>All science is based on the assumption that there *is* objective
>reality.
>I also call it Absolute Truth.
[clip]
> Aside from religious beliefs, I
>can
>see three different atheistic approaches based on beliefs and
>behaviour.
>
>(1) Level-T atheists who believe and behave as they believe that there
>is
>objective reality and that the world is rational, predictable,
>intelligible.
>
>(2) Level-U atheists who believe and behave as they believe that there
>is no
>objective reality and that the world is contradictory, bewildering,
>unknowable.
>
>(3) Level-H atheists who (deep-inside) believe as Level-T and behave
>as
>Level-U. I call them Memetical Hypocrites. This kind of behaviour is
>very
>USEFUL from "the number of toys gathered in life" point of view.
Tad, first let me say that I got a kick out of your post. It's
unfortunate that this Level 3/Brodie-bashing thread took place while
Richard was on the road. When he gets back and checks his e-mail there's
going to be too much back-logged mail for him to address each post
individually.
But let me see if I can cast Level H(ypocrite) in a more charitable
light:
The Level H thinker realizes that there IS an objective reality, but she
also realizes that we have no direct access to it, i.e. our perception of
it is mediated by our senses and by our cognitive filters and classifying
mechanisms. We have models of reality, but the level H thinker
recognizes that each of these models is an imperfect approximation of
the thing it represents. Each model evolved to it's current state
because it was useful in certain contexts. Rather than mistaking any one
model for the thing it represents and accepting that model as the Truth
(and demanding that everyone else do likewise) she asks herself with
regard to each model, "In what context is this model useful?" "Is all of
it useful, or are parts of it counterproductive parasites piggybacking on
the useful parts?" "Can I employ only the useful parts, or are the riders
so firmly embedded that the model losses its utility when the
less-than-useful parts are stripped away?" "Some of the riders, while
not particularly useful, add color. Is there any reason why I shouldn't
leave them in and enjoy that color?" She then tests her answers to those
questions by operating according to the model in question in the context
in which she judged it to be useful, as well as in contexts in which she
doesn't expect it to be useful and then comparing the results. Over time
this process of examination and testing will provide the level H thinker
with a repertoire of models that she can employ only in those contexts in
which she judges them to be useful. After a time this reaching into the
cognitive tool box for the tool that suits the situation at hand becomes
automatic. The process of model switching becomes so smooth that it
looks as though our level H thinker knows the Truth. She may even start
to believe that herself, but sooner or later she'll encounter a situation
in which none of her models are quite right for the job, and she'll
remember that her models are just that. At this point she'll need to
bring her model testing skills back into use apply them in the light of
conscious-introspection.
The results of applying the above strategy will vary greatly depending on
the goals which motivate the level H thinker. If the person employing
the above strategy motivated by the desire to aquire the most toys, then
sure, the strategy will look crass. The motivation and the strategy are
modular. I like to think that I apply the above strategy to the goal of
promoting the development of consciousness and compassion.
Take care, all. -KMO
--QAT02404.846467654/r1.boston.juno.com--
--------- End forwarded message ----------