Rambling and occasionally incoherent thoughts on memes

robindch

> You can not apply pure reason, true/false logic,
> to human nature/history/politics.

Yes, I'm afraid that you can. Nonetheless, the conviction that you can't provides us with such daft examples of unreasonableness + illogical behaviour as Dubya, and all of the uneducated, smirking, bar-bore idiocy that he brings to the few enough things that he seems to bother, or indeed to be able, to think about.

Pure reason, in almost any of its manifestations, is admirably applicable in every realm of human activity I can think of, especially and most notably in those that deny its applicability, since it's a threat to their propagation.

- robin.

bus77

robindch wrote:

Yes, I'm afraid that you can. Nonetheless, the conviction that you can't

Since when is a firm statement a conviction?

robindch wrote:

provides us with such daft examples of unreasonableness + illogical behaviour as Dubya, and all of the uneducated, smirking, bar-bore idiocy that he brings to the few enough things that he seems to bother, or indeed to be able, to think about.

If examples exist then....
> You can not apply pure reason, true/false logic,
> to human nature/history/politics.
To do so would be confusing and depressing to the individual. Possibly false/short sighted conclusions could be reached. And little or no insight would be gained about the subjects mentioned.

robindch wrote:

Pure reason, in almost any of its manifestations, is admirably applicable in every realm of human activity

Most certainly.

robindch wrote:

especially and most notably in those that deny its applicability, since it's a threat to their propagation.

Personaly, I have never heard of an individual denying reason in order to procreate. If you meen an individual applying pure reason to group/grouping behaviour, then I suppose the interpretation of such activity would seem like germs multiplying.

bus77

SkepticOne wrote:

How would you apply chaos theory to this?

I allready did

robindch

> Since when is a firm statement a conviction?

Never said they were the same.

If examples exist then....

Clarify, please?

> > Pure reason [...] is admirably applicable in every
> > realm of human activity
>
> Most certainly.

Glad we agree!

> > Pure reason, in almost any of its manifestations, is admirably
> > applicable in every realm of human activity I can think of,
> > especially and most notably in those that deny its applicability,
> > since it's a threat to their propagation.
>
> Personaly, I have never heard of an individual denying reason
> in order to procreate.

The 'those' in my earlier sentence refers to the object of the earlier clause, which was 'human activity', not 'human' which was an adjective in this case. That's not, of course, to say that a lack of reason, or perhaps contraception, wasn't a factor in the birth of many people -- "Bridie, brace yerself, I'm back from de pub!".

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that reason should act as a damper upon the propensity of most individuals to behave anti-socially in various contexts, but instead of this reasonable behaviour, one usually finds that the anti-social behaviour itself denies the use of reason as a valid means of the correct determination of a course of action. viz, creationism condemning science + knowledge in general, homeopathy condemning trained medical practicioners, religion condemning everybody (except their own in-group), etc, etc, ad nauseam. Hence, these various memes, together with all the rest of 'em, are left with no alternative but to condemn reason itself, since, by applying reason, one is able to invalidate the meme, so it never propagates.

Trust this makes it a bit clearer.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that reason should act as a damper upon the propensity of most individuals to behave anti-socially in various contexts, but instead of this reasonable behaviour, one usually finds that the anti-social behaviour itself denies the use of reason as a valid means of the correct determination of a course of action. viz, creationism condemning science + knowledge in general, homeopathy condemning trained medical practicioners, religion condemning everybody (except their own in-group), etc, etc, ad nauseam.

It has long been known that prudence is right reason applied to a course of action. Believers and atheists can both posess the cardinal virtues and live rightly and both can be lacking in the virtues. Belief in creation need not require a condemnation of science nor does religion require condemning everybody except their own in-group.

Anti-social behavior is as much the result of not following the teaching of the Scripture that encourages reasonable behavior, as in:
The LORD said to Moses,
"Speak to the whole assembly of the children of Israel and tell them:
Be holy, for I, the LORD, your God, am holy.

"You shall not steal.
You shall not lie or speak falsely to one another.
You shall not swear falsely by my name,
thus profaning the name of your God.
I am the LORD.

"You shall not defraud or rob your neighbor.
You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your day laborer.
You shall not curse the deaf,
or put a stumbling block in front of the blind,
but you shall fear your God.
I am the LORD.

"You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment.
Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty,
but judge your fellow men justly.
You shall not go about spreading slander among your kin;
nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor's life is at stake.
I am the LORD.

"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart.
Though you may have to reprove him,
do not incur sin because of him.
Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
I am the LORD."

bus77

robindch wrote:

Clarify, please?

Football. And all that sail with her.

robindch wrote:

The 'those' in my earlier sentence refers to the object of the earlier clause, which was 'human activity', not 'human' which was an adjective in this case.

I would class 'human activity' as a umbrella phrase for Verbs. While the use of "their propagation" would imply the verbs are in fact Nouns. This reply is, in a way, a sort of morhing of your original statement. But it is the same.
This to me is an example of the fallacy of applying pure reason/logic and rationalisation to observed human behavior.
"What came first? the chicken or the egg?", To apply pure reason to this question would produce the answer "The chicken is the egg". While this is an extremly reasoned answer. It is by definition, unreasonable with.

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that reason should act as a damper upon the propensity of most individuals to behave anti-socially in various contexts,

In interpersonal relations yes. However, when behaivior becomes a rationalisd object and applied to groups of people. It is not possible to be resonable with somthing you view as an object.
A chat becomes a row. Views become polarised. It's time for war.

robindch wrote:

one usually finds that the anti-social behavior itself denies the use of reason as a valid means of the correct determination of a course of action.

