I read through your sins and virtues and such, and appreciate them. I thoght I'd take a moment to share a few of my thoughts regarding these issues.
If we can assume that a person choosing to accept this meme complex has done so because they are ready, and have attained the necessary intellectual rigor and been able to put themselves past the fear and uncertainty created by denying superstition and embracing rationality, then surely it would be an effective belief system for them.
Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical belief alone. I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. I'm sure that you do as well, but I thought I'd take a moment to illustrate.
While tempering knoweldge opens the door for all kinds of seeming irrationality, it also maintains room for a more open mind, and for hope when hope has been lost. I believe that to a certain extent, this is an important evolutionary survival tool for man.
The optimal man is grounded in rationality, and grand in perspective, compassion, and empathy, but still posseses a frame of mind that allows him to assimilate and conceptualize beliefs and abilities which he cannot or does not understand, and which may seem entirely unlikely to be true.
-----------
Example #1: Cell Phones (future true belief)
1700's rational man is asked whether he believes that a person could talk into a small box, and communicate in near real-time with another person holding a similar box on the other side of the world. As a skeptic, rational man would surely say no. He would deny the existance of such a device with near certainty simply because his metaphor for the physical reality of the universe was incomplete and imperfect and told him such a device was voodoo. Today, we have a deeper understanding of the phsyical properties of the universe, and we have cell phones. Often and forever, deeper truth requires a more open mind than skeptical rationality borne out of current perspective dictates.
Where did the man go wrong?
He must temper his statements and beliefs in accordance with the perspective he has been granted. He must have a vision of his true point of observance, and of the limitations of his mental model. He must be able to say: I cannot understand how such a device would work, nor how I could construct a device with the technology I posess, but should such a device come to exist in my presence, my mind is willing to accept it and to actively engage in understanding it with the assumption that it is equally likely that it could be real or discreditable. Rational man could not do so, because he was constrained by the egotistical need for the surety of his past knowledge and intellectual investment.
-----------
Example #2: Psychics (untapped ability, new talent)
Just about any rational person will tell you that beliefs in psychics is irrational, and not supported by logic and scientific evidence. Certainly Michael Shermer will.
Now imagine for a moment that man has developed some evolutionary psychic ability through quantum mechanical or other effect, or perhaps some ability that approximates some effects of what we could consider being psychic (through subconscious association and the scent of emotion and environment, linked with idiot savant like behaviour, etc).
A rational man is unable to obtain this ability, because he believes it is not possible.. His beliefs have put caps on the limits of the power of his intuition and subconscious mind. You cannot posses and actualize an ability that you do not believe in, unless your mind is actively open to consider it --- regardless of prior empirical evidence. What if you were the first psychic to appear in the world? Such an ability could not be used until the mechanism was discovered and understood, and/or a non-rational person posessing it came about and proved its efficacy and means.
This concept has an impact on daily life, in that the human body and mind is able to do things most of us would sincerely doubt were possible (see guiness book of world records for plate balacing and other ridiculous things). The point is: Never underestimate a man that overestimates himself. There is an advantage in some situations to believing you can do things you cannot. There is an advantage in many situations in believing that you can do things in which success seems statistically unlikely. Having a 100% belief in your ability to do something that 65% of people cannot, has the statistical effect of improving your chances of success in many endeavors. Strange and backwater in origin, but useful to humans nontheless.
------------
I'm not hitting my mark terribly well, and I'm not precisely sure how one would affix such concepts effectively to a belief system, but if you were able to incorporate the benefits of contolled irrationality, along with an approach centered in rational skepticism, I believe there is a great deal of power there.
[Blunderov] Hello Colby and thanks for dropping us a line. I take your point about being closed to currently unthinkable possibilities. I think, though, that the scientific method, which has always been encouraged by the luminaries of Virus, takes this into account. A fact is never held to be anything more than provisionally true and subject to falsification at any future time.
Shermer, for instance, does not hold, I am reasonably certain, that psychic power is impossible per se, only that there currently is no adequate reason to suppose that it is.
A personal instance; not so long ago I was convinced that time travel was a completely impossible thing and I still am so convinced, only for rather different reasons than before! Effectively I have come to a different conclusion in spite of the fact that the affect remains the same. (For now, that is; I would love to be proved wrong.)
