Izzy and the big philosophical questions...

[Woodsie]

Do you have any questions or suggestions that could point to a flaw in my thinking?

Stop it, I am not just a play thing, here for your personal amusement ...

 

[Kevinward777]

Wow! This has been a great read at 1.00 am. Some dog chasing its own tail moments, but some great stuff in there. (My opinion only of course.)

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Forenote ... apologies to Artie ... it has been 30 years since I read the book and I am paraphrasing from an unreliable memory ..

So @MuzztheEagle and old mate Mozzie we return to Athur Koestler ... who in his book, Janus from memory opined that the root cause of Man's problems lies in the fact that our brains evolved ....

By this he means that ancient forefathers had only a reptilian brain ... to which was later added the frontal vortex etc ... but throughout evolution the remnant of the reptilian brain remained ... and that in modern man the functions of logic and intellect are housed in the frontal lobe whilst instincts and emotions remain a function of the rear .... this he says has created a difference in the rate of devolment of the two functions ...

He cites as an example ... a logical, rational, well adjusted man like our old mate Muzz .... who can consider most situations dispassionatley and calmly ... suddenly turning into a murderous irrational beast because someone cuts him off on the highway ....

He produced a graph outlining the differing growth rates of Man's Intellectual V Emotional development over the past 2000 years .... as can be expected, the Intellectual development takes on an expotential curve over the past 100 years, from the first flight to landing on the moon as an example .... However, during the same time we have had WW1, WW2, Nazis, PolPot, Holocaust, Tutu genocides, Kim il jong, Vietnam, Jonestown, Taliban, Kevin Rudd etc ... so the Emotional development line is almost flat .....

He also gives the opinion that the most important date in history is the date of the first atomic blast on Hirosima .... prior to that date he concludes than Man had to consider his death as an individual .... after that date Man has had to consider his extinction as a species .... and he is not convinced the reptilian portion of our brain is up to the task .....

I think the problem with this thinking is in the idea that evolution is some grand force which moves us towards some utopian state. What would be the genetic gain in a purely logical creature? To use my own experience, I would have definitely slept in a few less beds if I had used the logical part of my brain and if I removed the emotional argument there is a good chance I would have two less children right now.
More recently there have been interesting theories from anthropologists on how what we consider negative human traits and conditions have actually helped the overall survival and ongoing evolution of the species. One is on ADHD (making the assumption this is something which can be linked to a genetic coding): Consider this, without our modern societies and special assistance for children wouldn't children with ADHD die at significantly higher rates. E.g. Little Johnny doesn't want to listen to you about going for a swim over there because there are sharks. Well yes, there would probably be fewer little Johnnys reaching adult hood. So you would think that genetic material for something like ADHD but consider little Jonny's death as a lesson for the remainder of the community. If everyone sees what the actions of one reckless person are they are may to be persuaded to take more care themselves. I.E. Instead of all the kids jumping into the shark infested water, only one reckless one did and the community benifited from his/her actions. Obviously having an entire community with reckless kids would cause some problems so reckless tendencies would best present genetically through recessive genes. This way children are only produced some of the time, when the right genetic combination comes together from Mother and Father and a small sacrifice is made to benefit the wider community and gene pool.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Stop it, I am not just a play thing, here for your personal amusement ...

Fair enough, how about I suggest one then.
What about the concept of personal taste. Do I use this to make personal decision which are still of my own rather than logic. Let's look at one example: I prefer single malt Scotch whisky.Why?
Well I could attempt to logically argue that it's an older and therefor more authentic version of whisky. But that's not very sound; If I went back even further I could find versions that didn't remove the methanol, which is a pretty bad idea.
I could argue that because it's only distilled twice it retains more character and because it's single malt I can really focus on the taste character of the malt and peat. But there is some whisky (Islay mainly) that I find way too much in terms of flavour, so it this thinking doesn't really hold up either.
So I can't really come up with a logical argument for why I prefer whisky. (If I was to only use logic, I would probably conclude that ingesting a poison would be a poor idea). So I try to keep an open mind....but then, after trying to keep an open mind tasting other whisk(e)y I still have my preference. Why?
@mozgrame 's yogi from earlier would probably suggest that it was the body making the decision for me (and we are not the body). Which would align with my previous claim. But, without delving into what that attempts to say, I don't think there is much substance in that statement alone.
I think there are several logical reasons that have shaped the thinking that is behind my preference, so lets take a look:
1. My Grandmother only drunk Scotch whisky and would claim it was the true/best/only whisky. Sounds good to a 16 year old (appeal to authority fallacy + anchoring)
2. I then moved to Scotland for a couple of years. (Bandwagon, Group think, In group bias.)
Ive now setup a bias. What's more, by continually drinking the same thing I have trained my taste through repetition.
So did I make a conscious decision here or was it decided by external forces and other people?

