. I once suggested to build super-towers containing one million people each, half a mile squared, 500 stories, much green inside. The idea was, to protect the envirenment "by the people for the people". If you want to be in the nature again, fishing for trout on a bridge, you simply go down with the elevator. And since there are no homes around then there are no cars either save on some connecting freeways. Technically this would be a solution, but people will prefer to spoil the landscape. It's the way humans are. It's not philosphy but psychology. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/19/03 2:48 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on dumb luck and serendipity Mike, you wrote "so probably was the origin of life (a sort of serendipity)?" Yes, why not! Only be careful: It's not proven up to now, it may be wrong, we don't know. And for the rest: I am often simply referring to make you (and me) think. I am not advocating. But think it over: Little children don't care for science, they ask for explanation. And if you tell them that something is such and such because God has made it so, they are content. Mankind has got along for some 500.000 years without science but explaining everything as needed. Mankind could have continued in this way. You NEED no science, but you need explanations. Of course you will not get at modern physics by this, but who cares. Do we really need cars and planes and TV-sets and Hifi and Foto and Computers and Atomic-Bombs and space-rockets? We so not. We could go along a further 500.000 years without modern physics and being content like little children with religious myths and astrology and alchemy and cabbalah etc.. Science in the modern sense is not needed for survival. But it maybe just fine for self-extinction (as you know, I am the ugly one, grinning nastily). Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/22/03 4:15 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on truth and going along Mike, this below is a fine example of what is "science" as compared to "explanation" about. It's from an interview with American sociologist Ann Swidler (b. ca. 1950) http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2001/QA-_A_conversation_with_ Ann_Swidler.asp / I have interviews where I asked, 'Why do you stay married to the person you're married to?' And the first answer would be, 'Oh, well, because she's the perfect person.' And I would say, 'What if you met somebody more perfect?' And they'd say, 'Oh, well, no, it's not that she's perfect, it's just that if you live with someone a long time�.' And I'd say, 'Does living with someone a long time guarantee happiness?' 'Oh, no, it's not really that,' and they would just change from one reason to another. I'm interested in why these things that seem incompatible to me aren't incompatible for them. I'm not arguing that people just use any old idea that comes along; it's more like they're having a conversation, and are adapting their ideas to the flow of the conversation. And that's a perfectly sensible thing to do. I came to see that culture serves people better when they use it in a flexible way, and when it contains a lot of alternative ways of understanding the world. / Poeple are not really interested in science and "truth". They are interested in getting along in an otherwise disturbing world. They are very pragmatic in this — like children. Most people are very much like children. They don't care too much about truth. They ask for a handy explanation to get along, and that's it. A religion or ideology is simply a conventional scheme whereby everybody understands a bit what is going on. "Truth" is an idal not normally asked for or needed. A bit plausibility suffices most of the time. I will answer you longer reply (with those "shoutings") next time. I understood that it is not meant to be "shoutings", but I suggest to use "dialogue format" instead like in "you" / "me" for interlacing answers: you: xxx me: xxx you: xxx me: xxx Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (03/23/03 9:56 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Asteroids Hubertus, I observe very much to the contrary that children are naturally inquisitive, sure they ask 'why' more than 'how' but with science each answer leads onto the next question. Not so with religion such questions are answered generally as that's the way 'xxx' made it - end of conversation. They are not content they are silenced, taught not to ask silly questions. Mankind has not got along for some 500.000 years without science because mankind has changed — most dramatically in population. So what was convenient for a family unit living in isolation is not sufficient for an urban society. As population has increased you need science otherwise we would be like most of the third world living at subsistence level. Without science what level of nutrition would be available for you, me and the rest of the first world? One final thought just suppose another substantial asteroid was headed our way are you really arguing that Neanderthal man would have an equal survival chance that we have today or in maybe another fifty years? Michael Ward FROM: Michael Ward (03/23/03 10:13 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I thought as a child Hubertus wrote, 'Poeple are not really interested in science and "truth". They are interested in getting along in an otherwise disturbing world. They are very pragmatic in this — like children. Most people are very much like children. They don't care too much about truth. They ask for a handy explanation to get along, and that's it. A religion or ideology is simply a conventional scheme whereby everybody understands a bit what is going on. "Truth" is an idal not normally asked for or needed. A bit plausibility suffices most of the time.' Yes I also observe the same but it isn't true for me, probably you, and certainly many other people. I have no idea just how many would fit into the category you describe above, certainly the majority I would say. If people wish to live the unexamined life then no doubt they will, however I suspect no such decision has ever been made on this matter as it never arose as a question in the first place. What then of equality, is there a ceiling above which some peoples ethical and moral considerations cannot rise, if so what are the consequences. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/25/03 2:57 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on unintended consequences posted on March 25, 2003, 10 pm Mike, sorry, I was much occupied otherwise. Now I will answer your objections. You wrote: "children are naturally inquisitive, sure they ask 'why' more than 'how' but with science each answer leads onto the next question. Not so with religion such questions are answered generally as that's the way 'xxx' made it — end of conversation." And later you write: "As population has increased you need science otherwise we would be like most of the third world living at subsistence level." And then: "One final thought just suppose another substantial asteroid was headed our way are you really arguing that Neanderthal man would have an equal survival chance that we have today or in maybe another fifty years?" All three ideas on how science works start from the same false point of view. Even Columbus did not set out for America, since he did not know that there was such a thing as "America". He set sails for India and nothing else, and by this the native Americans are called Indians, since Columbus thought them to be those. In the same way there never was a thing like "modern industrial state" on the minds of Galilei, Kepler, or Newton. And the Neanderthal man was as innocent on asteroids as those dinos had been before. If he was interested in science at all, this did never concern asteroids but lions and snakes and gathering food and handling fire and building stable shelters etc.. The only "real" science of stone-age-man was — theology and metaphysics! Only theology and metaphysics was really deep thinking on why things are as they are. The mathematical thinking of the Greeks was in part practical — as elsewhere. But the really deep mathematical thinking that was essential as a starting point for Galilei, Kepler, and Newton was "theological mathematics", Orphism and Neo-Platonism. As I said before: To get at his law of gravitation Newton needed the elliptical orbit of Mars, and this orbit — the only one that was proven to be elliptical! — has been studied by Brahe and Kepler on purely theological grounds. There was not the slightest practical justification for this. Of course the navigation of ships needed good clocks and good positions of the sun, the moon, and the brighter stars. But it needed no elliptic orbits of the planets. And even Newton was not interested in applications. Of course children are inquisitive. But there are not many children that try to prove mathematical laws of geometry or numbers. How many kids do you know that show a natural interest in questions like "what is the length of the edge of a cube of double content of a given cube?" (This is known as the "Delic" problem). It does not suffice to be inquisitive, you must have a certain approach, some strange way of thinking. Most questions of the really great scientist are not at all natural, they rather seem strange and unnatural, like Luthers questions for the nature of sin and the grace of God may seem strange and unnatural to you. By the way: That "with religion such questions are answered generally as that's the way 'xxx' made it — end of conversation." is not true either. Theology is as "hard" a science as is physics or mathematics. But it rests an presuppositions and "experiences" that you would not accept as such. The approach of any good Christian theologian is simply: "Suppose the Bible is really Gods word, even in a somewhat spoilt and unclear form — then what would follow from this? If God is really the Lord and creator of this world, we should be interested indeed." And this "end of conversation" does only mean: "Let the answer rest with the wise and knowing ones and let not every dumb rookie have its own opinion on this, since it is really dangerous stuff to be handled with utmost care!" This is quite natural: If you go to the doctor you want to be sure he is competent and no quack. "As population has increased you need science otherwise we would be like most of the third world living at subsistence level." That too is seen from the false direction: Stone-Age-man — Aborigines or Bushmen etc. today — was as fertile as modern man. But he has learned to abort or avoid children or let them die. By this he prevents overpopulation and does not live at subsistence level. Why do lions and rhinos don't live on subsistence-level? Because by fighting it out and by all sorts of death the population is kept sufficiently small. Stone-age-man lived according to the same principles. By this simple argument to prevent living at subsistence level needs no science. It's true the other way round: People live at subsistence level because of improving the life expectancy of babies by modern nutrition and medicine. But when those kids get teenies, they need to eat much more, and then you have a famine and a struggle for food and "overpopulation". In your former posting you wrote: ".. is there a ceiling above which some peoples ethical and moral considerations cannot rise, (and) if so what are the consequences?" This is a very problematic question today: People are not stupids, but humans a made for live in "hordes" in natural environments. They are not made for reflecting complicated interconnections, they are not made for "systems thinking". Just like overpopulation is the unintended result of many good intentions, so are all the ensuing problems of crime and war and "greenhouse effect" and water scarcity etc.etc.. Most of modern problems would not even be understandable without modern computers that make global and long-distance trends visual and that allow for changing and testing the important parameters and interdependencies. To know what is or will be happening you need not only the brightest people, you need a special combination of experience and systems thinking and team-work. Thus leading persons like the Pope or Kofi Annan or the US-President get briefed every day by specialists with access to the leading people of many "think tanks" and organizations etc.. And even then they may be mislead to false conclusions. But there have been errors before and even Napoleon got ulcers in his tent before any large battle as long as he had no good information on where the enemy stood. Only then could he put his genius to work. This is the problem of the Bush administration this moment: They don't know really what they will be up to in Iraq now and in some weeks and monthes to come. If this is so in relatively minor contexts, it is much more troublemsome when applied to the global situation and to the future of mankind of course. Thus it is not so much a "ceiling above which some peoples ethical and moral considerations cannot rise" but it is simply lack of knowledge and experience. We are not used to this. We are used to "common" problems and to "common" solutions. But if tomorrow somebody offers a provably sound and sure method of cloning, of selecting by PID or of enabling a vital life of 500 years as normal: How would you decide what to do? You never have been confronted to this. It's not a common offer so you cannot come along with a common solution. You cannot simply turn away like Einstein could not when confronted to the possibiliy to build the Atomic bomb. He was not eager to do this, but he knew that German physicists under Hitler could be able to do it, and so he decided to let the US get at it before. This in some way was "preventive". So it's not on "a level above which some peoples ethical and moral considerations cannot rise" — even Einsteins' could not. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (03/26/03 5:14 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I disagree Hubertus Do you not see a difference between how science started and how science operates? It seems immaterial what the individuals goals were when they embarked upon their journey to India or planetary orbit calculations what happened along that journey is science. It was the ability to rewrite the starting conditions — something you don't find in theology, and thus it is an entirely different approach. I classify Theology with Astrology I cannot disprove either but I can see that neither have little empirical evidence to substantiate them — of course I'm willing to review any such claims provided we can agree what constitutes evidence. I'm not convinced by your reasoning over the population versus starvation hypothesis you make. Surely any population expands to the limits of its habitable environment over time and then a temporary state of equilibrium is reached. Along comes a change in the environment and then either its growth, death or evolution. What is unique for modern humans is the ability to modify and create their own environment giving them the ability to refuse to accept death through starvation for the firm time on this planet. Knowledge gained through science permits this next evolutionary step. Whilst I may wish it otherwise I hold to a view that there is a practical ceiling above which many people will not and probably cannot nor even see the need to rise above. You say people are not stupid but "stupid is as stupid does". There is some honesty in ideas like Platos Republic and Brave New World that have some merit. Whether it's the Coliseum, drug culture or religion they all fulfil a need in people that might not be there if they chose the examined life. On the other hand if they don't have a choice then I have made my point — they are what they are. Michael Ward p.s. I am going away for a few days — normal service will be resumed as soon as possible! FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/26/03 6:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on science and limits to it Mike, as for science: Today everybody knows how it works, we are no Neanderthals anymore. I only opposed your notion that to be interested brings results. It does not. You have to be intersted in those questions that lead to results — as f.i. asking for the rationality of the SQRT(2) or for Gods idea of planetary orbits. The astrologers are interested too, but (in my opinion) in the false questions. As for the theologians I they are asking the false questions on a God that may not exist, but by this they are thinking about what humans should be like, and that I find worthwile. While they think they do theo-logy, they in fact may be doing anthropology — and by this find out something. On this "level of stupidity": It's a similar problem. What I was saying was: People are not stupid, they are overwhelmed by the problems, as even Einstein was. They have not the time nor the power to keep informed and thinking it all over. For every expert you have some counter-expert, and if you call somebody brilliant because he has convinced you, you may be laughed at and be called a stupid. Only look at how today the pro-war and anti-war factions are condemning each other as stupids. I got me well informed on the pros and cons of this, but I too cannot prove anything and I surely will not convince anybody. Thats the lot of humankind. It's not like the Aborigines where the older people know best how to catch kangaroos. The war in Iraq is not a simple "how to do"-question. It's much more complicated. While of course even politics is some sort of engineering, it's not nearly as clean and precise as "engineers engineering", where you have some formulas and some understanding and some tables with data. If your problems are neither "well known" nor "well defined" you may be out for surprise and trouble. That was my point. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (03/08/03 9:11 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: John Main Seminar 2003 Some of you are much closer to Reading, England than I am and may want to attend. Now Online: John Main Seminar 2003 — Online Information & Registration Form: http://www.wccm.org/BedeGriffiths.html REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 8:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on truly spiritual people Charles, after clicking your indicated link and seeing what the John Main seminar is about, let me say that I very much esteem all people of real wisdom and love and understanding - including Griffith and Damien and Schweitzer and Buber and many others. I am not nearly as positivist as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Freud tried to be. But I defend them since they tried to be honest. If you cannot see God, than you should not pretend to see him either. Thus Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud were courageous in a time of widespread hypocrisy as was Kierkegaard. And for this honesty they were justly praised. This was the best of 19th century: "Stop lying and pretending, stop clinging to a lost world that cannot be ours anymore. Be honest to what you see and feel and can defend!" By this argument Nietzsche opposed Wagner: "What have those old German heroes and gods to do with our modern times? Wagner operas are not showing the truth of modern man, they are mere entertaining musicals for reactionaries — and should be labeled as such!" As I said, I had my personal spiritual experiences and experiences with really pious and honest believers from all confessions too, and this made me very cautious on these topics and I will never be in the camp of the "secular humanists" by this. But those do have a point against all sorts of superstition and wishful thinking. I am not defending "Grand Design", but I am defending "spiritual experiences". There are truly great men and women full of true spiritual force of love, and I never will argue against evidence. That would be dogmatism and is just as bad as hypocrisy. Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/08/03 11:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on Nietzsche and Wagner Hubertus, I read that Nietzsche and Wagner were best of friends at one time. Then it went sour. Was it strictly ideological or were there some personal tensions? Or both? Take care, Hubertus. Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/09/03 6:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Nietzsche and Wagner Dear Ovi, Nietzsches first major work was on the Greek Tragedy and the "Dionysian" element of passion as compared to the "Apollonian" clear thinking of "classicism". By this Nietzsche and Wagner thought to be on the same line and got befriended very much — as you said. But Nietzsche was an admirer of Schopenhauer and a sceptic. Nietzsches whole philosophy can be understood as a Schopenhauerian attempt to replace hypocrisy and false dreams - Christian and otherwise — by accepting the truth of hidden and suppressed passions. In this he was a forerunner of Freud. Greek tragedy is about incest and sexual passion and murder like the tragedies of Shakespeare and is not at all "entertainment". But while Nietzsche stayed true to himself his charge against Wagner was that he was a liar and offered pseudo-tragdies to an audience that needed those pseudo-tragedies for entertainment like some horror-movie today, say "Godzilla" or "Independence Day" or "Armageddon". Thus Nietzsche and Wagner got estranged more and more. Nietzsche saw Bizets "Carmen" twenty times! This in his opinion was a true tragedy, this was honest, this was about human passions and not a lie. And Nietzsche compared Wagner to Bach an said that there was nothing "deep" in Wagner but all was "effect". In Nietzsches later opinion Wagner was a great show-master, not a true artist. He played on the false feelings of his audience like a virtuoso on his fiddle, but he was never honest to his audience, he had nothing of importance to say, his heart was never bleeding nor jumping with joy — while Nietzsches heart was. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (03/08/03 10:08 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: re spirits Hubertus said: "And on the Bacardi thing..." It may have changed, but during a free afternoon at a conference in San Juan, two friends and I spent a very pleasant afternoon courtesy of the Bacardi Co. learning about and enjoying their product. More seriously, if you are interested in the history of the "New World," old San Juan is a wonderful place to visit. Charles REPLIES (1): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/08/03 7:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the Bacardi world Charles, thank you for the hint, I really would like to make use of it a soon as possible. I'd like it. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Ralph (03/08/03 10:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: J.S. Mill... help Can anyone recommend literature about J.S. Mill? He was my all time favorite philosopher. Thanks REPLIES (5): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/09/03 8:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: some links to Mill Ralph, I don't know if this helps: http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Philosophers.aspx?PhilCode=Mill And try Amazon: To most books there are readers reviews where much is to be learned on the books offered. After this you may answer if these suggestions were of any help. And then: What do you like about JS Mill? Whom else do you like of philosophers? Why? Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 6:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Abe Books If all else fails try AbeBooks for out-of-print, rare or hand to find titles. Take care, Ovi FROM: Ralph (03/13/03 9:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Thank you Thank you Hubertus and Ovi Those web pages were excellent!! I like J.S. Mill for several reasons. He existed in a time when philosphical issues had great social impact. I seem to find clarfication of thinking when I read him. "On Liberty" discusses the role of authority concerning minorities. I'm looking now to read his system of logic. He was an empiricist believing in free will who wanted to be an idealist. I used to enjoy H.L. Mencken for fun...now I just linger in the Sci-fi cinema at my leasure. Thanks for asking! Back to you Hubertus, Do you have a favorite? Tell me your thoughts... FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/15/03 6:26 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: why philosophy? Ralph, since I am no philosopher by profession, my approach to philosophical problems is not by philosophy proper. I never read any philosophers' works "in depth" and I have no special preferences or "favourites". I see the history of philosophy like I see the history of art: There are many great works in any epoch, and I see the different styles of epochs and artists, from Giotto to Leonardo and Duerer and Raffael over Rembrandt and El Greco to Monet and Matisse and Picasso and countless others. And I see the difference between Leonardo (1452-1519) and Bosch (ca. 1450-1516) who were contemporaries. And in all those comparisons I ask: "What has been new, what did they see, what are they telling us?" Likewise in philosophy. My approach is a practical one: Philosophy is one of several human approaches to reality besides religion, science, and the arts, and besides history, sociology, ethnology, psychology, ethology and some others. The value of philosophy seems to be that it makes us aware of different ways of putting questions to the world and giving meaning and pattern to mere "facts". There are no "natural" problems — save the physical and physiological ones. The existence of God or his mercy or of sin and forgivenness or "the meaning of history" or that of freedom are no "natural" problems, like in art "perspective" or "similarity" are no natural problems. Those are problems that come up and have their time and vanish again. Because of this I always urge people to ask the meta-questions: "Why did people get interested in this problem which has been without interest for centuries or millenia, and why did this interest vanish again?" And there are no natural answers either. F.i. the "positivist" approach of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche in the 19th century was not different from the pragmatist approach of Peirce and James and Dewey in the USA or from that of utilitarianism in GB — Bentham, the Mills, and others. The common trait of all these approaches was "anti-metaphysical": Ignore all "Grand Designs" of "cosmos" or "God" or "history" and stick to the factual, to the practical, to man as a problem-solving animal. But this was not the only approach of philosophers during the 19th century. There still were idealism and (Neo-)Thomism and several others. But positivism and "life-philosophy" (= "Lebens-philosophie", which is NOT "philosophy of life") and pragmatism were the significant "philosophical species" of those times. And I entered philosophy from this side: I always saw "the problem solving animal" and started from history, sociology, ethnology, psychology, ethology etc. to understand the meaning of human actions — and only then looked up philosophy and theology on their approaches. By this I tried to fell victim to "formalism". An example of this would be Platos "Republic", which I called "a brilliant nonsense". Why? Becaus as a study of our concepts of justice it is brilliant, but as a design for a real state to live in it is nonsense. And this difference of analytical and practical approaches is important. To study philosophy and theology is important too, since it keeps you aware of different ways of seeing and approaching the world. Once more: There are no "natural" problems. And this even justifies theology: There are aspects of our "being in the world" that only Christendom or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism bring out. No science and no socialism or liberalism will do. It's not that you have to sign any of those religious or antireligious creeds, you only have to see the human condition in their light to know something more on the human condition. To ignore philosophy or theology and keep to "science" is in my opinion "naivety of the bad sort", ignoring information that is available. It's similar to approaching the history of art with preconceptions on what art is, instead of simply asking what people of all times and eras have taken it to be. By this you perhaps would (dis)miss Medieval art or "primitive" art or "modern" art as "not worthwile" — which would be stupid and ignorant, since all three "directions" have brought forth works of the greatest significance. Thus always try as many approaches to reality as are available and only then try to make up your personal opinion — and perhaps show us a new approach never tried before. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/15/03 6:32 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: minor correction of course it should read: By this I tried NOT to fell victim to "formalism". ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/09/03 5:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on distributive justice Dear all, the paper of Professor Wolff in the Pathways nr. 53 of today and the reply of Tony Flood was fascinating stuff — at least for me. So I commented on it — see below. Perhaps you have some further thoughts on this. Hubertus —-------------------------------------------- Notes on the Jonathan Wolff paper 'Four Forms of Redistribution' and on the comments on this by Tony Flood. cf. Pathways News nr. 53, as of 9th March 2003 The most important aspect of the paper is Prof.Wolffs attention to the psychosocial aspects of redistribution. There are donors and acceptors of -goods', where these goods may be money or favours or concessions that have not been open before to the —disadvantaged'. This even starts with the question, who defines -disadvantage'. Prof.Wolff notes a shift from a -medical' to a -social' concept of (bodily) disadvantage: It may be less degrading for a paralyzed person to be treated as -different' than to be treated as —deficient'. The mere notion of such a difference in evaluation includes a shift in the concept of -normalcy' which Prof.Wolff is well aware of. To treat the paralyzed as only different avoids some sort of -labeling' him/her as -inferior by deficiency' while it cannot be completely honest: Most people that are handicapped really feel so and they feel the hidden lie in the notion that they are -merely different'. This is proven by the simple fact that if you have Parkinsons Disease or bad ears or are short-sighted etc. you nearly in any case would accept a device or treatment to get things -corrected' and become -fully enabled'. But the notion of being -fully enabled' is meaningless without the corresponding notion of being -NOT fully enabled' or in some way -disabled'. Thus in my opinion (I am in part -disabled' or handicapped by bad ears) to replace the notion of —being disabled' by the notion of -being different' is evading the facts and by this is not honest. The notions of being -disabled' or handicapped appeal to charity. In times when youthful vigour and achieving is in high esteem, to be dependent in any form on charity is felt by some as degrading. In a more decent society it is not. In this context even the critique of Tony Flood is to be seen: He notes that those who — in any form — are held accountable for -corrective justice' as donors of money or favours or concessions are not at all asked by Prof.Wolff if they find this justified. They may claim that they personally are not responsible for the bad fate of others and thus are deprived of a part of their own options without asked for consent. They claim -exclusive moral ownership of resources' in the words of Tony Flood, and he further comments: -There is a passing reference to "public action" that allegedly "rectifies" someone's "disadvantage" that no one knowingly imposed. Does "public action" itself involve the imposition of foregone opportunities on innocent parties? We are not told. Professor Wolff is concerned only with how "we" ought to frame our offer of forcibly expropriated resources lest we add insult to an injury we did not in any case inflict.' And he later says explicitely: — .. while I would not force Professor Wolff to pay any costs associated with improving that (sc. disadvantaged) individual's lot, I am not sure he would grant me the same freedom.' and -Professor Wolff seems to presuppose that, generally speaking, all persons with needs have enforceable claims on all persons who are capable of meeting them.' This amounts to the difference of the principle of -mutual assurance' and -social aid': While in mutual assurance my premium is given by my own decision, in social aid it is not, and this is not changed by the fact that social aid is paid from taxes, since the state is obliged to minimal and justified taxation in the common interest. But a decent society will not afford masses of misers around. And this concept of —decency' is NOT included in our concept of (formal) justice. Thus from a formal concept of social justice Mr.Floods critique is completely justified, while from a -social' point it is not. Or put otherwise: The -social' claim cannot be reduced to a formal claim. But humans ARE social beings. You cannot deny the baby the mothers breast by the argument that the baby is not -entitled' to get nourished. This shows the failure of the concept of entitlement to understand what society means. Any decent human society depends on mutual loyalty and solidarity and love and honesty and understanding. But we are never —entitled' to anything of this, because the mere concept of -entitlement' is not applicable here. Entitlement is a juridical concept derived from mutual consent of contracting parties. This is completely different from -social relations'. Thus the critique of Mr.Flood derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of this difference between -contractual' and -social' relations. These preliminary notions show that it is impossible to separate a purely formal concept of social justice from all notions of social decency and moral obligation and mutual respect and responsibility. Thus Kains' question -Am I my brothers keeper?' cannot be avoided. The mere concept of justice is always to be defined in the context of human relations and cannot be treated on a mere formal basis. This makes the difference of a society of humans and a society of robots. In the case of robots you may define -justice' as a purely formal concept — if at all. Or put otherwise: When speaking of social justice we always should take both words — -social' and -justice' — as being of equal importance, the -social' being at least as essential as the -justice'. In the family or in the -extended family' or clan of premodern times this inclusion of the social in any notion of justice was never questioned. Even today when we say -we are all a great family' we by this mean that -we will not count', but we will share —brotherly'. The -abstract' notion of justice is part of the modern liberal and individualistic view of society. This in part explains the appeal of socialism and the resistance against -modernity' in many people. Pre-modern societies are build from —clans' and -tribes' and -extended families' and -households' — and not from individuals. Thus -formal' justice is by itself not a very good concept to understand what people are talking of if they talk of -social justice'. Mr.Flood argues: -I will not insult the reader by spelling out why the State is not like a family or a club, but I wonder whether some such notion underlies the rationale for "redistribution".' But this does not invalidate my own argument. Since the modern state has dissolved most of the former -associations of solidarity' — those -clans' and —tribes' and -extended families' and -households' mentioned above — he had to provide some substitute. Of course even today there are -communities' and -neighborships' and —networks' for mutual support, but not everybody is a member of such -connections of solidarity', and by this the modern state is in fact a successor of those. Mr.Flood says: -"Redistribution" is a political notion.' No, it is not. It is a social notion. And by this difference the whole edifice of liberalisms is unsound. During the evolution of modern liberalism from Locke and Smith and Kant and the Mills down to Mises and Hayek the idea of human solidarity evaporated and got replaced by -entitlements'. To prove this point one only needs to see a very simple argument: There is no provable —need' of the poor or disadvantaged. Why not let them rot and die? From a liberal point of view there is nothing to be said against this! There is no such thing as -entitlement to life' — much less so to an entitlement to a decent life. But Adam Smith was a professor not of economy but of moral sciences, and likewise was the concern of Kant a moral one. They never thought of the inherent deficiencies of liberalism because they held the notions of decency and solidarity for given — as did Aristotle and Thomas before. But in a consistent theory of liberalism this problem has to be debated in the light of Amartya Sens concept of -property rights' — which is a bit nearer to reality than the concept of Mises and Hayek. Lest I be misunderstood to be a -socialist and redistributer': I am not. I clearly understand the liberal idea of -self realization' in the Lockean tradition up to Ayn Rand. But I likewise do well understand what Marx had in mind when he tried to find a modern substitute of the former -connections of solidarity' that pervaded the old standish order and the churches. The idea of liberalism has been, that those connections, insted of being defined by tradition, should be defined by compact and mutual interest of its members. But this left as unsolved the problem of the fate of all those people that are NOT members of such a compact and that need the state for defending their objective interests in face of organized powers. Thus, while the concept of liberalism is a great one and I can subscribe to it, it has severe faults by misunderstanding the nature of human society. / REPLIES (8): FROM: Rachel Browne (03/10/03 2:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well, yes Hubertus, You think rights and entitlements are false or political concepts rather than humanly defined? I so agree. But human solidarity includes the disabled since human disabled are human, so how does human solidarity give rise to all sorts of false ways of dealing with things, such as entitlements? Just back from South Africa. It was a wonderful place in terms of beauty and weather, and I'd like to be there still, but it was disturbing ethically. We got to know someone who runs a school for children from a squatter camp (worse than a township) and these children love school and hate Fridays because they won't go to school. They lose weight in the holidays. But the chap who runs this school is teaching the children to give thanks for their food and fortune and believes the children can teach this to their parents who will then also be able to give thanks. But — the parents!- thanks for what when you are in a rich country and yet so poor? There were other ethically disturbing things. But in such a beautiful place! Kind of points to a difference between ethics and aesthetics. And a major gulf between that and justice. Here is an example of no distributive justice. Why? What do you think of this Hubertus? But I have loads of messages to wade through, R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/10/03 8:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on humanity and entitlements Rachel, thanks for your answer. Of course property rights should be. If anybody could steal what belongs to you because "property is stolen anyway" this would not please you and we would be back to barter and worse. So this was not my point. My point was to defend a bit the position of Prof. Wolff against that of Tony Flood, while I concede that Porf.Wolffs position is problematical too. Flood is asking by what argument the haves are obliged to help the have-nots, by what argument the have-nots are entitled to this help. And I tried to show that he — Tony — mixes up two completely different concepts: If we speak of "entitlements" we are in the juridical realm where contractualism is valid. But if we speak of mutual help and understanding and humand solidarity and decency, we are NOT in the juridical but in the social realm. The baby has never signed a contract with the mother to have milk and be nourished. And in a similar way those poor in the squatter camp of Cape-Town have never signed a contract with the wealthy to agree to their situation. Thus when the liberals ask for "entitlements" in such a situation they are not honest but steal away from their human obligations by a formal argument. That was my point. And from this have a larger view: Locke and Smith and Kant and the Mills all defended "liberalism" as compared to the former notion of a well ordered standish society. Liberalism means that free people make free choices and sign free compacts and contracts by mutual consent. What Marx objected to this was the lack of any notion of power in this. He said — and rightly so — that to call the contract of the entrepreneur and the worker a "free" and symmetric one between two free contractors is in most cases a cynical farce. If you have the choice between signing an unfavourable contract and starvation you will sign. And this was in the time when Marx applied it to the "boss — worker"-relation the situation in international relations too: The Indian Rajas and the Chinese Emperor and the Japanese Shogoon and many other regimes were forced by the European powers to sign unfavourable contracts "by free consent". This too of course was a cynical farce. But liberalism tries to avoid this problem by sticking to formalism and ignoring the concept of power and a-symmetrical situations. Liberal book don't contain a chapter on blackmailing and corruption — but they should. No wonder that for normal people the difference between a "normal" business boss and a mafia boss is not that big: Mafia is only some sort of business then. Of course demolition and blackmailing and torts are forbidden by law, and by this the mafia-sort of business is not exactly legal. But this should not blind us for those cases as in your South-African example, where people are lost in a completely legal way. But liberalists try to blind themselves and others to this fact. In this sense liberalism contains a strong element of hypocrisy, and by this argument I stated (even on the old conference) that the problem of the poor and the weak and the elderly etc. is always, that they are not needed, that they have nothing to offer for a liberal contractor. They are not entitled to anything, and by liberal standards there simply is no argument why they should not rot and die. In the liberal world picture something like a person that has nothing to offer simply does not exist. It's like the unicorn or the dragon in the zoology textbook. Textbooks an theories should be true to reality — not the other way round. This was my point. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/10/03 8:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: an addendum on redistribution Dear all, after re-reading my answer to Rachel I found some way out to define the role of the redistributing state in this model: Since the state is representing the whole not only of the electorate but of all citizens, he is "entitled" to look after the interests of the poor and disabled since these are citizens too. Thus the state is not only entitled but even obliged to defend the interests of its weakest members if they are not otherwise organized in organizations of mutuality like some union. Things may be a bit more complicated, but this seems a first model from which to start. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (03/11/03 1:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well, Hubertus, as you know I don't like to think about politics. Only within the realm of politics and notions of rights and entitlements do you need to think of justification. In the social realm in which we are simply human, we just act and can be charitable and this doesn't sit upon justification. Politics, and the arrangements that must be made by means of policies, of course has troubles with the poor, weak and elderly because "they are not needed" which is why the social realm is so important. And should be more so. But then I meet poor pensioners with their dogs in the park and they tell me their troubles and I want to say, well I'll give you the money, but there is a matter of pride — or so I'm told. Pride comes up in relation to the state too, not just other individuals — or so I found in South Africa. One person we met who was moved out of his housing because he was coloured refused to accept compensation from the government now because they were going to give him the price of his house years ago rather than what it would be worth now. He'd rather take nothing. Doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way some people are. Redistribution needs to take into account the problems of the nature of the individual - it needs to be fair and treat individuals with proper respect. The state is only "entitled" to look after individuals in the way those individuals want to be looked after. Otherwise it is a corrupt dictatorship. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/11/03 3:50 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on pride and entitlement Rachel, you are completely right, but this was just what I am asking for: How to combine the social aspects ("pride") and the political ones ("entitlements"). This seems to me the core of the problem misunderstood by the liberals and socialists likewise. Idealiter we should not need the welfare-state since people would help each other. And in the times of extended families and clanships etc. they did so. But since the modern state has dissolved most of those older "connections of mutuality and solidarity" there had to be new ones. Some are of the form of "unions" and associations, some are of the form of insurance (life + fire + social etc.), and some are lacking. And the poor are members of "mutual non-insurance and non-association" so to say, they have no lobby, they have nothing to offer, they have nothing to pay. They are lost in the theoretical void between totalitarian designs of Marxism and "ignorant" designs of liberalism. I am personally a libertarian, but I see the problem that has to be solved: Either you let the poor rot and die, or you invent a scheme of how to support them, but the libertarians try to simply go away, and that I think is not honest. Tony only said that he is not obliged to help the poor since he is not to blame for their sad fate. But by this typical answer — which is formally correct of course — he evades the whole problem. And this I think is typical for the libertarian approach. But if you won't let the poor rot and die, somebody HAS to help them out and support them. Thus tell me who this "somebody" should be if not the state. To this Tony gives no answer. He says in fact: "Whoever this somebody may be, it's not me!" For the poor and excluded (the French "exclu") this is no theoretical question. There should come up some answers. Hubertus FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 8:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: redistribution social and economic Hubertus, Your redistribution position sounds closer to that of John Rawl's original position in 'A Theory Of Justice', where the hypothetical social contract in term of (social) justice requires both, a basic framework of liberties and concern for the least well-off. What's interesting is that Libertarians stand at this opposite extreme and do not view Rawl's theory in such good light. Rawl's equalitarian view of justice and redistribution is forward-looking originating from a hypothetical position. The Libertarian response, started with Nozick's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia,' is the opposite: backward-looking from what it is/what we have now. Ought to is and is to ought. Should we be impartial socially and economically, or should we be self-interested? This is a problem that perhaps will hunt us for time to come but worth talking and debating about it. I'd say that the social and political aspects are already combined. So combined in fact, that they've always been blurry. In my view, the problem is that they are not properly understood and practically applied in the best interest of all. 'Man is a political animal' after all. The libertarians seem to 'simply go away' and that social inequality is not their problem. But I think their position is that liberals proved that such redistribution does not work. Social programs became very expensive, fraudulent and often ineffective operations. And the libertarian 'repayment formulas' counter for the economic aspect but not the social one. What do you think? Take care, Ovi FROM: Ovi G (03/11/03 8:09 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: pride Hello Rachel, Maybe the colored man refused compensation because it was unfair, and obviously so in his case. Pride played a role, maybe because he did not want to accept an unfair and unjust deal. In other words, his pride was not for sale. He'd rather take nothing because fairness and justice to him may have been more valuable than money. And that is just an amazing example, coming from a very poor South Africa. I agree that 'redistribution needs to take into account the problems of the nature of the individual — it needs to be fair and treat individual with proper respect.' And I think, Hubertus is on the same page with this. Take care, Ovi FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/12/03 5:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on social justice and programs Dear Ovi, thank you for entering this important topic. Prof.Wolff once wrote a rejection of Nozick, but I did not read it. Nozick himself later distanced himself silently from his position in "Anarchy". Rawls changed his own "original" position in his later work on liberty. But your argument that Nozick looks back and Rawls looks ahead is important and to the point. And this indeed is conservative against progressive: Conservatives claim "entitlements" from olden times, while progressives claim chances to be realized in the future. In this sense the progressives are the entrepreneurs, the business people, seeking their chance, and not the people insisting on properties inherited from ancestors. This is the difference between "Whigs" and "Tories" and between modern and pre-modern ways. But the pre-modern world was a world where everybody had his proper place — including the poor, the minorities, the women, even witches and bitches. In the modern world, since all is open for anybody to get at it, nobody knows his real place, but it is one great rush forward and the weaker ones are left behind. This is liberalism. And this idea destroys the idea of solidarity. In the old order solidarity was natural, it was not even felt as such, it simply was the order that was to be obeyed since God and the Fathers and Nature had established it. In the modern world nothing is taken for granted, nobody has established anything save those in power to do so. Thus from at least Marx the only possible way to get at "social justice" is to establish counter-powers: Womens-lib, Gays-lib, Civil Rights Movement, March on Washington, Black Power etc.. Since there are no "natural" rights left without a "natural" order, you have to fight for what you want to get at. From a social — not only socialist — point of view, this is an un-natural situation, since it ignores the fact that humans are social animals like the big apes and like all "primitive" societies of the ethnologists realm of study. You wrote "..that the social and political aspects are already combined. So combined in fact, that they've always been blurry. In my view, the problem is that they are not properly understood and practically applied in the best interest of all. 'Man is a political animal' after all." I would say: "'Man is a social animal' after all." The political is of a technical sphere, but the social is of a social sphere, it's on togetherness in a group. Imagine some village of "primitives". Those are usually less than 100 people. Those people are acquainted from childhood and know each other personally. Nobody there is "anonymous". This is really a sort of extended family. Nobody ever gets lost there like in modern large cities. And this in my opinion is the big fault of liberalism: He has no idea of what it means to be social. He sees only individuals that are signing compacts and contracts, but there are no "members of society". Society has "evaporated" into atoms - small families and singles and "contractors". Of course the atoms may recombine. But by this you will have fanatics, true believers following some symbol and some leader. The uprooted will cling to a group where they can find a new solidarity. Formally this is not against liberalism, it's the guaranteed right to peacefully assemble (cf. 1st amendment to US constitution). But practically this includes assemblies of fanatics. Since this is social psychology, it is not part of the liberal theory. But any realistic political theory should take this into account: It explains much of National Socialism and Stalinism and Maoism and Islamism by the notion of "fear of freedom" (Erich Fromm wrote his famous book of this title in 1941). Thus the liberal theory is unable to understand essential parts of liberal practice. Liberalism by this is a sort of formalism, ignorant of the social as such. You wrote: "liberals proved that ... redistribution does not work. Social programs became very expensive, fraudulent and often ineffective operations." Yes, indeed, I clearly see this. But this is not the case in the extended family or in the old "house", the common farm. There everybody is member of a community and cannot go unnoticed. Thus the point is that the liberal state, while freeing the productivity potential of its members generally, at the same time diminishes their social responsibility. If you see a chance, you go for it, but if you see none, you drop out. This is a situation unknown to premodern societies. And this applies to the jobless too: There are many in California today, and most of them feel deceived. In premodern societies — like in socialist ones — there is no joblessness, because everybody is part of a society and not only of a workforce. Or, to put it bluntly and into the right context: "Socialism taken as a social program has turned out very expensive, fraudulent and often ineffective". Even with all its social programs paid the liberal USA are much more productive and wealthy than any socialist state has ever been. The socialist model of the state is one great failing social program. All the best from Hubertus. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Rachel Browne (03/13/03 1:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Politics At last I have read Pathways and the Wolff stuff. What came to mind is that why I hate politics is . . again, actually, policies. People can enjoy struggle to an extent. Possibly not when there is starvation and homelessness, but a struggle to earn a living and time spent being poor is part of the human condition. In England, my sister and her child would be classified "poor", but she enjoys her fight and struggle to successfully get by (but I suppose she is not without support when needed). But I suppose the point is that poverty is something we fight against and this enables us to recognise the good, where this involves being politically acceptable. Some just enjoy the fight. REPLIES (1): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/13/03 4:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Some just enjoy the fight Rachel, you are surely right in this, and I don't call it cynical — as long as people have the power left for fighting. Some simply get overwhelmed. To be a nun or monk by vowing "poverty, chastity, and obedience" is no indecent life, since you choose it by your free decision. There surely are people that would prefer life in the ashram to life on the Bacardi-beach. But those people in Cape Town from the shanty towns there have not been asked for a choice, and neither have the kids of the environment of Mary Seifert. And this makes a big difference! While Wolff and Flood speak of "entitlements", the real problem in my opinion (and in that of Amartya Sen) is "en-ablements" or "em-powerments" in the sense of John Locke: Freedom is without worth if it cannot be realized for lack of property — which includes property of money, of knowledge, of health. The modern welfare state started (by Bismarck in Germany!) just by this: To become a world-power (this was the primary aim of Bismarck and the Kaiser) you need healthy, vigorous, well informed people, not weak and dull ones. This same idea was behind Marxism: Workers should become strong to realize their freedoms against those Lockean whiggish "exploiters". By the same logics Ford later said "Cars don't buy cars — people do!" Thus to have people buy cars and make a big profit you have to make the cars cheaper and the salaries of people bigger. All this is not on pity — but it is not on entitlements either. All those jobless are wasted human capital: Instead of producing goods and services they only cost money. By any standard this is a stupid situation, since people LIKE to be "useful members of society" and not taken for scum or coffee grounds. This as a further comment on pride. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (03/15/03 12:56 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Great Books Special Events 2003 I posted the schedule of Great Books Special Events 2003 to documents. Maybe some suggestions for your vacation planning this year. Note- GreatBooks and GreatIdeas are two separate organizations. The Web site for GreatBooks is at> www.greatbooks.org <. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/18/03 3:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on progress and improvements Dear all, lest this exchange on the "new participants only"-panel missed anybody I place it here again. I only wanted to open a new thread, not a new panel. Hubertus on March 18, 2003, 22:25 local time (MEZ) ----------------------------------------------- —---- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/16/03) SUBJECT: on progress and improvements Posted on March, 15, 2003, 23:59 MEZ Dear Ovi and Mike, I started this as a new thread to get the older one relieved a bit. And below are some links to our topic. I didn't read them all, but will do, since it's worth a real paper. Fascinating stuff and thanks for your answers. What I had in mind when speaking of "paradox of progress" was what I call "the sweeties paradox": Sweeties may be fine some time, but then you start vomiting and get ill if forced to eat them all time, while some apples and brown bread and water or milk will be good for every day. From this you may ask: Are sweeties an "improvement" over "normal" food? And this is what I played on when speaking of the rainbow: You think something is an improvement, but then it turns out not to be one. If you approach the rainbow, it vanishes. Many good things do. That is the paradox. Oscar Wilde had it this way: "There are two tragedies in life: Not to get what you want — and to get it." And Nietzsche said — in view of Bizet/Merime�s "Carmen": "You have to kill what you love". His idea was: You have to become free again. The hero has to kill mother and/or father — in many epics. Cf. Campbell on this. There are technical paradoxes too: In a certain military sense the H-bomb is an "improved" bomb, some sort of ultra-bomb. But this is not true, since just by its very strenght this bomb becomes nearly worthless and even dangerous for the user. And in a similar way you could see the whole of modern culture as a sort of "cultural H-bomb": Many people seem to get overwhelmed by its freedom and possibilities. The Islamists and other fundamentalists getting scared by bikinis and monokinis and western lifestyle: They would not call this "progress" but "regress" and "indecency" and would call the naked people in the Goa-community "mad apes". I don't think that the concept of progress needs a clearly defined goal, but it needs some standard of direction or value at least. This standard is missing if some people in Goa and elsewhere call "progress to freedom and love" what others call "regress to ape-kind and indecency". Simply have a look again into "HAIR" (the film) and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (the film) and "Easy Rider" and "Harold and Maude" (ask www.imdb.org on these). And even the concept of "improvement" is paradoxical: Two examples were give above by "the sweeties paradox" and the H-bomb. But what about 10 billion persons populating the earth in 50 years by latest UNO-calculations when this may include more wars and more civil wars and more environmental damage and more hunger and epidemics and rape and other evils? Those many people are the result of "good intentions" of doctors and environmentalists and of churches opposing abortions. In this sense Mandeville spoke of the paradoxical "good results of bad intentions" in his "Fable of the Bees" (cf. "The fable of the Bees" ("The grumbling hive: or, knaves turn'd honest." by Bernard Mandeville. Ed. Jack Lynch from 1705 ed.) http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/hive.html (text of 1704) http://www.ac-toulouse.fr/philosophie/textes/mandevillethefableofthebees.htm (text of 1714 with afterword) http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/ac/mandevq.html (questions concerning the idea of Mandeville) http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hutcheson/remarks.htm (remarks of Hutcheson on this 1750. See "hutcheson on fable of bees.html") http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/mandeville.html (comment on the 1714 ed.) // And concerning Aristotle and his entelechia: By this, one starts as a baby and becomes a child and a teenie and a grown up and a senior and an old person. Now which of these stages is an "improvement" as compared to the former stage in what sense? Thus the concept of entelechia will not solve any paradox of progress. Darwin did not speak of progress, he only spoke of the survival of "the fittest", not of "the best". This was an open definition of progress: In some sense to be "fitter" is an improvement — while not leading to a better result in an absolute sense. Humans are overall the most "improved" species in this general sense, going to the deep sea and to the Moon already in "artificial bodies" like subs and space-ships. They even may spread out to the whole Galaxy some day. Will this be an improvement or a progress? By what standard? But Abraham Maslow in "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature" (1972, 407pp., look up in Amazon: ISBN: 0140194703, Penguin) justly said that we should not take "normal" people for the measure of human possibilities but the extraordinary and the geniuses. Everybody a combine of Mozart and Einstein and Leonardo and Goethe and Gandhi so to say. And if this could be done by genetic engineering next time — would we call it an improvement? And if we could prolong a normal life of real fitness of body and soul and brain to some 500 years: Would we call this an improvement or even a progress? If yes — why? And if not — why not? Much stuff to think it over! We are just starting a debate on this. ----------------------------------------------- —------------------------- Some links to the concept of progress: ----------------------------------------------- —------------------------- Bury: http://www.blackmask.com/books66c/ideap.htm) http://eonix.8m.com/progress.htm Robert Nisbet: http://www.theihs.org/pdf/literatureofliberty/articles/31.pdf http://www.theihs.org/pdf/literatureofliberty/articles/32.pdf ----------------------------------------------- —--------------- http://orb.rhodes.edu/bibliographies/giants.html http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1840 http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Chapter5.pdf http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north120.html http://www.york.ac.uk/student/su/essaybank/philosophy/progress_and_history.html http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v14n3p13.htm http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/articles/a6629.htm http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v5n2/deitrich.jte-v5n2.html http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/013/murray.html http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9908/articles/neuhaus.html http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~pavtf311/progress.htm http://www.pff.org/fofp.html http://www.eh.net/lists/archives/hes/jul-1996/0024.php http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4118.asp http://www.acenet.com.au/~jzube/app13-no.htm.htm / end / ----------------------------------------------- —- 1 REPLY [Hide Replies] * FROM: Ovi G (03/17/03) SUBJECT: progress and improvement Dear Hubertus and Michael Excellent points to keep my mind ocupied for a while, I had no idea 'progress' is such a hot issue. Hubertus thanks for the excellent links and comprehensive material. Not finished with all them yet, but will re-ponder and re-state. Have a great week. Take care, Ovi REPLIES (2): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/19/03 6:54 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on good visions and bad realities posted March 19, 2003, 2 pm local time (MEZ) Dear Charles and all others, the following is from a link Charles offered some days back: http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/about.html which is a Communitarians-page. I cite the opener and have added some comments afterwards. ------------------------------------- George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies A Message from the Institute Chairman Communitarians believe with America's Founding Fathers that it is possible to build the good society based upon the core values of the American people as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The values that define the American community include the belief that the society should provide its citizens with equality of opportunity, material well being, and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment, and that it should operate on the principles of fairness, justice and compassion. Communitarianism springs from the recognition that the human being is by nature a social animal as well as an individual with a desire for autonomy. Communitarians recognize that a healthy society must have a correct balance between individual autonomy and social cohesion. Much recent thinking has focused on an assumed conflict between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the government. When you put "community" back into the equation, you find that the apparent conflict between the individual and the government can be resolved by public policies that are consistent with core American values and work to the benefit of all members of our society. Norton Garfinkle Chairman, George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies ------------------------------------- Now my comments: This above all sounds very good. But we know of course that even the societey of the USA is seen today not only from outside as a society of widespread violence and crime and poverty and neuroticism and stress and lonelyness. For many films like "American Beauty" or "Magnolia" or "Dirty Harry" seem to be typical of what the American society is like. And if you don't think so — why is Moores "Stupid White Men" such a hit with a large readership? And this is not at all new: Around 1900 there were the "muck-rakers" and the proponents of "social gospel" and the "progressives" fighting the shamelessness of "Guilded Age" and "big money" and "big enterprise" and "class struggle". And the Civil Rights movement and NAACP had its great time during the Kennedy-Johnson years, when John and Bob Kennedy and Dr.King were shot, and when there were several riots of blacks in Detroit, Chicago, and elswhere. And just now we are on the eve of war in Iraq and the image of the USA became that of an aggressor in many parts of the world. Thus the question is: How do those wonderful visions of the communitarians fit with our current reality. But likewise we could ask: How did those wonderful vision of Christian love and Socialist brotherhood ever came near to reality. And exactly there my problems begin and again I find myself urging "don't moralize — analyze!" It's much more easy to be "for the good" than to know why it does not happen any time soon. So what is it, that makes "improving the state of society" such a hard job? I think we could start with two examples much better known to us than society: Ourselves as single persons — and the family and other close relations. These we know a bit from experience, here we can judge a bit. And this would be a first start for an answer to the greater problems of society. Maybe we get at a better understanding of what are the problems there if we first understand the problems of the "near distance" realm so well known to us. But then we have to expand our visions and apply our questions to the larger picture. Hubertus. FROM: Charles (03/19/03 10:36 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hollywood I think that it is important to recognize that Hollywood is not America, but only one very small piece of a very large, complex, and diverse society. Regarding Hubertus' other examples, such as President Kennedy, I was in the 7th grade of school, 13 years of age, when he was assassinated. I am now 52. Obviously a few years have passed and America is much different now than it was then. Have what ever opinion you want of America. But it will be a wrong opinion unless it takes into account the fact of American diversity and the changes in American racial relations since the 1960's. It is also important to be aware of the extent to which America is digitally connected into alternative sources of information other than the "establishment" news sources such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and New York Times. Charles ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (03/20/03 6:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Philosophy and the postwar debate. Is a use and value of philosophy the debate about society in a postwar world? I am assuming that the current conflict in Iraq is neither a "police action" or temporary failure of the U.N. Security Council, but rather results with the beginnings of some foundational shifts in the world community and old paradigms. It is philosophical not partisan debate. But that may mean all the various political persuasions unite in suggesting a poison cup for philosophy and her students. Should the beginning of debate wait until shooting is over? Looking at the experience of Greece and Troy, I think the debate should begin earlier not later, taking on human responsibility rather than finding fault being those others, the gods, fate, and/or the lame excuse of "that is just the way people are." If anyone is interested in this, should it be set up as a new topic? Charles REPLIES (2): FROM: Rachel Browne (03/21/03 4:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well, I feel sick about all this. Politics needs to be informed by ethics. But it isn't. And because this is all so sick-making I think we should just get back into something smaller or perhaps wider than facts and problems now. Suggestions? Should politics be informed by morality? That's no good because it obviously should. But isn't. Or has someone got a totally new suggestion? Novelty is needed here. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (03/21/03 7:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on war and a better society Dear Rachel and Charles, Thukydides (ca. 460- post 400 BC)wrote on the Peloponnesian War, and Aeschylus (525-456 BC) wrote "The Persians" on the war against those in 472, shortly before the birth of Socrates. Both wrote on war as a moral problem in the same way as others (f.i. Sophocles and Euripides) wrote on murder as a moral problem. Generally much of the literature of Antiquity was on aspects of morality. And more precisely on the relation of morality and rationality — like in Sokrates. Morality in Greek thinking was a special form of applying reason to the conflict of lust and passion on the one hand and responsibility to the laws of the gods and the governments and human societies on the other. I don't think that this approach is less applicable today. Thukydides can well be taken for a tragedian writing prose. And tragedy was never far from comedy either, laughing at mens stupidity and arrogance and greed. And of course "King Lear" and "MacBeth" and "Richard III" and several other dramas of Shakespeare are on political morals, as are most dramas of Frederick Schiller. The whole of history writing — including Gibbon of course — is on morals in a similar sense, and Schiller wrote his dramas on Wallenstein and on Mary of Stuarts as a historian. And in Jewish-Christian thinking of course all of history was more or less a moral lecture delivered to mankind by God. The best known example of this view is Dantes' "Divina Commedia". But modern positivism and systems thinking have blurred this natural connection of politics — including war — and morals. Politics IS moral, but this does not mean that it should be "nice". There always was the option of "the just war" and "the just revolt" and "the just murder". Even Homeros did not condemn the Trojan War per se. Neither did Aeschylus condemn the war against the Persians of course, since this was a defensive war. But the Greek themselves have been invaders like the Americans, subjugating the aborigines without any bad conscience, like the British subjugated the peoples of India in the 19th century without bad conscience. From our modern moralistic point of view Alexander the Great and Caesar and Charlemagne and Frederick the Great and Napoleon of course all were great war-criminals. But they did not think so and most of their contemporaries did not either. Thus the idea of what is morally acceptable changed just like the idea of the status of slaves or women. You never can apply "moral" concepts outside some historical and cultural context. And I think this is what Rachel objects to: There should be an absolute idea of good behaviour indifferent to historical epoch, only asking for application of the Golden or the Silvery Rule (GR = "Do unto others as you expect them to do unto you!", SR = "Don't do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you"). But what do you expect? Should this mean that the first European settlers should have returned to Europe again since there were Indians in America already? This is not the way history happens. The settlers in Virginia and Massachusetts etc. started to fight the Indians down and the whole history of the USA was in principle much like the history of Israel in Palestina from a purely moral point of view. But history has never been different. The first large empires of Babylon, Ur, Assur, Ninive, Theben etc. were built on the bones and skulls of the many tribes subdued by the strongest ones. Then came the Persian, the Alexander, the Roman, the Hapspurg, the British etc. empires, and now we have some sort of de facto American empire, while not a formal one. You may call this "im-moral", but all else is "un-historical". And this is an eternal dispute: Some think that even "progress" is immoral and needs pruning back from time to time by some deluge to get people "nice and moral and frugal" again. This is not only the view of the Biblical Deluge, but even the view of Plato in his "Laws" (3rd book) and a dream of Rousseau ("back to nature!", "the noble savage" etc.). By this standard every elaborated culture is immoral per se. Marcusean counter-culture is some sort of "Neo-Rousseauism", setting Hippie-culture against the Big Apple and the Mega-Town, which are full of sin and seduction and madness and crime. It's really a very old topic of "the good earth" against the "loathsome cities". This was on my mind when I stated explicitely that my idea of a good society is definitely NOT on going back to some rural life or living in small communities like the Aborigines and the Bushmen and Indians. I cannot accept that living in modern cities is less human(e) than living in small premodern communities. A "good" society in my opinion is compatible with a global society living on a modern technical standard and in agglomerations. Against this background the concepts of the United Nations and of International Law and on punishing tyrants like Saddam Hussein in the name of global ethical standards is part of an expanded social ethics to be approached by Kantian and Rawlsian and communitarian and Christian and Socialist and Islamist and other forms of political ethics. In my opinion there is no hiatus between individual and political ethics. The task of the politician is to help establish some sort of political and juridical order that makes a decent multicultural, multiracial, multiethnical togetherness possible. And this was the idea of Socrates and the Stoics and the Christians too: Defining an ethics that is applicable to all humans and all human societies, independent of race, social status, erudition, income, gender, age, tradition or whatever may discriminate humans generally. Political ethics by this is only a special realm of social ethics. Politics is on bringing about change — and political ethics is on changing social conditions in the direction of a more decent and just society. If the assault of Bush on Saddam Husseins regime is in this respect a positive contribution to "a more decent and just (global) society" is an open question this time, but not at all to be dismissed as absurd, but to be debated in years to come. Like any other ethical question this one cannot be handled in a merely formal way. It's a truly difficult question for a long debate even on this forum. But some people don't like this and call it "political". Of course: All political ethics is naturally "political". The struggle between socialists and libertarians f.i. is in its core an ethical struggle on the best design of and the best way towards a more humane, a more decent and a more just society. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (03/25/03 5:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Robo-Chomsky? Ralph, I think that you probably understood my analogy. But I will leave out "correct," because our perspectives or world views being different perhaps makes being correct not really a useful concept here. Your combination "Robo-Chomsky" was interesting. But I do not see any connection between my rough ideas about mental symbols being real and Chomsky's natural language. About the only idea that I probably share with Chomsky is that the behaviorists are wrong. Basically my idea is simply that language is real whether or not it is actually expressed in behavior. Maybe a better example of my position could be seen through the art of radio telegraphy (Morse Code). A word has several manifestations or modes in this art. Either in this order or the reverse: It is transformed in the mind symbolically from word to "dots and dashes" before taking on an overt physical mode through nerves/arm/hand, and materially transformed to a higher frequency via telegraph key and radio transmitter. I argue that in all its modes, the word is real, not "sense-less." The word's continued ability to change its symbolic nature and mode, suggests its real nature. And does it make any fundamental difference to the word, if the transmitted word is never received? What if the rf waves just keep going out into the universe without ever being intercepted by anyone? Even if the rf waves approach entropy when moving through the dimensions of space and time, this would have no ultimate effect on the the word. Theoretically the rf signal strength will be eventually distributed into a universal state of entropy. (While curiously the rf waves simultaneously constantly cycle through zero.) But the symbolic nature of the word is not changed by a reduction in signal strength. If a signal can be intercepted, theoretically it can be amplified to a useful level, retaining the word's realism. And anyway, the causal relationship of the word is not with the higher frequency electro-magnetic wave approaching entropy. The word is brain caused and remains so. Even if the mental brain states are electro-chemical in nature and suggest future death, a metaphysical understanding of word remains, suggested by the word's continued potential for transformation into a different mode. Charles (Not really a philosopher, just a radio amateur experimenter — N7FLA) REPLIES (1): FROM: Rachel Browne (03/30/03 1:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Words Words are a good idea. Words are used, defined in a dictionary, have different senses to different people, change their meaning, are mis-used and are in some way stored in the brain. On with the word? R ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Michael Ward (03/27/03 2:48 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Prime directive To all, As the Captain of the Starship Enterprise I have a 'prime directive' of non interference in the population of worlds that we visit in our exploration of space. On the face of it such a policy has some merit in it thus allowing societies to evolve in their own way rather than 'ours'. Should the rebuilding of Iraq be approached in such a way, simply leaving them alone to find their own path. Would that give rise to another Saddam? What is it about human ways of thinking that makes societies incompatible? Were you given the job of rebuilding their nation what ground rules would you lay down. Live long and prosper, Captain Kirk REPLIES (5): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/06/03 1:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the "prime directive" Hubertus Fremerey Sunday, April 6, 2003 Dear Mike and all, the poor conference has been down a bit because of the war in Iraq perhaps. One of the core problems of this war is the question posed by Mike in the disguise of of Captain Kirk on March 27 as "prime directive": / As the Captain of the Starship Enterprise I have a 'prime directive' of non interference in the population of worlds that we visit in our exploration of space. On the face of it such a policy has some merit in it thus allowing societies to evolve in their own way rather than 'ours'. Should the rebuilding of Iraq be approached in such a way, simply leaving them alone to find their own path. Would that give rise to another Saddam? / "In principle" I would support this directive — as does even GW Bush. He and his team never ever objected to being a muslim. They never tried to proselytize the Iraqis. They only said: "Stop inacceptable behaviour, stop blackmailing your neighbours now and in the future!" There is no right of parents to terrorize or misuse their children and no right of men to terrorize or misuse their wives. And this has nothing to do with the "right to live ones own life according to ones own standards". Only this latter is defended by the "prime directive". In this context let me defend my concept of a good society. Somebody wrote: "Glad I can smoke in your ideal world. It won't be like America then? Or the way Britain and Australia are going. In LA in the US you can't even have more than one glass of wine without being judged as having a drink problem. My answer was: And you can't be in bed with a person of your own sex or with several of the other sex without being judged as having a moral problem. I surely would not care in my ideal world. And if people want to go up the trees naked like in Goa they may do so. They only should not try to become fanatics driving erverybody up the trees naked. And if somebody prefers to be a saintly yogi sitting all day on the same place in lotos-position he will be welcome. But if he prefers a playstation to play war-games and splatter-movies and by this to save his psychic equilibrium, he even may do that as long as he does not start to replace those movies by real persons. A Hitler or some of his like should not be allowed to use a world-war to settle his personal problems. I am amused how complicated my project seems to look to most people. In principle it is very simple: WE SHOULD BE HONEST TO EXPERIENCE. The socialist model of society failed, the Christian model of society failed likewise, and so did the liberal model. Why? Because all three models presupposed a very unrealistic model of man. People are cowards, they are lazy, they are greedy, they are envious, they are vile, they are stupid, they are stubborn, they are arrogant, they are self-opionated, they are vain, they are craving for power, they are sadistic, they are weak, they are forgetful but unforgiving, they are whimsical and capricious, they are lecherous and hypocrites, they are sensuous and voluptuous, they are thoughtless, gullible, and superstitious, and they sometimes even are mad and beset by mad ideas and fears and irreal hopes etc.. And all this you have to take into account when building a society. You cannot build a society on the concept of a "Christian" or a "socialist" or a "liberal" personality. That's nonsense. Those people are very rare indeed like geniuses and saints. It was not only the idea of a socialist society that was questionable. The real cause of failure was the misunderstanding that people could be selfless and caring and behave responsible all of a sudden. If you are a member of the "nomenklatura" in a communist state, you are not the "representative of the workers" anymore, but you are the member of the nomenklatura in the first line. You adapt to the requirements of this nomenklatura and to the specific craving for power and the specific greediness, vileness and self-reighteousness of this nomenklatura. But of course you would never admit it. Thus the whole construct of "representing the working class" becomes a great lie and self-deceit of the members of the "socialist elites". And if you are paid a meager but at the same time sure and equal income by socialist standards, indifferent of your abilities or industriousness or inventiveness, you eventually stop being industrious and inventive and start being lazy and indifferent. And this you start not only because of resignation, but also because of being hassled by the more lazy and indifferent people around you. You cannot expect many achievers in a society that in fact calls achieving an unnatural and inhumane and 'un-social' behaviour. All this is quite natural and "human". Being "honest to experience" means: Accept the fact that this is quite natural and "human", and that all else is a lie and a self-deceit. But many peoples vanity makes it hard for them to admit this. My good society is one that tries to be honest to experience, that tries to avoid the self-deceit, be it socialist or Christian or Islamic or liberal or whatever. Sounds very simple, but is very hard, because most people prefer false dreams. To be slim you should eat less fat and sugar an do sports and walking. But people prefer to eat fat and sugar and then pay dear for wonder-pills and wonder-exercises do get their weight down. This too is quite natural and "human". The problem is not pay for the poor and the jobless and the elderly, the problem is that people dont like to do what is needed. They prefer to wail over all sorts of "crises of the welfare state". This is exactly like wailing over too much weight: Serious experts know what to do, but since it's annoying their advice is not asked for and so the quacks do the show. Socrates tried to be honest, he was no quack. So the quacks got him killed since he made them look what indeed they were — quacks. And then there is this other and even deeper problem: The problem of perfectionism. Most well meaning people, when starting to design a 'good society', set up a list of all evils as are smoking, drinking, 'immoral behaviour' etc., and then simply call it item for item 'forbidden' or 'unnatural' etc.. Thus no smoking, no drinking, no 'immoral behaviour' etc. anymore. They simply don't understand the difference between robots and living humans. All times eating cake surely is not good, but sometimes eating cake is very good. All times fighting, running and achieving surely is not good, but sometimes fighting, running and achieving is very good. But those schematic people designing a better world don't get it. Since they are stupids they want clear decisions: X should be either bad or good, but not sometimes bad and sometimes good. But most things in life are good or bad only in some measure or under certain circumstances and not once and for all and under all conditions. Simple minded persons get confused by this, while it is only common sense. This too is 'being honest to experience'. Thus let all things as they are? No! There are real stupids and evil persons around whose thoughts and deeds should not be tolerated. In a certain way the Giuliani principle of 'zero tolerance' is not bad. But this does not include strictures in the way of a totalitarian regime as of the Taliban or of some Christian fundamentalists as in the Geneva of Calvin. There is an essential and clear difference to be seen: The 'zero tolerance' principle is a defensive and denying principle, not an oppressive or positively coercive one. It does not tell people what to do, it only tells them what NOT to do. It says in effect 'Keep out of my home and garden, no trespassing here — but I don't care what you do otherwise.' Thus 'zero tolerance' only means 'making good fences' or 'drawing the line'. And by this the principle of 'zero tolerance' lacks the moral arrogance of all true believers that try to impose their moral convictions on all other people. True believers are zealots that don't like to learn and to listen, but that only want all others to have to learn and listen. This is not the position of defenders of 'zero tolerance', who are liberals. And it's not the position of defenders of the Golden Rule either: The GR says 'As you would like to have others do onto you, so do yourself onto others!' But this is not enforcing the behaviour of the others but your own behaviour. If you want people to be nice and helping, you first start to be nice and helping yourself and not shouting people around what to do and how to behave. Thus it is not quite impossible to bring a bit clarity to the debate on a good society. Hubertus A note added: According to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle the good is desired just for being good, like sweeties are desired by the kids just for being sweet. Thus to make the good look good and attractive you have to advertize and to demonstrate it's quality, not to force people into some "good behaviour". You have to sell the better quality on the marketplace. But this is imposed on you, the seller, it's not enforcing the buyers to buy. But you may be tempted to ban some "bad goods" from the market — and you should not. You may denounce what you think is bad, but let the customers decide for themselves. This is the way of an open and learning socity. Criticize and advertize — but don't patronize or matronize nor compel. FROM: Michael Ward (04/13/03 11:18 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Western version Hubertus, I read with much agreement your response to the Prime Directive and therefore my comments are few nevertheless I highlight where I see some clear water between what be both see. The Americans and UK have a view of the liberty of people that is not universally shared. In a feudal society, which many Arabic states effectively are the behaviour of one group to another falls well short of western ideals on individual values. We, the West, do not like this and think ourselves morally and ethically superior and so the latest crusade is in progress to 'free' the oppressed. This we may achieve for a short period before 'normal' behaviour is resumed. The West is not obeying the prime directive — only their qualified version of it. My prime directive for any society would be not to do harm to others but that would have to be enforced because people behave exactly as you say they do so we have a impasse. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/14/03 3:15 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: after the fall of Baghdad Mike, now, after the fall of Baghdad, the conference starts going again. Until about 1750 western society was not much different from what we see in the Islamic world today. Then the "take-off" started by western science and technology — which meant "better ships, guns and cannons". The first empire to know this and to be scared by this war the Turkish "Ottoman Empire" which then comprised all of todays "Near East". But then the Europeans eventually subdued all the worlds powers — India, China, the whole of Africa, both Americas, and Oceania. The source of this power was "modernization" and "liberalization", the transition from a standish order to a bourgeois order of politics and society, and the transition of "traditional modes of life" to "modern rational modes of life" where people left the countryside and entered the fringes of the great cities and the fabrics. By this Europe and the USA destroyed most of what has been "folkways" before and created "labouring masses" on a grand scale. This was a form of "self-destruction" of traditional societies. Exactly this is happening today: After the fall of Baghdad in the short time of only three weeks the whole Near East is indeed "awed" and stunned and shocked like after the victory of Israel in 1973, when the Israeli had to be stopped by the UNO, while they could have entered Kairo. The states of the Near East now have to transform themselves simply because there is no alternative. The important difference to Japan in 1853 and after is: Japan had a very homogenuous populace and culture and the central figure of the Tenno, who then happened to be a great and energetic person up to the task. This central driving force and person and unifying idea is lacking today in the Near East and it cannot be implemented by the US government. The best we can hope today is that somebody who is comparable to Mustafa Kemal in Turkey will show up next time as a successor to Saddam Hussein — strong but modernizing and cooperative at the same time. For the best of the poor Iraqui I hope such a person will be found. Besides the coming dominant powers — USA, EU, Russia, China, and India — the whole Near East from Maroc to Pakistan is a "weak" region and by this tempting the great powers to enter it. I think this "power perspective" should always be seen besides the "culture perspective". There will be no "overall homogenization" of cultures, but there will and there must be a "modernization" like in Russia, in China, in India, in Turkey, in Mexico, in Brazil, and like in Japan and Korea before. There simply is no alternative. And in fact people don't WANT an alternative. The Egyptians and the Iranians WANT to become "modern" but stay "Islamic" at the same time. Thus it is a "two layers process" - and a fascinating one. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/16/03 5:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on Globalization and Prime Directive Hubertus Fremerey Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:35PM CST Mike and all others, the Reith-lectures this time are on neurosciences, but there are other themes of course. The lectures of 1999 were by Anthony Giddens from LSE on "Runaway World" and their topic was globalization. This may be another comment on "prime directive". The first of five lectures starts as follows: GLOBALISATION (1999 by Anthony Giddens) A friend of mine studies village life in central Africa. A few years ago, she paid her first visit to a remote area where she was to carry out her fieldwork. The evening she got there, she was invited to a local home for an evening's entertainment. She expected to find out about the traditional pastimes of this isolated community. Instead, the evening turned out to be a viewing of Basic Instinct on video. The film at that point hadn't even reached the cinemas in London. Such vignettes reveal something about our world. And what they reveal isn't trivial. It isn't just a matter of people adding modern paraphernalia — videos, TVs, personal computers and so forth — to their traditional ways of life. We live in a world of transformations, affecting almost every aspect of what we do. For better or worse, we are being propelled into a global order that no one fully understands, but which is making its effects felt upon all of us. Globalisation is the main theme of my lecture tonight, and of the lectures as a whole. The term may not be — it isn't — a particularly attractive or elegant one. But absolutely no-one who wants to understand our prospects and possibilities at century's end can ignore it. I travel a lot to speak abroad. I haven't been to a single country recently where globalisation isn't being intensively discussed. In France, the word is mondialisation. In Spain and Latin America, it is globalizacion. The Germans say globalisierung. The global spread of the term is evidence of the very developments to which it refers. Every business guru talks about it. No political speech is complete without reference to it. Yet as little as 10 years ago the term was hardly used, either in the academic literature or in everyday language. It has come from nowhere to be almost everywhere. Given its sudden popularity, we shouldn't be surprised that the meaning of the notion isn't always clear, or that an intellectual reaction has set in against it. Globalisation has something to do with the thesis that we now all live in one world — but in what ways exactly, and is the idea really valid? / Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/17/03 3:35 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: one more on "prime directive" Mike, this I found in "The Atlantic": This is from: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/lewis.htm. The Atlantic Monthly \| May 2003 "I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go To Hell" Religions and the meeting of civilization by Bernard Lewis ... There have been a number of different civilizations in human history, and several are extant, though not all in the same condition. Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atat�rk, dealt with the relative condition of civilizations in some of the speeches in which he urged the people of the newly established Turkish Republic to modernize. He put the issue with military directness and simplicity. People, he said, talked of this civilization and that civilization, and of interaction and influence between civilizations; but only one civilization was alive and well and advancing, and that was what he called modernity, the civilization "of our time." All the others were dying or dead, he said, and Turkey's choice was to join this civilization or be part of a dying world. The one civilization was, of course, the West. ... ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Michael Ward (04/13/03 12:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Fascinating stuff Hi All, The Reith lectures are now in progress and the first two are available over the internet right now at the following location:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/reith2003_lecture2.shtml Personally the ideas being expressed fall very close to what makes practical sense to me I would like to hear what your views may be on the issues being raised and discussed. One particular position is: There is no separate "mind stuff" and "physical stuff" in the universe, the two are one in the same. Any views? Michael Ward REPLIES (19): FROM: Rachel Browne (04/14/03 1:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Reith Lectures Michael I really agree that there is no separate mind stuff. I only read Synapses and the Self and the experimental stuff is weird, though I'd heard of blind sight. What shocked me was that this man thinks that it is normal for people to be engrossed in conversation and drive around "unconscious" of what they are doing. I am highly conscious of red lights etc. God, no wonder there are road accidents if this is the case. This is like a claim by a philosopher (Frank Jackson) who says that we might be going along in a car and not have noticed a particular road sign, but when the person with us asks "Hey did you see that sign a way back" we can recall it. I'm not very visual, but have never had such an experience and cannot imgine it would happen to me. So really on this, I think we shouldn't generalise from odd cases like blind sight to how it is if your senses are intact. I don't it really follows that we can perceive without being concious of that thing. Other senses probably make up for loss of one sense. Like with blind dogs who come to rely on their nose. But thanks Michael, I must read the other papers. R FROM: Michael Ward (04/14/03 2:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Blind driving! Rachel, Prepare to be more shocked, from my own experience I can support the 'low level consciousness whilst driving'. Anything we do that is repetitive after a period of learning drops to a lower conscious level. For instance take driving I have often travelled more than 20,000 miles a year which at today's traffic speeds represents about one solid month of driving — I spend some of my time listening to books or even philosophy tapes only to arrive at my destination remembering the tapes not the journey. This isn't dereliction of duty of care any more than being a competent dancer who no longer needs to remember the steps but simply dances. I think the examples of effects of brain damage give excellent and valuable insights into brain function and feel confident that the human brain has redundancy in depth. Only yesterday I read of a young girl having half her brain removed to prevent fits and very soon after the operation the self rewiring allowed the opposite side of her body to start walking again. Such examples are empirical evidence that cannot be agued with — it's the degree to which you can extrapolate that's uncertain. Or to put it another way it's the amount of extrapolation than can be demonstrated as false that really matters. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (04/15/03 5:02 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Re: separtate mind stuff? I think that there is still no definitive answer to this question. I find Descartes Sixth Meditation difficult reading, but the more I look at it, the more I appreciate the issues it raises. One thing to keep in mind about Descartes argument though is that much of Christian theology has changed since his time. For example some Christian philosophers like Nancey Murphy, looking closely at Christianity's roots in Hebrew culture, have given modern theology a bodily rather than spiritual perspective. This is useful, because it allows one to intellectually put the religious questions about "soul" to one side and consider the issue of mind as a problem in metaphysics independent of any religious beliefs or non belief. This question of mind is especially interesting to me now, because a trainee Parkinson's assistance dog is moving in with me this week (probably tonight). He is a quite ordinary dog, a Lab Retriever mix rescued from an animal shelter. The trainer I am working with is impressed by his intelligence and focus though. I expect that I will soon have a better appreciation of the questions about knowing other minds, mind-body, and etc. Charles FROM: Charles (04/16/03 12:55 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Brain/Mind Michael, Thank you for the posting on the Reith Lectures. You ask about "mind stuff" and "physical stuff." I think that at least some of the dispute is because old and limited models of the world restrict people's vision. I am thinking of the models of atoms put together with sticks and styrofoam balls in secondary science class for example. There is also the limited model of the mind being neurons lighting up sections of the brain in a certain order. Physics has grown beyond the intellectual limiting model of atoms made with sticks and balls. One wing of neurological science would deny a similar evolution of thought about the mind and limit mind to a discussion of things like brain synapses. They will also deny that there is a state of being as consciousness. Perhaps this is where philosophy could ask some common sense questions like "how will communication take place between me and my dog 'Friday?" The neuroscientists cannot hide in a lab and the philosopher hide behind self inflicted wounds of skepticism here. My untrained dog might do something normal, like bite them on their ass. A realist however can consider that there may be more than one level of mind, there being level 1 ("Liaison Brain") and level 2 consisting of "Outer Sense" (light, color, sound, smell, taste, pain, & touch) and "Inner Sense" (thoughts, memories, feelings, dreams, imaginings, intentions). My dog Friday and I share much of evolutionary mind's level 1 & 2. But we do not share what Karl Popper called "the greatest of miracles: the human consciousness of self." (Karl Popper, who I have borrowed from, called these levels World 1 and World 2.) Karl Popper fortunately did not get stuck in the limited perspective of synapses. He knew the reality of three worlds, World 1 being physical objects and states, World 2 being states of consciousness, and World 3 being knowledge in objective sense. Charles FROM: Michael Ward (04/16/03 11:13 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: One world Charles, Your last message ended:- "Karl Popper fortunately did not get stuck in the limited perspective of synapses. He knew the reality of three worlds, World 1 being physical objects and states, World 2 being states of consciousness, and World 3 being knowledge in objective sense." There is but one world and it existed pre-humanity, all other concepts are artificial human divisions. Humans did not create knowlege or conciousness but these are consequences of our evolution. At least that is what seems sense to me. The last lecture in California entitled: "Neuroscience — the New Philosophy" looks interesting. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (04/16/03 3:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Cognitive science — 21st Century Renaissance? Thanks to modern technology, I can use my iMac to listen to the world in real time. I just listened to Reith Lecture 3. I read the first two lectures. Has Prof. Ramachandran introduced the 21st Century Renaissance through cognitive science? I doubt it. I think that his "neural basis of art" takes reductive reasoning from a utilitarian perspective to new heights of absurdity. There use to be a radio program on my local public radio station called "Dr. Science" (from American NPR). It was a satire on science & technology. The host had a line, something like: "He's not a Dr, he has a masters degree, in science!" The implication being that the degrees did not matter, but what was required by the listener was some common sense. I do not think that it is asking too much of philosophy to exhibit a minimum amount of common sense. And I refer you to another professor, an interview with John Searle: "Minds, Brains and Science" at > http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/searle.htm <. Of course there is some neural basis of art. But to argue that as being the 21st Century Renaissance is ridiculous. Compared to bare reductionism, there is such a thing as looking at the "bigger picture." There is more to art than just creating a pleasing effect on the brain. Philosopher Mortimer Adler said that there were three qualities of a work of fine art. First a work of fine art has individuality. Second a work of fine art is original. Thirdly, a work of fine art says something. I recommend that if you want to learn about the science of the brain, read professor Ramachandran. If you want to study art and philosophy, a good place to begin is with the books of professor Adler or professor John R. Searle's "Mind, Language And Society: Philosophy In The Real World." Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/16/03 5:58 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on neuroscience and human greatness Charles, I wholeheartily agree. No neuroscience will tell us the difference between Mozart and a second rate composer or between Shakespeare and a second rate dramatist. And even if you clone a genious you will not clone his experiences or his surrounding culture, which both may be very important too. There are many examples of highly able persons who don't arrive at anything because they don't come to terms with their privat neurosis or marriage or whatever. And then: Even if we all were brilliant minds, we would not necessarily have less problems with each other or with our world, only more complicated problems perhaps. Since life is a sort of art-work, not a mathematical or physical formula. To find out the formula an IQ of 300 may be helpful. But to be a great artist or personality even an IQ of 100 or less will do. We don't know — and surely Prof.Ramachandran does not — what is the mystery of human or artist greatness. But this is what counts, not IQ or EQ. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/18/03 1:57 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Your pound of flesh Charles and Hubertus, To say that we are machines (a functioning collection of cells) neither implies simplicity or reductionism but states in a very matter of fact way that is what we are. The very idea that IQ is in some way proportional to having abilities would be like handing out university degrees based on the weight of your brains. Neuroscience will tell us the difference between Mozart and a second rate composer but not in a qualitative way because that is subjective and thus the experience dependent upon your particular brain wiring. As to whether Prof. Ramachandran has introduced the 21st Century Renaissance — I too think not. This is because Renaissance is re-birth and this is a first and people generally don't cope very well with new situations. It was stated 'First a work of fine art has individuality. Second a work of fine art is original. Thirdly, a work of fine art says something.' And why is this true — because every human brain has all these qualities, surely the output of such an organ should not be so surprising. I pose the question again, where is all this mind stuff like ethics and art and philosophy if it's not in the 'mechanism' of the brain. Michael Ward FROM: Charles (04/18/03 11:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Your pound of flesh I agree that neuroscience is important. With my Parkinson's, I directly benefit from its research and development every day. I know a person whose grandfather had the same type of Parkinson's that I have, freezing and rigid, slow movement rather than tremor problems, in the early 1960's. His primary job was taking care of his grandfather on their family farm, because his grandfather (who was not aged), although mentally aware, could do nothing but sit in a chair. In contrast, thanks to neuroscience, even though I was diagnosed with Parkinson's about 10 years ago, I still live a relatively full live. I even now get to engage in an exciting bit of practical philosophy of the mind by training a candidate Parkinson's assistance dog, who hopefully will aid me as my PD progresses. But I would distinguish neuroscience about the brain from philosophy of mind. Philosophy of mind is more about the whole, the person, not the individual cells that make up the body and brain. I think that philosophy of mind also deals with other creatures. I will get back to that later and also about the points Michael brought up when I previously mentioned Karl Popper's idea of 3 Worlds. Right now, I have a rather raw dog Friday to deal with. Charles FROM: Rachel Browne (04/18/03 3:06 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Mind and Dog Friday Charles — this is so exciting about Dog Friday. A new dog, or any dog, is wonderful. And they might not have a sense of self conceptually but have a highly sensitive sense themselves in the way they fear for themselves or make demands for themselves, and are so sensitive to human behaviour, even a mere look. Philosophy is hopeless on the relationship between dogs and humans. But Raimond Gaita has written a wonderful book "The Philosopher's Dog". Shouldn't really mention Buber AGAIN but he believed we have communication with animals in the same way as with humans, in recognising "the other". Thanks for the Searle link. I ordered the book you mention last week. Have only read "Intentionality". Do you know where to find his argument with Derrida about Austin? Michael — Well I am a woman driver. I need to concentrate! But this raises doubts about phenomenology. If we experience things differently, are there any certainties to be gained from looking at our experiences? If there are, we would have to start with the normal case, or we'd just have a massive diversity of experience and no way to move forward to a theory. Conversely, you say that abnormal cases tell us about the brain. While I don't think there is need to posit a soul, and the mental/experiential/phenomenological/conscious will do, this is obviously a different sort of thing from the physical. But then, how would neuroscience tell us the difference between Mozart and a second-rate composer? That is essentially experiential. R FROM: Michael Ward (04/18/03 5:05 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Dogs and experiences Charles and Rachel, I cannot accept that neuroscience is simply about brain cells — whilst they are the building blocks it is the whole brain structure and its way of functioning that are the next area for exploration. Similar to the genome project we now have the code — all we have to do is to see if it's decipherable. There probably are many sub-conscious pathways to gain communication with your dog, having grown up surrounded by various animals I can relate to such experiences. Rachel, your question 'If we experience things differently, are there any certainties to be gained from looking at our experiences' My answer to this would be a conditional but optimistic yes — provided we can compensate for the subjective ness in each of us. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/21/03 5:51 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a nice brain-twister Mike and all, there is this nice story of Niels Bohr, who had a horseshoe pinned above the door to his hut in the Alps, and when asked by Heisenberg "But Niels, you as a modern scientist surely don't think this will help?" answered smilingly: "Of course not — but I am told that it helps even if you don't think so!" Of a similar sort I found this one today, which is from the Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell (b. 1919): "When I had my Bar Mitzvah, I said to the Rabbi, ' I've found the truth. I don't believe in God� I'm joining the Young People's Socialist League.' So he looked at me and said � 'Kid, you don't believe in God. Tell me, do you think God cares'?" Now try to analyze this and have fun! Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/21/03 6:58 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: what is "thinking" Mike. you have asked "where is all this mind stuff like ethics and art and philosophy if it's not in the 'mechanism' of the brain." Intersting question: There are some experiences of course, the primary input for ears, eyes, and brain. But then there are "cultural transforms". Sounds are waiting for some Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Beatle to arrange them, likewise colours are waiting for some Rembrandt or Picasso or Warhol to arrange them, and "data" are waiting for some Newton or Maxwell or Einstein etc.. You may call this "ability to arrange" a certain sort of intelligence — musical intelligence, painterly intelligence, scientific intelligence. And of course you may try to find out certain brain areas and to enhance their abilities by selection or otherwise to have more Mozarts and Picassos and Einsteins around. And in this way you could indeed transform human culture without knowing what it is. This is like improving an HiFi-device whithout knowing what "music" is. By this you revolutionize the way music is heared as never before, while you don't "create" music. The great open question remains: What do we mean by "content" and "quality"? Plato would have called for an "idea": What do we mean by "the good"? This is a philosophical question, not a neurological one. It's a question on content, not on mechanisms. The concept of "the good" contains some evaluative aspect that goes beyond the mere "pleasure" — which may be neutral. That makes a big difference. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/21/03 6:02 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: You're numbers up Hubertus I think I understand the point you are making about things 'becomimg' but it seems to me that such ideas only make sense in hindsight. We should be able to predict now who the replacement of the Bach, Mozart etc. is going to be tomorrow if the concept of becoming (like Newtonian physics) holds true — but we can't. Let me clarify my idea with an analogy: Most people I know who select six numbers in the weekly lottery do so with the firm hope that they will be able to 'pick' the winning numbers when they buy the ticket. They hold onto an unspoken idea that the winning numbers are somehow fixed now and it's their ability or luck to predict them before the draw. The reality of course is very different for it's quite possible and occasionally happens that there are no winners — random chance may not produce any of the numbers people chose. That there will be a winner next week or another Bach, Mozart etc is no more or less likely than it was last week. I liken this concept of becoming to hope, it's comforting, promising and optimistic but not based in reality. You ask 'What do we mean by "the good"' — I see this as an incomplete question so I'll re-write as 'What do we mean by "the human good"'. Now that makes sense and gets us out of an area where we have no knowledge — Absolutes. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/22/03 5:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on absolutes and humans Mike, I completely agree that "quality of music" like "quality of deeds" or any other concept of "the good" is always a human concept and not an absolute one. But there are results. The landing on the moon would have been impossible without modern math and physics. This was in a sense "absolute" insight, since it got to results, not only to dreams and talks. You as an engineer should know the difference. This is not guessing numbers, this is knowing numbers. Thus we alway have a sort of "marriage" of fancy and knowledge that in time begets some new and surprising baby. To advance in only 5.000 years from inventing letters and numbers to landing on the Moon and the Mars is no small achievement for lices living on a big dog. But as I said before: This was possible only because those lice dreamt of God. It's a strange world we live in. And no neurologist will explain it to you. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/22/03 6:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: What next? Hubertus As we are unable to be truly objective about the world I think the best we humans can do is to try to remove all the subjectivity we can and to achieve this the neurologist will be of the greatest benefit. I found this out from my Martian anthropologist gestalt. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/25/03 7:27 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: why not have both? Mike, why are you killing subjectivity? There is math — very very objective — and there is music — very very subjective — and there is Einstein playing the violin and Newton being a mystic admiring Behmen. In the same way to build the Gothic or Baroque cathedrals was a great technical achievement of excellent mathematicians and engineers like building the Empire State Building or the Golden Gate Bridge. My thesis is always, that engineering and artistry are two sides of creative thinking. The works of technics and the works of art are both "fictions", artificial things created by human inventiveness. The engineers and the composers of music, lyrics, novels, movies, dramas, paintings, etc. are not that different when compared to animals. The bird that builds it's nest is only a robot, not really creative in this. It only does what nature forces it to do. Like the difference of a speaking raven or parrot and a true poet. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/26/03 1:35 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: A bridge too far Hubertus, Not guilty, that is, of the death of subjectivity. In one sense it is the only reality we can be sure of because it's ours and ONLY ours. There is a significant difference between technics and the works of art, they are not, as you put it both as "fictions". Art is a creation within the mind from the artists perceptions and thus exists independently of any kind of physics. On the other hand engineers, builders etc. are brought very quickly to heel when their creations conflict with worldly forces. Architects are in fact only builders who know why they are doing what they are doing — in the past many churches fell down whilst being built. This will not happen to a piece of art. Accomplished engineers build both and real and metaphorical bridges although artists can only build metaphorical ones. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/26/03 6:45 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on reality and fancy Mike, of course, and I even as a physicist try to find out in a movie what is physically impossible. You cannot f.i. drive a car like in a time-lapse-film throu certain bends without having them toppled in the real world. By this you even can prove that there must be time-lapse applied. There are other similar effects, as f.i. effects of scale — why an Elephant cannot jump like a hare etc.. What I had in mind was another thing related to this mind-body problem: While you have to know your phsyics and math of course, you a free to invent many things within the restrictions defined by math and physics. To build a cathedral or an airplane you need not only the laws of nature, you need an inventive and curious and daring mind and this is the other side of human greatness: not only to know by intelligence, but even to invent by inventiveness — wich does not necessarily follow. What I was saying: If your neurologist tells you what your IQ is, he doesn't tell you what your "CQ" may be, the "creativity factor". Knowledge is only material, stuff to build something from. But then you need some idea what to build from this. And by this engineers and artists are different sorts of inventors, working under different restrictions. There are many buildings today that were technically impossible 50 or 100 years back, because new materials and computers were needed for building them. But the great architects of today try to build what is possible. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (04/15/03 10:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Euro medical reserch using virtual reality I posted the subject document for potential discussion of the Mind. I am interested in their idea of using virtual reality to potentially change the real world. Charles REPLIES (17): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/17/03 3:10 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: virtual global reality Charles, I see the same effect — and are as you fascinated — by the use of the internet to create a virtual rality in the cases of "war in Iraq" and of "globalization" in general. This is a two-way communication, while radio, TV and the press were and are one-way. This has a democratizing effect. Many voices, that have not been heard before since they were not in leading positions, now can speak up in the net and try to convince an audience. This once was the hope of the New Agers. And once more — like with democratic principles generally — the problem will be: Is it the more valid or is it the more popular view that will win in the end? Since to be valid and to be popular need not be the same. There will be levels of competence. You cannot have a democratic vote on Einsteins' theories by laymen, but you can and do have such a vote by experts. This conference is a network too. Computer-nets are a new medium besides the press and the radio and TV and the movies and books. They all change the world — hopefully to the better. But of course many people hate it just because of this and try to spam or misuse it. And in my experience one must be careful: Trust is the core of the matter. Even in the internet you look for those names that seem trustworthy. The net per se is not, like the TV per se is not. I don't know if there is anything like "net-critique" or "net-evaluation" this time, but there start to be "commendations". Hubertus FROM: Charles (04/18/03 1:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Virtual Global Reality Hubertus makes some good points about the democratization brought by the www. Although I tend to think of it in terms of an increase in individual freedom. Personally I have more confidence in a republican form of government rather than some of the ideas about the internet and direct democracy that I have seen. Two uses of the web have been in information and communication. This European study involving virtual reality and Parkinson's though brings up something else: Using virtual reality to change the real world. My understanding is that one thing that they are attempting to do is use virtual reality to deal with a physical phenomenon, the "freezing" of Parkinson's Disease. Now people with Parkinson's take various chemical medications to make their brain state more "normal" so they don't freeze in place. Over a period of years, the chemical therapy is not as effective. I want to use a dog, who knowing the direction & pace that I want to move, will keep me moving. But what does it say about "mind," if some virtual reality can change a physical event like freezing, maybe more effectively than changing the chemical state of the brain? Charles P.S. Re spam, I have had the same e-mail address for about 5 years. Lately I have been plagued with e-mail junk that I didn't want to see. Filters work wonders! FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/21/03 6:29 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: what is virtual reality anyway? Charles, I forgot that you are very interested in all these soul & brain things. If I understand Mike and Rachel right, they both think that God is only a virtual reality. While I cannot decide that, I stressed the fact, that even if this were true, this "virtural" rality caused crusades and cathedrals and many other great deeds and works — including "wonder healings" and conversions. So what is "virtual"? When I entered this conference last October, Mike appeared as the Marsian and I went for "extraterrestrial" for a short time, knowing very well that it is nearly impossible to know ones true identity on the net. Thus we will always have several realities: Our daily environment, our global environment, our private dreams and convictions — and the cinema and novel thing, where the fictitious character is granted. What you say on direct access on the internet is simply the old "global village"-thesis of McLuhan. People get access to countless information that they never before "dared to know". But my problem is put by Goethe in his "Dr.Faust": "If they'd get at Philosophers Stone at last, they'd lack the wisdom needed for it's handling". Or as Naisbitt put it: "We get drowned in information and are starving for knowledge and insight." In this way the whole world is a great spamming and we look for the good filter-routine. When your wife called European philosophy "a lot of shit" she filtered whole libraries from her screen to get a clearer look at realities. We all do something similar time and again. And this is exactly what is happening in the brain: Most synhapses are dying, only some are kept alive. I see many similarities between neural networks and social or international ones. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/21/03 6:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Dog or God Hubertus Today it is my judgment that there is but one reality everything else is a delusion brought about by incomplete information being used by pattern seeking minds. I also judge that reality is probably forever unknowable and only fragments are apparent to our very limited senses. We are but fleas on some enormous dog philosophising about who owns the dog. (of course I could have spelt dog the other way round without changing the meaning at all) Michael Ward p.s. Anyway how is your dog Charles? FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/22/03 4:49 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a lice in a dogs pelt Mike, I have no problem with being a lice in a dogs pelt. Reality is a hairy thing. And may be God is only a false reading of Dog. But we have to make some sense of this all, and even you do, otherwise you would not be on this conference. You cannot be a true positivist, since the true positivist sticks with Wittgenstein "the world is what the fact is". But that seem too simple. Newton and Einstein thought there may be a bit more than mere facts but even some meaningful connections between several facts. And it turned out to be true. Without there theories we would not have computers and internet, nor radio or TV, no film and foto, no HiFi, no cars or airplanes etc.etc., which all depend on modern physics and math and underlying theories. This was what I argued against "eastern wisdom": "Eastern wisdom" looked into human behaviour to invent Yoga and Zen. "Western wisdom" looked into natures behaviour to invent relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Thus it is at least an interesting dog we live on. Did you never think of the possibility that humans will some day create superhumans and by those transform the universe? The universe is (or seems) dumb, but humans a at least a little bit bright, and super-humans may be very bright, and by this see hidden possibilities that nature never realized in its dumbness. Thus don't underestimate the lice — they may make the dog running! Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (04/22/03 6:24 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The meaning of life Hubertus Yes, I do agree that humans (or more accurately life) is an exception to the 'normal' tendency to increasing disorder in the universe. Also your view of the future super humans does seem the most likely outcome given the exponential rate of human achievements. Isn't it much less interesting agreeing with each other — so, as they say, live long and prosper! Michael Ward FROM: Charles (04/22/03 11:46 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on fleas In a recent interview the physicist Roger Penrose observed: "How do wakeful, living, healthy human brains create mental worlds? That's a profound mystery." He further said: "Because of my background in physics, as well as mathematics and mathematical logic, I've come to believe that there is something very fundamental missing from current science. I'm saying that, out in the world there's something going on which you couldn't properly simulate on a computer." (interview in "Science & Spirit," March-April 2003) Rather than delusion, it seems to me that the difference in our mental worlds that occurs when we rearrange a few symbols from dog to God is one of those mysteries that Penrose refers to. Charles FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (04/25/03 7:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on playful changing DOG for GOD Charles, while I think there are really deep questions too, people like Penrose tend to underestimate simple playful behaviour. What are all those "Star Wars"-movies about? Or "James Bond" or "Back to Future" or "Wizard of Oz" or "Harry Potter" etc.? Thats all very much fun and play like this GOD-DOG mirroring of Mike or my "reality is a hairy thing". The moment robost start to play around and make jokes and invent some nonsense Penrose will be awed. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (05/03/03 5:37 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hello! I've been reading articles on neuroscience recently and now agree that we will never know external reality. The brain creates spatial perception and gives rise to everything else. How can we create "super-humans" without creating a super brain? Even if we knew all about how own brain works — which we don't — how could we know how to create a brain that does more than ours does? Off to read about brain mechanisms underlying empathy. Hope you have a formed a good relationship with Dog Friday, Charles. Give him a pat from me Rachel FROM: Michael Ward (05/03/03 8:50 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: More haste less speed? Charles, If you haven't already it's worth reading/listing to the last Reith Lecture on Neuroscience. Instances of timing delays built into the brain are linked to paralysis of limbs. I also know of timing delay devices being used effectively for speech impairments such as stuttering. As an adolescent I went through a stuttering phase and thinking back on it there was this halting feeling as if lack of synchronisation in some was prevent fluent motion. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (05/03/03 6:02 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on building a superbrain Rachel, I think this is the simplest thing to do — in principle. Have some regions of the brain grown by some growth hormone and other tricks. The really fascinating thing is afterwards: We simply don't know what to expect. Nobody could tell in advance what Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and the others would be able to do in music. But — and this is my answer to Mike on the other question concerning genetics and the differences of cultures: There have been some Bachs, Mozarts, and Beethovens around elsewhere in the world, at all times, but they lacked the instruments and notational-systems and musicians to realize their potential as composers. If you are a Mozart of the time of Socrates and have only some primitive instruments for at most 5 people playing together, how will you set up a "Magic Flute"? It's impossible. Thus to have some genes to be intelligent and inventive does not predetermine much. The big split of cultures may be explained by dumb luck. Somehow the Jews, coming from Ur, were most impressed by the law and power of the Great King there and transferred this experience to their image of God. Likewise the Indo-arians from behind the Black Sea, ancestors of the Greek upper class, may have been impressed most by the sight of the stars and flowers and animals and their beauty, order and symmetry. From this sprang two completely different ways of approaching the world. But this need not be explained by genetical differences. The same key-experience — being witness of an atrocity f.i. — may drive one person into becoming a saint, the other into becoming a devil. There are some genetic differences perhaps, but they need some event and some form to show up. Overall genetics is not explaining too much. Only to have a piano available does not make you a Beethoven. But to bring out the potential of a Beethoven you should have a piano available. Thus if the geneticists find out a way to grow the brain, there may be astounding results in this complicated world that overpowers most of us. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (05/06/03 11:32 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Time and space and the mind Time and space and the mind have an interesting connection. Schizophrenics supposedly don't have proper event organisation in time. But I suppose they also spatialise differently — hearing things is probably their own inner voice but becomes outside the head. Michael — your account of stuttering sounds like a nervous thing. Lack of synchonisation is a panic attack sort of feeling. But there is an inner time and outer time perhaps that we can be aware of. When I'm nervous I talk very fast and feel I'm lagging behind and running ahead. But Hubertus, I was reading recently (in the newspaper!) that genes are highly sensitive so don't determine much as they are highly reactive to the environment and all things external. So without the necessary musical instruments would Mozart actually have genes that produce beautiful music? Genes seem like a potentiality. But OK, if we could grow the brain, how would we know if we had grown a better one which was super-human? What would a better brain be like? It would give rise to more interesting and intelligent behaviour, but how do we grow that? How does the current brain tell us what a more intelligent brain would be like? And the problem remains that if it is a different brain, could we assume it was consicous or just and advanced performative/behavioural mechanism. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (05/06/03 6:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: what is a "better" brain? Rachel, this is the old topic of "what does an IQ measure?" Einstein happened to be a bright physicist and a good and intelligent person too. But there have been bright physicists that have been Nazis or Stalinists too. Thus the question remains what a "twisted character" is. There are many great villains in the literature and in reality, evil masterminds like professor Moriarty, the opponent of Sherlock Holmes or like Blofeld against James Bond. Only to make brains more "able" does not answer the question "able to do what?". You are right of course that genes need a challenge and a stimulating environment even in little children. You must speak to them, you must entertain them and stimulate and encourage them to get their potential out. But when Einstein (b.1879) started, he had the mathematics of 300 years of a dramatic development of mathematical methods and insights at his disposal to make use of them. 300 years before, Kepler (b.1571), who was likewise a genius, had not nearly those mathematical and physical instruments available and could not have invented relativity theory. even if you are a super-mill, you need some corn to grind it. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (05/07/03 1:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Moving on Hubertus, I think a better brain will be the one that drives us into extinction — if history is anything to go by. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (05/07/03 5:35 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: extinction by over-brain? Mike, I surely will not exclude the dire possiblity that you suggest. Only Hollywood will guarantee that James is always winning over the Blofelds and the other Great Villains of this earth. And only the Bible will tell the true believers that in the end Satan will be smashed by the returning God. But then: Who cares? There may be billions of planets around with intelligent animals in our galaxy alone, and more than 90% of all species that ever arrived on this earth have died out even before the arrival of humans. Thus why not spend us too? But as a notorious optimist (?) I cling to the hope that mankind will have some future - even with a bit more brains. Hubertus P.S.: The question-mark relates to a nice twister: "