The idea that 'rationality' is a very closed off and impermeable world view has gained considerable currency. In particular, superstitious persons whose stock-in-trade is 'proving from the negative' are very fond of fanning these flames. Important to note though, is that Virians hold dogmatism to be a sin. Dogmatism (to me) means assimilating a 'truth' to the point where it goes unquestioned for so long that it becomes 'sacred'. The 'sin' of dogma is not so much a sin as a stern reminder that 'all good philosophers' constantly reexamine their assumptions
IMO: 'impossible' is word best reserved for analytical problems; 'improbable' is better word for questions of fact. Too often, I grant, (and I have myself sometimes been guilty of this) they are used interchangeably.
Best Regards.
David Lucifer Sent: 24 September 2005 04:10
<snip> Colby Thompson writes...
...Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical belief alone. I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. </snip>
The word "rational thought" is often misused as well - to mean "accepting the current standard scientific viewpoint".
There is also a superiority complex among so-called "rational" thinkers.
However, irrational thought has its purposes.
Unreasoning faith and irrationality are highly conserved genetic traits. In fact the so-called "god gene" may have been isolated.
Rational thinkers are unwilling to take large risks in order to test hypotheses.
Irrational thinkers may not be aware that their irrational viewpoints are merely nonstandard hypotheses. However, taken as a collective, they test these hypotheses to limits which rational thinkers cannot.
A large portion of SETI foundation is funded by so-called irrationalists who actually believe that aliens have been visiting the earth.
SETI is valid science that is pushing the limits of computation and analysis.
Astrology fueled astronomy.
My guess is that a large part of every legitimate scientific effort was funded and fueled by legions of "irrationalists" who, for better or worse, helped make progress posible.
[Blunderov] Hello Colby and thanks for dropping us a line. I take your point about being closed to currently unthinkable possibilities. I think, though, that the scientific method, which has always been encouraged by the luminaries of Virus, takes this into account. A fact is never held to be anything more than provisionally true and subject to falsification at any future time.
Shermer, for instance, does not hold, I am reasonably certain, that psychic power is impossible per se, only that there currently is no adequate reason to suppose that it is.
A personal instance; not so long ago I was convinced that time travel was a completely impossible thing and I still am so convinced, only for rather different reasons than before! Effectively I have come to a different conclusion in spite of the fact that the affect remains the same. (For now, that is; I would love to be proved wrong.)
The idea that 'rationality' is a very closed off and impermeable world view has gained considerable currency. In particular, superstitious persons whose stock-in-trade is 'proving from the negative' are very fond of fanning these flames. Important to note though, is that Virians hold dogmatism to be a sin. Dogmatism (to me) means assimilating a 'truth' to the point where it goes unquestioned for so long that it becomes 'sacred'. The 'sin' of dogma is not so much a sin as a stern reminder that 'all good philosophers' constantly reexamine their assumptions
IMO: 'impossible' is word best reserved for analytical problems; 'improbable' is better word for questions of fact. Too often, I grant, (and I have myself sometimes been guilty of this) they are used interchangeably.
Best Regards.
David Lucifer Sent: 24 September 2005 04:10
<snip> Colby Thompson writes...
...Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical belief alone. I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. </snip>
It seems that we have no shortage of science fiction, based on the premise of future technologies and scientific knowledge that can only be dreamed of now. I find nothing irrational in reading it. There is nothing irrational about being open to context, vision and possibilities. It seems however a common meme amongst the anti-scientific. Often said but simply not true. Irrationality generally falls under the hypocrisy, and dogmatism spectrum of our ethical system. I don't find anything redeeming about it. Likewise I find nothing irrational about Vision, which it seems many of the anti-scientific would like to steal as an "irrational virtue". With a more contingent, non-dogmatic approach, Vision comes more, not less easily. As a transhumanist group the Church of Virus takes the approach of an ethical system in the middle of things, in a state of change, not a dogmatic foundation of "First principles" etc. As such we ourselves (via Virtues and Sins) remain open to the same critical thinking that we advocate for others. There was an earlier time in the Church of Virus, "The Great Faith Wars", which only get larger in mythology than they actually seemed at the time. But it was a critical juncture at which we were arguing over the Virtues and Sins, specifically the Sin of Faith. And through the process we changed it to dogmatisim, with the understanding that what the Sin of Faith faction objected to was dogmatic faith, or faith as a virtue. People claiming that the strength of their beliefs was a virtue. Indeed if that were the case, then holding patently irrational ideas counts as proof of ones virtue. Kirkegaard was one of the early leading Christian philosophers on this still swelling bandwagon when he said "I believe it BECAUSE it is absurd". Virians past and present on either side of the Great Faith Wars would agree that there is nothing virtuous there. Those on the Sin of Dogmatism faction which prevailed objected to the Sin of Faith, because "faith" is often used in non-irrational ways, like having faith in yourself or others to accomplish something new, like being faithful to ones word, etc. These are generally synonymous of Vision depending on the context. We also wished to take the language (definitions of faith) more or less as it is used, not as we wish it was used for the sake of a particular argument.
As to your last instance where you described a psychic sense that required a certain "belief" in it in order for it to work. I would have to remain skeptical of any proposed sense that required some special belief to be used in the first place since none of our senses seem to have this pre-requisite. My eyes continue functioning even when I question their accuracy, believe I am really in a dream, or otherwise. It sounds to me more like an advocacy for a belief in something even in preference to whether it actually exists or not, which is a very typical meme replication strategy.
Thanks for the thoughts Colby. Write again sometime.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: David Lucifer <david@lucifer.com> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 9/23/2005 9:10:06 PM > Subject: virus: RE: churchofvirus.org > > > Colby Thompson writes... > > I read through your sins and virtues and such, and appreciate them. I > thoght I'd take a moment to share a few of my thoughts regarding these > issues. > > If we can assume that a person choosing to accept this meme complex has > done so because they are ready, and have attained the necessary > intellectual rigor and been able to put themselves past the fear and > uncertainty created by denying superstition and embracing rationality, > then surely it would be an effective belief system for them. > > Still though, I personally feel that there is a deeper and truly more > effective frame of mind that can be attained than rational, skeptical > belief alone. I believe that rationality must be tempered with humility > regarding the extent and completeness of human knowledge. I'm sure that > you do as well, but I thought I'd take a moment to illustrate. > > While tempering knoweldge opens the door for all kinds of seeming > irrationality, it also maintains room for a more open mind, and for hope > when hope has been lost. I believe that to a certain extent, this is an > important evolutionary survival tool for man. > > The optimal man is grounded in rationality, and grand in perspective, > compassion, and empathy, but still posseses a frame of mind that allows > him to assimilate and conceptualize beliefs and abilities which he > cannot or does not understand, and which may seem entirely unlikely to > be true. > > ----------- > > Example #1: Cell Phones (future true belief) > > 1700's rational man is asked whether he believes that a person could > talk into a small box, and communicate in near real-time with another > person holding a similar box on the other side of the world. As a > skeptic, rational man would surely say no. He would deny the existance > of such a device with near certainty simply because his metaphor for the > physical reality of the universe was incomplete and imperfect and told > him such a device was voodoo. Today, we have a deeper understanding of > the phsyical properties of the universe, and we have cell phones. Often > and forever, deeper truth requires a more open mind than skeptical > rationality borne out of current perspective dictates. > > Where did the man go wrong? > > He must temper his statements and beliefs in accordance with the > perspective he has been granted. He must have a vision of his true point > of observance, and of the limitations of his mental model. He must be > able to say: I cannot understand how such a device would work, nor how I > could construct a device with the technology I posess, but should such a > device come to exist in my presence, my mind is willing to accept it and > to actively engage in understanding it with the assumption that it is > equally likely that it could be real or discreditable. Rational man > could not do so, because he was > constrained by the egotistical need for the surety of his past knowledge > and intellectual investment. > > ----------- > > Example #2: Psychics (untapped ability, new talent) > > Just about any rational person will tell you that beliefs in psychics is > irrational, and not supported by logic and scientific evidence. > Certainly Michael Shermer will. > > Now imagine for a moment that man has developed some evolutionary > psychic ability through quantum mechanical or other effect, or perhaps > some ability that approximates some effects of what we could consider > being psychic (through subconscious association and the scent of emotion > and environment, linked with idiot savant like behaviour, etc). > > A rational man is unable to obtain this ability, because he believes it > is not possible.. His beliefs have put caps on the limits of the power > of his intuition and subconscious mind. You cannot posses and actualize > an ability that you do not believe in, unless your mind is actively open > to consider it --- regardless of prior empirical evidence. What if you > were the first psychic to appear in the world? Such an ability could > not be used until the mechanism was discovered and understood, and/or a > non-rational person posessing it came about and proved its efficacy and > means. > > This concept has an impact on daily life, in that the human body and > mind is able to do things most of us would sincerely doubt were possible > (see guiness book of world records for plate balacing and other > ridiculous things). The point is: Never underestimate a man that > overestimates himself. There is an advantage in some situations to > believing you can do things you cannot. There is an advantage in many > situations in believing that you can do things in which success seems > statistically unlikely. Having a 100% belief in your ability to do > something that 65% of people cannot, has the statistical effect of > improving your chances of success in many endeavors. Strange and > backwater in origin, but useful to humans nontheless. > > ------------ > > I'm not hitting my mark terribly well, and I'm not precisely sure how > one would affix such concepts effectively to a belief system, but if you > were able to incorporate the benefits of contolled irrationality, along > with an approach centered in rational skepticism, I believe there is a > great deal of power there. > > -Colby > > > ---- > This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2005 board on Church of Virus BBS. > <http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid =33558> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
On reflection, I can see a number of flaws in my arguement.
Surely someone wholly rational could obtain the open frame of mind necessary to aquire any new perspective and ability as long as they remained forever more invested in pursuit of the truth, than in the accuracy of their current knowledge.
Certainly difficult, but an entirely feasible task.....
What I really meant to get at however, is the strategic advantage of well-placed irrationality, both in society, and in one's personal life. Of course, in some ways, my distinction between rationality and irrationality may be a matter of semantics. Again I will try to illustrate, and seek to gather your organization's perspective. Please forgive the pain that follows:
------------
"I'm a good fighter because I have a confidence beyond all ration and reason that I will win" --
If successful in fighting, does this become more of a rational strategy for one who must fight to survive?
Is it true that this advantage could only be met by rationality combined with a complete lack of fear? But if one completely lacks fear, do they then embrace apathy?
Are such faith and confidence, and perhaps the "god" part of the brain an important evolutionary advancement that appeared once humans were able to contemplate their own frailty and demise? Are we currently able to take a more rational tack, simply because we possess the luxury of living lives without horror and trial?
If such trials resumed, would the world be sorry that it had made converted virions of us all? If we lived life in a culture of mortal combat and hardship, would a rational/skeptic be placed at a disadvantage in the courage department? Would there be no heros?
I suppose I ask all this because I cannot yet see the wisdom of completely letting go of certain small facets of irrationality in my life. I view them as too strategic, and too important to my self confidence and willingness to take risks in certain areas. If I have a rational strategy for this controlled irrationality, and I fully comprehend that my feelings are irrational --- is that still irrationality on the whole? is that a "sin"?
Now bear in mind that I'm not talking about black cats and friday the 13th or lucky numbers -- I'm talking about positive thinking and intuition.
My belief is that my "vision" regarding life, the universe and everything, has taught me: "follow your intuition, even when evidence is contrary, it pays". This stems from my ability to make better decisions with input from my subconscious mind than with that of my conscious.
Last week playing a card game, I selected the same card out of a set of 5 cards in another's hands, 5 times in a row at a challenge. People often call me "psychic", "lucky" or "magic" for doing things like this. My belief is that I am able to do this by subconsciously noticing details about the card's exterior, or by watching the person's eyes. I'm not sure. I really don't care. But I can do it, and quite a number of other seemingly improbable things. All that is required is that I shut my mind off and be in the mood to believe in myself. This is one of the many skills I have gained through what I view as an initially irrational self-confidence. (after all, the calculated odds are very poor, and most people cannot do it).
I feel like it gives me an edge, a resistance to hesitation, and a method for shutting my brain down and following my intuition when things get tough - a way to tap in to the subconscious flow of information.
The wise man chooses the way that will benefit him the most -- this is a rational concept. Would you or would you not agree that in some situations, being irrational is the most effective (and therefore rational) thing to do? Can this ever be reconciled as a rational act on the whole?
..Or would you simply say that I am not rational because my perspective is not mature and grand enough, and I must still rely in irrationality to fully actualize myself and my abilities ... due to my own weakness?
Sorry for the rambling digression, I am still formulating and musing this issue in my head...
Author
Logged
