Author
|
Topic: AW: virus: know thy enemies (Read 2513 times) |
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
 
  
|
 |
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« on: 2004-10-07 07:54:44 » |
 |
ad argument 1, I forgot to mention that I start out with the least
important/memetically dangerous arguments...
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #1 on: 2004-10-08 06:34:41 » |
|
<snip>To me it seems impossible that a person can *decide* what to believe.
One is either persuaded of the truth of something or one is not.</snip>
I guess that's why I quoted Maturin (great book btw) and mentioned that the
argumentative value will be increasing with the following arguments: At this
moral level, faith is obviously hypocritical and immature AND BASED ON FEAR.
But while the argument is only the honest expression of fundamental
hypocrisy, as we all know, not all out motives are conscious: our
perceptions are filtered, interpreted etc., and if only you believe in the
veracity of the statement, it contributes to a cognitive set that MIGHT lead
to a more whole-hearted acception of faith, while the initial argument fades
into the unconscious background.
Dawkins somewhere (was it in "Unweaving the Rainbow"?) said that many people
actually say about horoscopes that they don't believe in them, but find it
interesting to read them, and that one should not even go as far as reading
them. Unconsciously, you might still believe - they might still influence
you.
I actually encountered what you call Pascal's wager (nice to know it, for I
didn't) in the course of discussion, and of course the aim of the person was
to make me question my position. I didn't, but some people may be lured by
this argument.
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #2 on: 2004-10-09 07:09:59 » |
|
Greetings Blunderov!
Thanks for the reply - the website is actually great. Let's see if I can
further refine those arguments...
A nice start into the weekend for all of you!
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #3 on: 2004-10-10 09:13:53 » |
|
Thanks, Blunderov.
I always love to read about the Barnum effect... one should note that there
the psychological effect changes, from being positively to being negatively
reinforced, the instance you actually ascribe to yourself certain
"flattering" attributes (such as, in my example, daring or strength). The
meme not only works for its own distribution, it makes itself stick.
- Ah well, I'll put argument 2+x (Personal experience - "Revelation") in
another post; it refers to some of the topics you just raised -
Let me nevertheless conclude with a quote on
<snip>Seemingly, context is the high ground of oratory - command it and you
command the field. To do this you must control which definitions are in
play.</snip>
Whether it be molecule, fact, law, art, wealth, genes, or whatever, it is
essential that (...) [one] understand[s] that definitions are instruments
designed to achieve certain purposes, that the fundamental question to ask
of them is not, Is this the real definition? Or Is this the correct
definition? but What purpose does the definition serve? That is, Who made it
up and why? (...) In every situation, (...) someone (or some group) has a
decisive power of definition. In fact, to have power means to be able to
define and to make it stick.
Neil Postman, The End of Education
What a fortunate development that science seems to become more and more
"definitive".
Björn
p.s.: Btw Blunderov, I am sure you do not object me posting your
comments/posts on my website www.normalegeneration.de, do you? Be assured,
it is all in the spirit of the CoV.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #4 on: 2004-10-10 09:49:07 » |
|
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Personal experiences - "Revelations"
Memetic quality: very high; mainly psychological-emotional components
-----
"I have myself experienced God: He answers my prayers, lead/leads me on the
right track, comforts me, I can feel his presence etc. Thus, I do not need
arguments anymore."
-----
This argument is the psychologically most serious. Persons that actually
honestly can formulate it are most likely lost/inaccessible. To me, it is a
genuinely psychopathological character trait of clinical relevance, which is
why I will refer to "etiology" in speaking about the processes that lead to
this perception of one's own experiences:
The human nervous system is able to produce intense emotional states which
similarly can be achieved by the use of psychoactive substances. These
states have a direct effect on basic neuropsychological parameters such as
perception and attention, which may function to block, modify/distort or
even simulate (actually non-existing) information. Furthermore, in this
state, experiences are further processed in a way different from normal
functioning.
Persons with a particular psychic structure - such as an encompassing or
intensive religious socialisation or, possibly, high neuroticism/emotional
lability - have these experiences fall on a breeding ground which likely
produces an interpretation as "religious experience", as long as this
possibility of interpretation is salient around the time the experience is
made. The salience of such an explanatory model as compared to other
possible explanations is crucial here; the existence of alternative
explanations (e.g. that it actually was only a rare emotional experience) is
naturally dependend on the level of education of a person (=> especially the
uneducated will be prone to religious thinking if offered this explanation).
