|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 09:21, Tom Bartlett wrote: I have always refused to read a book in which the author could not make up his mind in the first sentence. It promised to be a LONG read! I will say one thing about any measure you care to use. Bull. I have letters, diary enteries and things from my ancestors, who thought they were living the best life ever. They could not imagine being happier. They were not rich people, didn't have much but the family and the work they did to keep that family alive. Happieness can not be measured by anything but an opinion a single person has about their own happiness. Thing do not measure happiness. On another note, things are more like they are right now, than they ever have been before.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts |
"Happieness can not be measured by anything but an opinion a single person has about their own happiness. Thing do not measure happiness. "
DannyDoyle
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
True, I suppose, but at least the majority of people on planet Earth would have similar answers to these questions regarding happiness:
Can I be happy when I am starving? Can I be happy when in danger of the elements of nature? (i.e., freezing to death.) Can I be happy when I am enslaved to another person? The original post (and the videos linked to) was trying to get at a very simple fact: The world today is perhaps the best time in human history when you consider these kinds of questions. My point (which is admittedly strange, since in essence I am in agreement with the pursuit) is that science as science doesn't have the tools to evaluate whether progress has been achieved. We need--desperately!--a larger view of science which includes questions regarding happiness and suffering. |
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
We already have them. They are called the social sciences, not the physical sciences. Demanding that the physical sciences describe concepts such as morality and ethics asks too much...they're not designed for that task.
The laws of a civil society (don't steal, don't commit murder, and so on) were discovered early on and have been in place for many, many thousands of years across numerous cultures and traditions. The trick was figuring out how to communicate the message so the illiterate masses would buy into the concept. Curt |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
You can be happy in unbelievable circumstances. Are you unhappy that you do not have a PS3 player, when you do not know they even exist in the first place?
Are you unhappy when hungry, when you do not know there is another way to live? I often think much of the confussion of "happiness" is when we try to put what makes us happy onto another person. I think the human spirit has the ability to be happy with what we have. Coveting and desiring is what puts a monkey wrench into things.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
We already have them. They are called the social sciences, not the physical sciences. Demanding that the physical sciences describe concepts such as morality and ethics asks too much...they're not designed for that task. Science wasn't designed. There are aspects of life where science is useful and there are those where it is currently of little use. Where do the concepts of morality and ethics come from? Our consciousness, or to drill down to a deeper level our brains and the billions of neurons contained within. Neurology is the study of these things and while the science is young, it seems to me naiive to suggest that neurology has and will have nothing to contribute to our understanding of these concepts. It's simply a matter of time. Quote:
The laws of a civil society (don't steal, don't commit murder, and so on) were discovered early on and have been in place for many, many thousands of years across numerous cultures and traditions. The trick was figuring out how to communicate the message so the illiterate masses would buy into the concept. The reason these concepts were discovered in numerous cultures is that we have an innate disposition to them. Most likely derived from game theory and correspondingly evolution. In game theory terms a species will do better if they don't lightly murder one another. Eventually leading to non-murderings prospering in the evolutionary landscape. That is murder, and is admitadly one of the easiest 'social' aspects to describe in scientific terms - and although I've simplified it greatly, the case is fairly well made out. How much more difficult would it be to apply the same thinking to theft? To slavery? To whether freedom of speech is 'just'. It's only going to get easier when we can identify areas of the brain, patterns of firing and get closer and closer to a scienfic understanding of what hapiness and justice are.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 16:22, Davit Sicseek wrote: Neurology has already had much to say about these concepts, but your later conclusion that science will eventually provide a sufficiently complete explanation of happiness and justice is an article of faith and can't be argued on a rational level. Quote:
The reason these concepts were discovered in numerous cultures is that we have an innate disposition to them. Most likely derived from game theory and correspondingly evolution. In game theory terms a species will do better if they don't lightly murder one another. Eventually leading to non-murderings prospering in the evolutionary landscape. That is murder, and is admitadly one of the easiest 'social' aspects to describe in scientific terms - and although I've simplified it greatly, the case is fairly well made out. How much more difficult would it be to apply the same thinking to theft? To slavery? To whether freedom of speech is 'just'. Here's where you make the unsupported leap of logic: Quote:
