N: So if I don't eat shit does that mean I have an irrational meme
against such treats because ten zillion flies can't be wrong?
R: This meme likely settled into your mind because, among
> other things, you have a contrarian personality and an irrational addiction
> to analysis.
N: As opposed , say ,to a rational addiction to chaos?
>
> << As living creatures we have two choices: life and death.>>
>
>R: You seem to be attempting some rhetorical point here, but it makes no sense.
> In fact, as living creatures, death is one of the few choices we DON'T have!
N: The human body is a machine assembled at the molecular level. The
life expectancy has been rising because the understanding of how it
works is improving all the time. If old age is ever cured it will be
because we have figured out how to do it by experimenting and thinking!
We are limited only by our level of knowledge in this regard. Even so If
we ever going to make it to our genetically determined end of our
existence thinking is a requirement there too !
> << In
> order to stay alive what must mankind do? Mankind lives by thinking.>>
>
>R: No, mankind lives by reproducing. And individual men and women live by
> eating food, drinking water, and breathing air. If anything, statistics show
> that industrialized countries (where more "thinking" is going on?) have
> lower birth rates. So perhaps thinking is demonstrably harmful to mankind.
N: We get that food and water by thinking! If we are to ever inhabit
space we better think hard where our next breath is going to come from
too! The industrialized countries have lower birth rates as the result
of thinking: To maintain the lifestyle at the level we have become
accustomed to it simply becomes more expensive to have children if
productivity cannot match population growth. The real criteria is how
long are you going to live on average. The "thinking countries" , i.e.
the ones where capitalism has been allowed to flourish, clearly have the
edge
>
> <<Thinking is not enhanced by killing innocents or stealing from them>>
>
>R: Meaningless non-sequitur.
N: Not at all. If I were to kill you, your thinking would stop, would it
not? If you worked hard only to have anything beyond your basic survival
needs stolen, you'd stop working beyond that point if you couldn't stop
the stealing wouldn't you? (If you had that "irrational" analysis meme
that is )
>
> << and
> most certainly is not enhanced by faith.>>
>
>R: Thinking is, in fact, largely a process of faith. Every time you take a
> hypothesis and think it out to its conclusion you are using faith. Trusting
> in the scientific method is faith. Believing that truth is more important
> than happiness is faith. You use faith all the time, but like most faithful,
> you are stuck in Level 2 and cannot see the value in other people's
> different models.
>
N: You are confusing faith with confidence. Websters has many different
definitions for faith but the one I'm referring to is "unquestioning
belief". So are you of the opinion that "unquestioning belief" is an
effective way to think?
> << I can progress much further in
> life by honest trade than by brute force. It is simply the most rational
> way to act for my own benefit.>>
>
>R: Translation: I am infected with Ayn Rand's memes, advice on how to live life
> from one of the most bitter and unhappy people in modern history.
N: So right or wrong does not matter? Only if we are happy? There was an
experiment once with some rats. They had some wires put into their brain
that would activate the ecstasy response when stimulated. They had two
buttons they could press. one would give them food , the other would
make them happy. They pressed the happy button until they starved. Are
you offering me a "happy" button here?
> << However if I live with faith A and you
> live with faith B we have no way to reconcile our differences save
> through force>>
>R: ... or through conversation, or even through one of you graduating to Level
> 3!
N: Faith: Unquestioning belief. How are you going to change that with
conversation? I've had the faithful come to my door before. Easier to
squeeze blood from a turnip in my experience!
> << and that is just what has happened in the history of
> religious beliefs: endless pointless fighting. (Except for pagans who
> allowed for plenty of room for more gods)>>
>
>R: People and animals fight to gain power and territory. To say that most
> fighting is over religious beliefs is naïve. None of the wars America has
> fought were over religion; in fact, most were claimed to be fought over
> something akin to your beloved secular morality. Economic freedom, ending
> slavery, stopping oppression by use of force, and so on.
N: There you go again, I didn't claim that most fighting is over
religious beliefs, only that fights among different faiths is all but
guaranteed! As for my beloved secular morality, do you know of any
capitalist democracies that adhere to the rule of law that have gone to
war with each other?
> << A morality of the mind, based
> on the life of thinking creatures ,such as men , is best served when
> people are free to think for themselves and come to their own
> conclusions!>>
>
>R: How could that not be the case?
> Richard Brodie
I'm old enough to remember the cold war in grim detail. Seeing Soviet
spokesman mouth their politically correct words and pause every now and
then to be sure they repeat the current party line. I can remember the
same people, years later, after they were free to say what they really
thought and how much more refreshing it was to hear them. You may split
hairs here by saying in the privacy of their own mind they were free to
come to there own conclusion without fear of the thought police, but
what good is that if you cannot talk it over with other people without
the specter of grim reprisal hanging over you?
Nate Hall