Is it wrong to have this preference that is formed on fallacy and bias? Only in the sense that it could give more of a closed mind and limit the number of things I could also enjoy. So, I keep my bias in mind when I try new things while using the taste and bias that I have developed to make selection when I'm at the bar or liquor store to make purchases that I am more likely to enjoy. I don't think that is a problem.
BUT...it is a problem when I attempt to tell others that my personal taste (and bias) is the right one. With tongue firmly in cheek : @mozgrame please stop drinking Irish whiskey, it's bland and you are wrong with the idea that it is superior in any way. I can express my preference (I prefer my whisky without an e), but I cannot use that as evidence to support a claim (so whisky is the best).

 

[Woodsie]

I think the problem with this thinking is in the idea that evolution is some grand force which moves us towards some utopian state. What would be the genetic gain in a purely logical creature? To use my own experience, I would have definitely slept in a few less beds if I had used the logical part of my brain and if I removed the emotional argument there is a good chance I would have two less children right now.
More recently there have been interesting theories from anthropologists on how what we consider negative human traits and conditions have actually helped the overall survival and ongoing evolution of the species. One is on ADHD (making the assumption this is something which can be linked to a genetic coding): Consider this, without our modern societies and special assistance for children wouldn't children with ADHD die at significantly higher rates. E.g. Little Johnny doesn't want to listen to you about going for a swim over there because there are sharks. Well yes, there would probably be fewer little Johnnys reaching adult hood. So you would think that genetic material for something like ADHD but consider little Jonny's death as a lesson for the remainder of the community. If everyone sees what the actions of one reckless person are they are may to be persuaded to take more care themselves. I.E. Instead of all the kids jumping into the shark infested water, only one reckless one did and the community benifited from his/her actions. Obviously having an entire community with reckless kids would cause some problems so reckless tendencies would best present genetically through recessive genes. This way children are only produced some of the time, when the right genetic combination comes together from Mother and Father and a small sacrifice is made to benefit the wider community and gene pool.

I am certain you are correct, that benfits are indeed a part of the result ... but it wasn't a commentary of good or bad ... but on the balance and differering rates of development .... and how these relate back to your original point of how and who makes decisions .... or more correctly ... if indeed a genetic flaw does exist .... is the human brain structured is such a way that ideal decision making is an impossibility .... are you chasing an outcome that is unattainable .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I am certain you are correct, that benfits are indeed a part of the result ... but it wasn't a commentary of good or bad ... but on the balance and differering rates of development .... and how these relate back to your original point of how and who makes decisions .... or more correctly ... if indeed a genetic flaw does exist .... is the human brain structured is such a way that ideal decision making is an impossibility .... are you chasing an outcome that is unattainable .....

What would that outcome be? I'm not suggesting that humans improve themselves to be free of any flaws it won't happen (so I will leave that to Izzy to preach ). What's more, what would a perfect (rational?) human look and behave like? Would that be an improvement?
Similarly, what would constitute ideal decision making. I could offer endless hypothetical where there would be no ideal solution and no single solution that everyone would reach.
What I am advocating is the acceptance and understanding of our own flaws so that we can make decisions which are free of bias and justifiable when explained to others.