It's only going to get easier when we can identify areas of the brain, patterns of firing and get closer and closer to a scienfic understanding of what hapiness and justice are. You assume that the human brain has a deep structure that responds consistently to external inputs, resulting in a feeling of happiness or what is just. The huge diversity of cultures, and mores within each culture, argues the opposite. What's more, you've jumped from game theory, which is pure math, to values such as happiness and justice. Human beings don't evaluate happiness and justice on a purely utilitarian level, so arguing it's extremely likely that science will find the answer to how humans assign value is, again, faith and not science. If your collapse position is that science will provide further insights into how humans process information, we're in total agreement. Your prima facie claim that science will definitely provide a complete solution for how humans make value judgments isn't, and can never be, provable by logic. Curt |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
You assume that the human brain has a deep structure that responds consistently to external inputs, resulting in a feeling of happiness or what is just. The huge diversity of cultures, and mores within each culture, argues the opposite. What's more, you've jumped from game theory, which is pure math, to values such as happiness and justice. Human beings don't evaluate happiness and justice on a purely utilitarian level, so arguing it's extremely likely that science will find the answer to how humans assign value is, again, faith and not science. Hmm. This is an issue in which I am fully willing to change my position. But I'm not convinced yet The jump from game theory to happiness and justice is bridged by the evolution I mentioned. For example, in game theory terms - genes that made individuals less inclined to steal would be an evolutionary advantage. Not stealing, would mean that individuals in that society wouldn't have to constantly guard their stuff and could therefore be more productive doing other things. These non-stealers would end up clustering together, similarly stealers would cluster together just like criminals and law abiding people tend to cluster today. This leaves two groups, the group with the non-stealing genes are playing the game optimally and will therefore propser at the expense of the stealers. I would imagine that the non-stealing genes manifested themselves in the brains of the non-stealers as a notion of justice being that "It's wrong to steal" and that after being stolen from an emotion of injustice and unhappiness is felt. Therefore, if one is to assume that genetic variation as to the notions of justice amongs human beings is zero, and providing there is a sufficient understanding of how the brain processes the notion of stealing - the question of whether stealing is just or otherwise can be answered with a high degree of certainty - or with a small margin of error depending on genetic variation throughout the population. This isn't a matter of culture, but a matter of biology. I'm not contending that our notions of justice are completly biological - but a significant part of it is. I see the cultural influence on justice/morality/ethics/happiness as something much more maliable. For example, I think that it is immoral/unjust/etc to beat ones wife. Even if she didn't have dinner ready in time. I know that some people in all cultures and some cultures generally hold the honest view that wife beating is a perfectly legitimate and just thing to do. I see this as a social pressure on justice that is acting contrary to the answer that socio-biology would provide. Of course, taking this argument to it's logical conclusion means that there may be things that I hold in honest belief to be perfectly ethical which I one day may have to difer to science on - much in my dismay. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to make a purely utilitarian argument for what is just and I'm in complete agreement that on and individual level this simply can't be made. Having said that, to draw the opposite conclusion that no value judgements can be 'correct' is all a bit too nihilistic for my liking and seems more like a cop out for our current lack of understanding of our brains. For example, it may be comparativly easy to conclude that the pain from a pin being shoved into one's hand is bad and to inflict it for no reason would be unjust. I have a strong suspicion that putting a sociobiologist, a neruologist and a philosopher toghether would allow for a convincing case as to why such an action is 'wrong'. More difficult is the conclusion of which actions that result in psychological sorrow are bad and unjust.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. However, you ignored this point:
Neurology has already had much to say about these concepts, but your later conclusion that science will eventually provide a sufficiently complete explanation of happiness and justice is an article of faith and can't be argued on a rational level. Until you demonstrate this assumption is true, the rest of your words are expression, not argument. Curt |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Scientists are not Science.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
Neurology has already had much to say about these concepts, but your later conclusion that science will eventually provide a sufficiently complete explanation of happiness and justice is an article of faith and can't be argued on a rational level. I see some aspects of justice and happiness (such as the stealing example) already being explained by science and since ultimatley what we are dealing with is a bunch of neurons, I see no obstacle other than time to a much fuller explanation of justice/happiness/morality in the future. In much the same way that we learn more and more about the causes and treatment of cancer, I have predict (based on the current evidence and progress) that one day there will be as full an understanding of cancer, it's causes and it's treatments as other illness all but eradicated. Do you see my prediction in regards to our future understanding of cancer to be the same 'article of faith' as my prediction re science and justice?
