virus: Faith and Reason

Reed Konsler (konsler@ascat.harvard.edu)
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:47:56 -0500

>Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:20:29 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: Faith and Reason
>
>At 11:59 AM 3/9/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>
>>>consistency checking. Are you sure faith creates models the same
>>>way? I don't see how offhand.
>>
>>Faith checks to see if an arguement is consistent with the
>>fundamentals. What does reason check against...the premises?
>>What is the difference between a premise and a fundamental?
>
>I don't know what you mean by "fundamental".

The same thing a rational person means when they say "premise". In the beginning it was dark and God said "let there be light". This is the first fundamental. Now, I'll caveat the Dickens out of this by saying that anthromophization is just a metaphor, and one has to interpret it selectively. Then I'll flip back and say that there isn't anything "more real" than the metaphors we live by. Then I'll flip back again...

I'll tumble through the air like a coin. But, astoundingly, I'll always land "heads up". That's teleology, or narrative, or delusion. I don't care what you call it becuase I'm interested in happiness, satisfaction, freedom, rapport, progress...

...a whole truckload of memes, in my mind, preceed <truth> in priority. I value <truth> very highly, don't get me wrong. But, given apparent conflict, I'll bend truth to accomodate.

Do you still want to play?

>>>To decide if we want to continue playing.
>>
>>Who is "we"? You and I, this group, all humanity, the multiverse?
>>My answer depends on that. It matters that "we" understand "us",
>>to be sure.
>
>The participants in this conversation.

You didn't really answer my question, did you?

>>>Rule #6 (proposed): If a player does not agree to a rule, he or
>>>she must withdraw from the game.
>>
>>Rule #6b (proposed): Each player interprets the rules for themselves.
>>Thus, a player may choose to leave the game at any time, or remain
>>in it, with complete freedom of expression.
>
>Are you giving players the freedom to break the rules?

No, I'm declaring that we each have the freedom to affirm the rules in our own way. We express our common vision though different forms, and yet we have faith that it is a common vision.

>>>Rule #7 (proposed): The game ends if only one player remains.
>>
>>Disagree. Real games have no beginning and no end, no winners
>>and losers, and no points-keepers. What you are thinkink of is
>>an illusion, like chess. Computers are sufficient to play such
>>"games". It's the real games, which require the human touch,
>>which I'm interested in.
>
>This game is this conversation. If you want to remain in the game
>when you are the only one talking, I guess that is your prerogative.

Oh, I see your point now. Yes, you're right...the game ends if there is only one participant. The defininition of "participant" becomes critical doesn't it? How about this:

Emerson's Rule (proposed):

If you don't speak out, you are not a participant.

>>>I'm not sure I want to play a game where fallacies are valid moves.
>>
>>[shrug] We each define our own fallacies. Dennett made up "the
>>argument from incredulity" in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_. He
>>said it was a fallacy to say "X is false becuase I can't believe that
>>X might be true". The failure is one of imagination, not reality.
>
>If you want, we could rule out fallacies as invalid moves if and
>when they come up. I just wanted to let you know in advance that
>I'm unlikely to accept any of the standard logical fallacies.

That sounds reasonable as long as you remember that logic is a tool to facilitate communication and not a weapon to silence people who irritate your sensibilities. I'll agree to try to be as clear as possible if you agree to try and understand me.

Reed 

  Reed Konsler                        konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------