 

[Woodsie]

Fair enough, how about I suggest one then.
What about the concept of personal taste. Do I use this to make personal decision which are still of my own rather than logic. Let's look at one example: I prefer single malt Scotch whisky.Why?
Well I could attempt to logically argue that it's an older and therefor more authentic version of whisky. But that's not very sound; If I went back even further I could find versions that didn't remove the methanol, which is a pretty bad idea.
I could argue that because it's only distilled twice it retains more character and because it's single malt I can really focus on the taste character of the malt and peat. But there is some whisky (Islay mainly) that I find way too much in terms of flavour, so it this thinking doesn't really hold up either.
So I can't really come up with a logical argument for why I prefer whisky. (If I was to only use logic, I would probably conclude that ingesting a poison would be a poor idea). So I try to keep an open mind....but then, after trying to keep an open mind tasting other whisk(e)y I still have my preference. Why?
@mozgrame 's yogi from earlier would probably suggest that it was the body making the decision for me (and we are not the body). Which would align with my previous claim. But, without delving into what that attempts to say, I don't think there is much substance in that statement alone.
I think there are several logical reasons that have shaped the thinking that is behind my preference, so lets take a look:
1. My Grandmother only drunk Scotch whisky and would claim it was the true/best/only whisky. Sounds good to a 16 year old (appeal to authority fallacy + anchoring)
2. I then moved to Scotland for a couple of years. (Bandwagon, Group think, In group bias.)
Ive now setup a bias. What's more, by continually drinking the same thing I have trained my taste through repetition.
So did I make a conscious decision here or was it decided by external forces and other people?

Is it wrong to have this preference that is formed on fallacy and bias? Only in the sense that it could give more of a closed mind and limit the number of things I could also enjoy. So, I keep my bias in mind when I try new things while using the taste and bias that I have developed to make selection when I'm at the bar or liquor store to make purchases that I am more likely to enjoy. I don't think that is a problem.
BUT...it is a problem when I attempt to tell others that my personal taste (and bias) is the right one. With tongue firmly in cheek : @mozgrame please stop drinking Irish whiskey, it's bland and you are wrong with the idea that it is superior in any way. I can express my preference (I prefer my whisky without an e), but I cannot use that as evidence to support a claim (so whisky is the best).

My bias is that despite my heretage and fathers advice .... I don't like or drink whisky at all ... an independent thinker .... however if I did, I would choose the one that would stop me from thinking too much ..... the issues become confused when you compare bias on little things to a community bias on larger issues ...

Your bias for single malt was personally developed and individually owned .... your bias on legal matters and the rights of man have been conditioned and developed by thousands of years of historical records and societal living ... and would be shared by the majority of the community in which you live through education and shared experience ......

... that is not to say those big biases are necessarily correct ... but they are generally ones that have served the community well .... and every generation or so an individual or movement comes along and challenges preconcieved ideas .... progress is made ..... hopefully ....

But as a Sheldon devotee .... all I can say is nothing good comes from change, you think it does, but it doesn't ....

 

[Woodsie]

What would that outcome be? I'm not suggesting that humans improve themselves to be free of any flaws it won't happen (so I will leave that to Izzy to preach ). What's more, what would a perfect (rational?) human look and behave like? Would that be an improvement?
Similarly, what would constitute ideal decision making. I could offer endless hypothetical where there would be no ideal solution and no single solution that everyone would reach.
What I am advocating is the acceptance and understanding of our own flaws so that we can make decisions which are free of bias and justifiable when explained to others.

My brain is hurting again .... I think there is a difference in the effect of a bias when it forms part of an opinion ... and the effect of a bias when it is used to form a decision .... luckily those with the loudest opinions are rarely called upon to make decisions ... so we are not forced to suffer the consequences of their biases ... and those that are charged with decision making more likely to deal with all the factors which can/will/should/does at least mitigate some of the influences of pure bias ....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

My bias is that despite my heretage and fathers advice .... I don't like or drink whisky at all ... an independent thinker .... however if I did, I would choose the one that would stop me from thinking too much ..... the issues become confused when you compare bias on little things to a community bias on larger issues ...

Your bias for single malt was personally developed and individually owned .... your bias on legal matters and the rights of man have been conditioned and developed by thousands of years of historical records and societal living ... and would be shared by the majority of the community in which you live through education and shared experience ......

... that is not to say those big biases are necessarily correct ... but they are generally ones that have served the community well .... and every generation or so an individual or movement comes along and challenges preconcieved ideas .... progress is made ..... hopefully ....

But as a Sheldon devotee .... all I can say is nothing good comes from change, you think it does, but it doesn't ....