Again, this betrays your thinking. Behavior is just scaping the surface. It's not the whole story.

robindch wrote:

viz, creationism condemning science + knowledge in general, homeopathy condemning trained medical practicioners,

I say your free to condem who you like. But the moment you condem people to a named behavior alone, the ability to learn their true motivations(and your own) is lost.

robindch wrote:

religion condemning everybody (except their own in-group), etc, etc, ad nauseam. Hence, these various memes, together with all the rest of 'em, are left with no alternative but to condemn reason itself, since, by applying reason, one is able to invalidate the meme, so it never propagates.

So by applying this to the north of Ireland, Unionits condem Nationalists, wave English flags on an Island mostly populated with people waving differnt flags. Therefor all Unionists are clearly anti-social, Illiogical and carry the English meme. This knowledge surely gives me the ability to resolve the situation, and correct this behaviour.

robindch

> I say your free to condem who you like.

I've read your reply three times in entirety and I have to say that I don't really understand how it relates to the point I was making about reason, indicating that either I'm not understanding your text, or you're intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding mine -- see your second + third paragraph again for some seriously Zen-like thoughts.

If there's anybody else still reading this thread, perhaps they'd like to adjudicate on whose text is the more incomprehensible?

- robin.

pH

You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your day laborer.

This ... but nothing about rape?

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference ...

There goes the welfare state!

bus77

robindch wrote:

> I say your free to condem who you like.

I've read your reply three times in entirety and I have to say that I don't really understand how it relates to the point I was making about reason,

The only clear point I could see about reason was that it was good for people.

robindch wrote:

see your second + third paragraph again for some seriously Zen-like thoughts.

Tis true, ive been feeling centered all week

SkepticOne

bus77 wrote:

I allready did

My apologies. I mistook it for drivel.

davros

robindch wrote:

If there's anybody else still reading this thread, perhaps they'd like to adjudicate on whose text is the more incomprehensible?

I have no idea what anyone is talking about (that's not unusual though). I'm pretty sure it's not about Uri Geller anyway. I'd split the thread if I could even figure out what to title it.

robindch

> The only clear point I could see about reason
> was that it was good for people.

Nah, you're missing the whole point of what I was saying, or trying to say.

Basically this -- take something like (say) homeopathy, then add a drop of reason (in a non-homeopathic concentrations, of course, ha, ha), and the whole thing falls to pieces, coz it's demonstrably a load of old cobblers. Therefore, in order for homeopathy to propagate as an idea within society, you've got to include within the notion of homeopathy itself, the idea that reason (what kills homeopathy) is bad in some way and -- hey, presto -- you've got an idea which sustains itself like a cultural virus. Religion works in exactly the same way too, except that it's had a far longer time to perfect its infection mechanisms, so it's a far more successful (and therefore, pervasive) cultural phenomenon.

Anyhow, that's what a meme is, and society is full of 'em (from the bad ones like homeopathy, religion, astrology, tarot, etc, through to the good ones, like the language, music, the value of co-operation, what money is (what *is* it? buggered if I know), etc, etc). The Wikipedia entry on memes is worth reading, if you've not come across the memes before.

The downside of the denial of reason, of course, is that homeopathy etc still remain a load of cobblers one way or the other. Though still, there is one upside, at least in the case of homeopathy anyway, coz since homeopathy can be a dangerous practice and in the long run, believers will marginally more than average, fail to propagate themselves (through dying slightly earlier than average, because of arseways medical diagnoses), so the propensity for homeopathic belief will probably eventually die out. Going to take a hell of a long time, though.

> I'd split the thread if I could even figure out what to title it.

"Rambling and occasionally incoherent thoughts on memes"?

- robin.

davros

robindch wrote:

"Rambling and occasionally incoherent thoughts on memes"?

Cheers

robindch

> Belief in creation need not require a condemnation of science

By 'creation', I assume you're referring to creationism, and, if so, perhaps it doesn't require a condemnation of science per se, since a condemnation of knowledge of the world (which is what 'science' is), could be construed, by a religious person, as condemnation of knowledge of what they believe to be *god's* world, and so, indirectly, a condemnation of the source of the knowledge (ie, the world) and hence of its creator, of god itself, which is utterly intolerable. However, most religious reasoning that I'm aware of has three important properties: (a) only follow the first link in a chain of logic, whether it derives from a metaphor or not and (b) regardless of (a), disregard what threatens your meme.(*) Applying these latter rules, yes, you're could well be right about creation not *requiring* a condemnation of science, though it is, in practice, what almost always happens.

However, creationism does require, firstly, a deep ignorance of the world, and that's not to difficult to propagate, since it's a long and difficult process to acquire much accurate information about the world; it's easier just to stay dumb. Secondly, creationism (et al) are, as I said before, contemptuous of the methods of science, because, if they're applied properly, they become a threat to the belief, since they can cause adherents to lose their belief, so it's easier just to condemn the methods.

> nor does religion require condemning everybody except their own in-group

Religion doesn't *require* condemnation of those of various out-groups (homosexuals, unmarried, those born outside marriage, members of other religions, etc), but it *is*, almost invariably, what happens in practice, as it's indistinguishable from a sanctimonious application of the psychology of ingrouping and outgrouping. I need not remind people of what this country was like up to about 20 or 30 years ago, when social prosecution of such out-groups was the norm. And it's still going on, helter, skelter and around the world -- here's a link which popped up today on http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com. Need I say more?

- robin.

(*) I should also add that most religious reasoning, such as it is, uses demonstrative and dubious metaphors to describe situations, and rarely if ever, attempts an accurate portrayal of the cold reality of a situation (ie, parables in bible, to take an obvious example). Does nobody else find this acceptance of 'metaphor-as-reality' a touch dishonest?