If there is no other interpretation at hand, a person will - following the
intrinsic human desire of causally comprehending reality - turn to this,
most obvious one.
An alternative to this rather etiology (which assumes a kind of "trauma") is
the continuous (such as during childhood or other times when one is not able
to seek alternatives) and socially reinforced consideration of a religious
interpretation (ultimately based on igorance) in less dramatic situations,
which eventually lead to a similar cognitive set as the above described:
This set characterises a psychic structure which makes the consideration of
this interpretation ever more likely.
THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM, continually aggravated in the course of time, is
this: A person's own experiences are highly relevant to his or her
self-consciousness. It is an aspect of the ability of introspection and
self-criticism to question one's own experiences, which is greatly reduced
in social situations. Since being confronted with something (e.g. the
proposal of a different interpretation) is a social situation, religiously
"experienced" people will most likely not be able to question themselves.
Persons that - over years - regularly interpret situations as religious will
most certainly feel THEMSELVES in question if one questions their
experiences.
There should be no greater obstacle to rationally connect to religious
persons than this.
So long.
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #5 on: 2004-10-10 17:29:12 » |
|
Why, Erik, this appears absolutely counterintuitive to me - but you cannot
leave us with these statements WITHOUT further explanation!
<snip>Think seriously about the consequences of “disproving prayer”.</snip>
If thinking theriously involves taking theriously, I simple can't!!
In deepest despair,
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #6 on: 2004-10-11 10:36:26 » |
|
Greetings Blunderov!
<snip>I actually have quite a lot of time for this kind of theist - in my
experience they tend (usually) to be quite quiet and private about their
beliefs. (...) But I don't think one should be too unkind.</snip>
Well, you may be right - the problem is that eventually, even the most
rationally argumentating but hopelessly defeated believer can refer to his
own experience as a last resort. As I say, you cannot really argue here -
you will never convince anyone. It is a matter of prevention - of preventing
this possibility of explanation to become salient.
As to the advantages of faith ("Some really do get saved - from
themselves!"), we all know that there are. In the end, this amounts to an
ethical question - should one try to "convert" other people into taking over
his or her view of the world if that view is psychologically much more
stressful? Just for an assumed truth's sake? If there weren't any
disadvantages to faith, probably one should not try to combat it.
But there are - or not? More later.
<snip>'how do you know the bible wasn't written by the devil?'</snap>
Another one of the myriad incredibly painful attacks a religiously exposed
person has to shake off - with faith. I shall remember this one, too.
<snip>Oh and BTW Bjorn, I would be deeply honoured to be quoted by you.
Gosh!
That doesn't happen to me every day! Thank you for the compliment.</snip>
I know flattery when I see it - alright then, what do you want from me?
;-)
Your own feeling flattered is, of course, perfectly justified since I
definitely am one of the most influential thinkers, writers AND feelers
ever:
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #7 on: 2004-10-11 11:03:40 » |
|
<snip>'how do you know the bible wasn't written by the devil?'</snip>
... a believer could assume god to exist either way, though; only without
the bible as authority you would not have as many guidelines on how to
behave... would be okay, too. besides, isn't that statement somewhat gnostic
in nature?
björn from beyond
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #8 on: 2004-10-12 09:09:44 » |
|
Ähem...
I think I see you point now - the argument sounds ever better. Good meme,
good meme.
Anyway, by gnostic I referred to the gnosis, of course, which stated -
correct me if I'm wrong - that all we see of this world is deception devised
by the devil to make us sin, that is, to disturb our relation to god
(naturally, they have lots of latin termini for the whole matter); thus, we
must try to look through the deception in order to become "gnostic"
(initially means knowledgeable, I suppose) - to overcome the bondage of
flesh and achieve real insight into the nature of things.
Still, it was considered heresy, so we're oppositional nevertheless.
:-D
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #9 on: 2004-10-16 00:28:26 » |
|
Thanks for these, LenKen, I'll post them along with the others...
Björn
p.s.: Some more to come...
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Len Kennedy, Esq.
Gesendet: Samstag, 16. Oktober 2004 00:19
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: know thy enemies
And not only is it an appeal to flattery and one’s vanity, it also turns
the truth on its head: It takes real courage, daring, and strength to
mindlessly follow the herd—to believe what the vast majority of one’s peers
(at least profess to) believe—rather than thinking about the big questions
for yourself, using your own reasoning abilities, and coming to your own
conclusions. Yep, only a coward and a weakling would defy the majority.
People are funny.
As an ironist in this wacky world, I feel like a kid in a candy
store—or a Kennedy in a liquor store . . . or a priest in a preschool.
Huzzah!
_____________
Blunderov <squooker@mweb.co.za> wrote:
Gorogh
Sent: 08 October 2004 01:24 PM
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Association with contradictory qualities
Memetic quality: medium; mainly stereotyped, semantic-associative
components
-----
"Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one's
rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc."
-----
[Blunderov]
"The fallacy known as Appeal to Flattery occurs whenever a person
attempts to compliment or flatter another in order to get her to accept
the truth of a proposition. In some instances, it may be implied that
the person deserves the flattery because they accept the position in
question. This is type of Fallacy of Relevance because kind or
flattering words simply aren't relevant to the truth of an idea or
validity of a position. I! t is also categorized as an Appeal to Emotion
because it appeals how a person feels about herself rather than her
ability to critically analyze a claim."
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
attached: index.html
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #10 on: 2004-10-16 06:31:21 » |
|
but then again, in regard to your post, ken,
<snip>Yep, only a coward and a weakling would defy the majority.</snip>:
whether or not it is defying the majority is not the main argument (would be
kind of a fallacy of numbers) - not mine anyway. in regard to the "daring"
aspect of christianity, i referred to coping strategies mostly... for if,
hopefully, one day "the rational people" become the majority, it still won't
be valid in this respect to call faith "daring". in the sens of being in a
minority, yes, but not in the sense of psychological relief (which, of
course, depends on a certain amount of people for its social effects...)
b.
attached: index.html
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
LenKen
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.00
Rate LenKen
Mi caca es su caca.
|
|
Re: AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #11 on: 2004-10-17 02:17:06 » |
|
Apropos of the original thesis—“Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one’s rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc.”—the things people tend to have faith in tend to show their weakness: People tend to have faith in things that meet their psychological needs and desires . . . e.g., that when they die they’ll go to heaven; that when infidels like you and I die, we’ll go to hell; and that they can petition the Lord with prayer (but as Jim Morrison and I learned back in seminary school: YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!).
Not all believers believe the same things, of course, but there’s an awful lot of overlap between any two particular faiths. The brains we humans have evolved are much more susceptible to some memes than others, and the religions that still survive today are still around because they’ve adapted to meet our evolved psychological needs and desires.
And regarding religious experiences like “visions,” I knew a guy in the Army who got a medical discharge because it turned out he had temporal lobe epilepsy. His hallucinations were so real to him that he just couldn’t help but see them as genuine visions from his god. And I’d be willing to bet that the apostle Paul had the same “affliction.”
You may have heard, last year, about Professor VS Ramachandran’s research pertaining to temporal lobe epilepsy and its relation to religious experience, but it’s so important, it probably bears rereading and re-researching. You might want to check out this BBC News story: “God on the Brain” by Liz Tucker, from March 20, 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
Hmm, sometimes I get the feeling that the mind is merely what the brain does—that it’s just an emergent property of the brain . . . an epiphenomenon, if you will. ; )
_____________
Gorogh <gorogh@pallowrun.de> wrote:
but then again, in regard to your post, ken,
<snip>Yep, only a coward and a weakling would defy the majority.</snip>:
whether or not it is defying the majority is not the main argument (would be kind of a fallacy of numbers) - not mine anyway. in regard to the "daring" aspect of christianity, i referred to coping strategies mostly... for if, hopefully, one day "the rational people" become the majority, it still won't be valid in this respect to call faith "daring". in the sens of being in a minority, yes, but not in the sense of psychological relief (which, of course, depends on a certain amount of people for its social effects...)
’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
attached: index.html
|
One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream. 
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #12 on: 2004-10-17 04:23:48 » |
|
Good morrow!
I agree with you, Len (or rather, LenKen for some reason?), and thank you
for the link.
You seem to be right about the great memetic appeal of religion - as an
appeal to emotion or otherwise -, which makes me wonder about how much of it
is "purposive" and how much has simply unconsciously involved in the meme
transmission... doesn't really matter, though, even if it is easier to blame
someone if that person/people took any conscious action...
I not only sometimes, but - in principle - always have the "feeling that the
mind is merely what the brain does—that it’s just an emergent property of
the brain . . . an epiphenomenon, if you will". Dennett is right, I think,
with proposing his "benign user illusion". But that's bearable,
psychologically. If - superficially - all genetic determinism, and - more
(well actually less :-) ) substantially - all constructivism or even
nihilism be true, as I firmly believe on "different levels of function",
your conscious & emotional life supposedly stays the same, for it is a mode
of your experience which never has been at disposition.
You can believe not to have free will and still feel and act as if you have.
(Besides, what follows from having no free will? That you'll have to lie
down and die? No, nothing at all - no behavioural changes implied...).
Greetings from a somewhat digressing
Björn
who-returned-rather-late-from-his-ex-girlfriend's-party-and-knows-not-exactl
y-how-to-feel-about-the-matter
p.s.: Sorry for in a way spamming the list with replying with AW instead of
RE as prefix, which simply opens another thread. I discovered this only
yesterday; will take care not to continue in future threads (with this, the
damage is done...)
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
Re: AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #13 on: 2004-10-18 18:44:19 » |
|
Faith is a useful and evolutionarily fit tool.
To discard it as “useless” is short-sighted.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Len Kennedy, Esq." <lenkenesq@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:17:06
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: AW: virus: know thy enemies
Apropos of the original thesis—“Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one’s rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc.”—the things people tend to have faith in tend to show their weakness: People tend to have faith in things that meet their psychological needs and desires . . . e.g., that when they die they’ll go to heaven; that when infidels like you and I die, we’ll go to hell; and that they can petition the Lord with prayer (but as Jim Morrison and I learned back in seminary school: YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!).
Not all believers believe the same things, of course, but there’s an awful lot of overlap between any two particular faiths. The brains we humans have evolved are much more susceptible to some memes than others, and the religions that still survive today are still around because they’ve adapted to meet our evolved psychological needs and desires.
And regarding religious experiences like “visions,” I knew a guy in the Army who got a medical discharge because it turned out he had temporal lobe epilepsy. His hallucinations were so real to him that he just couldn’t help but see them as genuine visions from his god. And I’d be willing to bet that the apostle Paul had the same “affliction.”
You may have heard, last year, about Professor VS Ramachandran’s research pertaining to temporal lobe epilepsy and its relation to religious experience, but it’s so important, it probably bears rereading and re-researching. You might want to check out this BBC News story: “God on the Brain” by Liz Tucker, from March 20, 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
Hmm, sometimes I get the feeling that the mind is merely what the brain does—that it’s just an emergent property of the brain . . . an epiphenomenon, if you will. ; )
_____________
Gorogh <gorogh@pallowrun.de> wrote:
but then again, in regard to your post, ken,
<snip>Yep, only a coward and a weakling would defy the majority.</snip>:
whether or not it is defying the majority is not the main argument (would be kind of a fallacy of numbers) - not mine anyway. in regard to the "daring" aspect of christianity, i referred to coping strategies mostly... for if, hopefully, one day "the rational people" become the majority, it still won't be valid in this respect to call faith "daring". in the sens of being in a minority, yes, but not in the sense of psychological relief (which, of course, depends on a certain amount of people for its social effects...)
’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
LenKen
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.00
Rate LenKen
Mi caca es su caca.
|
|
Re: AW: virus: know thy enemies
« Reply #14 on: 2004-10-18 22:55:48 » |
|
Did I miss something? Did anyone actually say faith was useless. Considering that you’ve put the word “useless” in quotes, I’m assuming you’re quoting someone.
I, for one, can see how faith may prove useful by helping people to cope, albeit by believing comforting lies. And I can see how groups of people, including the U.S., can benefit if their armies are comprised of people who foolishly believe that when they die they’ll be rewarded for their sacrifice—and people with that kind of belief are far more likely to throw their lives away “for the greater good” than are people who would be hesitant because they realize that after they die they’re probably actually going to be dead. So, no, faith isn’t useless from an evolutionary perspective—whether we’re talking about genetic or memetic evolution—and sometimes it can even be pragmatic . . . but the things in which people tend to have faith are dubious at best: horoscopes, prayer, politicians. . . .
I think it’s sensible to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow (from our perspective, anyway), because that’s been happening for quite some time now, and there’s no reason to expect the earth to stop rotating on its axis or the sun to go supernova anytime soon. And it makes sense to have faith in people whom you know—based on their past behavior, among other things. But to have faith in things like God, Satan, Santa Claus, pixies, fairies, leprechauns, life after death, or the healing power of crystals is just silly.
_____________
Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> wrote:
Faith is a useful and evolutionarily fit tool.
To discard it as “useless” is short-sighted.
’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
attached: index.html
|
One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream.
|
|
|
|
Logged