Change isn't always good, but it can bring good with it. Stay the same and things will never improve. If we refused to change since the time of Jesus we would have missed out on a fair number of improvements.
Using bias to reach a conclusion won't necessarily result in an incorrect truth or a negative outcome. Some biases can bring people to a conclusion which has logical truth to it (without using logic to get there) and some biases can bring positive results to a community. But the problem occurs when you attempt to justify/convince the belief to others. Unless the person you are speaking with shares the same or similar bias then your argument will be completely unconvincing. Likewise, you will not convince someone of a logic argument if they are unwilling to look past their own bias.

luckily those with the loudest opinions are rarely called upon to make decisions ... so we are not forced to suffer the consequences of their biases ... and those that are charged with decision making more likely to deal with all the factors which can/will/should/does at least mitigate some of the influences of pure bias ....

Bahhahahahahahahahaha.......

 

[mozgrame]

Forenote ... apologies to Artie ... it has been 30 years since I read the book and I am paraphrasing from an unreliable memory ..

So @MuzztheEagle and old mate Mozzie we return to Athur Koestler ... who in his book, Janus from memory opined that the root cause of Man's problems lies in the fact that our brains evolved ....

By this he means that ancient forefathers had only a reptilian brain ... to which was later added the frontal vortex etc ... but throughout evolution the remnant of the reptilian brain remained ... and that in modern man the functions of logic and intellect are housed in the frontal lobe whilst instincts and emotions remain a function of the rear .... this he says has created a difference in the rate of devolment of the two functions ...

He cites as an example ... a logical, rational, well adjusted man like our old mate Muzz .... who can consider most situations dispassionatley and calmly ... suddenly turning into a murderous irrational beast because someone cuts him off on the highway ....

He produced a graph outlining the differing growth rates of Man's Intellectual V Emotional development over the past 2000 years .... as can be expected, the Intellectual development takes on an expotential curve over the past 100 years, from the first flight to landing on the moon as an example .... However, during the same time we have had WW1, WW2, Nazis, PolPot, Holocaust, Tutu genocides, Kim il jong, Vietnam, Jonestown, Taliban, Kevin Rudd etc ... so the Emotional development line is almost flat .....

He also gives the opinion that the most important date in history is the date of the first atomic blast on Hirosima .... prior to that date he concludes than Man had to consider his death as an individual .... after that date Man has had to consider his extinction as a species .... and he is not convinced the reptilian portion of our brain is up to the task .....

Most atheists consider themselves to be supremely rational. They always have...all the way back to Jean Mesliar.

History paints an interesting picture of what happens when power is gained and religion is thrown out the window.

Christianity teaches that man is hopelessly prone to evil. War and poverty will always be his curse due to his fallen nature. A Christian can't hope to end these things, so he is content to ameliorate them where and when he can according to biblical commands.

Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist teachings are more fatalistic as they teach that worldly evils are inevitable, merited or illusion. Regardless...none of the major religions offer any justification for trying to fix man's problems as any effort to do so is doomed to futility for various reasons.

The atheist knows no such boundaries and refuses to believe they exist at all. A theist sees restrictions of human nature as created by God...an atheist sees nothing but the possibility of human progress. What this progress is directed towards depends on the particular vision of the atheist.

Most atheists know what they don't want and claim to know what would be best for others, but few of the "average Joe" atheists can articulate even a semi-coherent vision of how to get humanity to its full potential. (as they imagine it could be) Even the big boys on the atheistic block vary. Pol Pot's vision was different to Lenin's.

History shows that there are six stages to an atheistic vision as it proceeds...

1. Persuasion
2. Deception
3. Ascension
4. Decision
5. Destruction
6. Renunciation

 

[MuzztheEagle]

History shows that there are six stages to an atheistic vision as it proceeds...

1. Persuasion
2. Deception
3. Ascension
4. Decision
5. Destruction
6. Renunciation

How about birth, followed by the absence of indoctrination?

 

[Woodsie]

History paints an interesting picture of what happens when power is gained and religion is thrown out the window.

...... and back at ya ..... was it the Myan's or Inca's that were big on pulling the hearts out of living breasts as a sacrifice to the God's .... and don't get me started on the pure wastefulness of sacrifing virgins to the volcano god ..... there is a good reason that the idea of seperation of church and state became a good idea .....