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
So says the white coated priesthood of scientists.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Tommy, I agree with you. Science isn't scientists. Never said it was and I doubt any scientist worth his salt would either.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 22:20, Davit Sicseek wrote: Of course. We have no idea how much of the cancer riddle we do or don't know, so we can't evaluate our successes in terms of a complete solution. If you have a workable model other than asserting eventual success, I'd love to hear it. Until then, you're still thinking magically and running in rhetorical circles by posing hypothetical examples based on unsupportable assertions. Curt |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
Until then, you're still thinking magically and running in rhetorical circles by posing hypothetical examples based on unsupportable assertions. I don't think magically. I'll be bold enough to say that my thinking has been described as 'magic' - but it was a result of hard work, education and the occassional bloody nose. Not magic. Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that unless uses 'magic' it's not possible to make any future predictions about our discovery of anything. Since something remains to be discovered, we don't know the whole 'riddle'. This seems to me to be a matter of making sensible predictions based on our previous progress. To me it seems likely that the vast majority of puzzels that we currently realise (the known unknowns as opposed to unknown unknowns) will be resolved providing their is enough time before our eventual extinction.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-16 08:00, Davit Sicseek wrote: In other areas, perhaps, but certainly not here. Quote:
Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that unless uses 'magic' it's not possible to make any future predictions about our discovery of anything. Since something remains to be discovered, we don't know the whole 'riddle'. I've explained earlier in the thread why the specific predictions you've made are examples of magical thinking and are unsupportable by logic. Extending the timeline to the end of humanity isn't exactly a rhetorical flourish of which to be proud. Your inability to gain an external perspective and appreciate why your unscientific arguments about science are fallacious demonstrates to our audience why it's safe to ignore you. I recommend you read "Unskilled and Unaware of It", a paper by two Cornell psychology professors that demonstrates how the incompetent (their word) overrate their own abilities. Here's a link to a summary of the paper and to the PDF versions: http://blog.bruceabernethy.com/post/Unsk......-It.aspx Your act will improve as you continue to work on it, but you'll be much more effective if you can gain the external perspective required to argue intelligently about science. Curt |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
Maybe not, but Ghandi could. Quote:
Maybe not, but Bear Grylls can. Quote:
Some people are into that too.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
I've explained earlier in the thread why the specific predictions you've made are examples of magical thinking and are unsupportable by logic. Extending the timeline to the end of humanity isn't exactly a rhetorical flourish of which to be proud. I don't believe you have, and when I've tried to pin down exactly what your position is (other than that I'm wrong) you've been less than forthcoming. I have asked you to clarify why you think I'm wrong, giving examples of stealing and cancer. It seems neither of these are valid because we don't know the whole 'puzzle' and yet you conveniently glossed over "Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that unless [one] uses 'magic' it's not possible to make any future predictions about our discovery of anything. Since something remains to be discovered, we don't know the whole 'riddle'." You've also ignored the issue of nihilism which seems to me to be the natural home of your argument. Maybe I am just too stupid to understand how I am wrong. Perhaps you could humour me and try again? Quote:
Your inability to gain an external perspective and appreciate why your unscientific arguments about science are fallacious demonstrates to our audience why it's safe to ignore you. I recommend you read "Unskilled and Unaware of It", a paper by two Cornell psychology professors that demonstrates how the incompetent (their word) overrate their own abilities. Here's a link to a summary of the paper and to the PDF versions: I suppose my throat clearing in regards to my willingness to change my position, my hedge betting 'seems to me's wasn't sufficient to communicate that I'm not an expert in these matters. Still I'll look at the PDF and will bear it in mind should I start claiming to be an expert in things that I'm not. On the subject of experts, did you watch the videos linked? Presumably you would consider a Sam Harris an expert? Perhaps I'm just doing a bad job of describing the crux of his argument? Perhaps his argument is completly without merit and he'll soon be the laughing stock of neurology. Perhaps not. Magically yours, Davit.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Al Angello Eternal Order Collegeville, Pa. USA 11045 Posts |
Guys
There are people at this very forum that don't believe in doctors. With all the advancements in modern medicine they actually prescribe their own medication, which tells me that not all of us will live to be 90, or even 60.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/ "Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone" |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The premature death of physicians as long been known. What does that tell you?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Michael Specter: The danger of science denial (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |