In the Spirit of Transparency

Yes I'm afraid it's true ... I'm not a true citizen of the U.S. ... :)
 
Hi Jane, I used to consider myself agnostic (little 'a') but now consider myself a de-facto atheist (little 'a'). It was not a shift in belief, only in semantics. Technically, I'm both agnostic and atheist ('as agnostic about god as I am the tooth fairy' I believe Dawkins put it) but if we interpret agnostisism to mean unsure and atheist to mean firmly in the belief that the notion that a supernatural being exists that created everything and spends its time listening to prayers and suchlike* is a notion not worth entertaining until there is cause to do so then - and I don't want to tell you what you are or aren't but from your description, our position is identical.

I would agree that our position is, likely, so closely aligned as to be virtually akin to "identical" - and a difference in "semantics" predominantly. I would be perfectly happy to identify as an (little 'a') atheist if there wasn't that niggling little word "belief" intrinsic in so many of the common definitions of the word. "Belief" implies "knowledge without evidence" and I am not THAT invested in the supposed answer to that supposed question.

Jane Q Smythe, you sound like a sane person. I'm so excited to virtually meet you.

Thank you, "you sound like a sane person" may be the nicest compliment that I have been paid today!

Ooh, the much neglected question of free-will. Did I bring this up earlier? Jane, I think you hit the nail on the head again; there seems to be no reason to believe in free-will as we are purely circumstantial entities.

I don't actually know if you brought it up...but these concepts are all tied together for me, and someone around here had caused me to re-think my thoughts on this recently (incidentally, I just re-thought them, they didn't change:p). For me, these metaphysical discussions are interesting - although not life-changing in terms of my ACTIONS, just my perspectives...which becomes part of my "circumstances"...so maybe more insidiously influential than it would seem on first glance?

Now, here's an interesting point that I'd imagine has popped up on this forum more than once. Poly marriage rights. I wonder how much of a legal headache it would be to decriminalise it. What exactly is in our way here? Also, I think it's important to specify what we're talking about. Firstly, as with gay marriage, I don't think church leaders should be forced to marry anyone. Secondly, I don't think that church leaders should have any autority to legally marry anyone as church and state should be separate. Thirdly, I don't know precicely what marriage entitles (and it varies from country to country of course) but how would it translate to a poly marriage? Would it need to even? Perhaps a poly marriage only needs to be a collection of marriages.

For me this is making things much more complicated than it needs to be. I'll leave the "church" side out - they can make their own rules as long as they don't rule the day from the legal side. No, they shouldn't be "forced" to do anything - and what they choose to do/not do shouldn't affect anyone except church members. From the legal/government side - I would pick a model that viewed marriage as a "contract" and allow the the participants to outline what "contract" they were agreeing to (financial support, provisions for children produced, sexual exclusivity if applicable, etc.). There are some pretty complicated "business contracts" out there, the fact that there is no ONE standard "business contract" doesn't mean that no-one can have one. The same should apply to the "marriage contract." The government's role should be limited to a.) enforcing contracts b.) protecting basic human rights c.) protecting civil rights of citizens (i.e. non-discrimination) and d.) collecting taxes to pay for expenses associated with a/b/c.

JaneQ
 
Last edited:
Hi Jane,
Yes that poor little word belief has been molested by halfwits. The word in my books does not mean 'I know'.
There are so many other words that have equally unhelpful ambiguosity or multiple meanings. 'Jewish' is one for instance. How can a person be free of the religious label they were given if it is the same word as indicates their racial heritage?
'Faith' is another as its meaning seems to mean well founded trust or confidence at one pole and at the other, ignorance and denial. And the word 'love' has been dressed up like a 4yr old in a beauty pageant.
I imagine - perhaps foolishly that peoples opinions aren't so unreconsilable. That a little but fundamental tweak here, a little clarification there and half the worlds disputes evaporate. If ever I find myself involved in or privy to a dispute, it always seems to turn out that the crux of the issue is a nothing that has been blown into a something through a communicative error or errors or the silliest misconception. I know (I believe) I'm amongst others here who share my sentiments on the value of openness and honesty.
'...these metaphysical discussions are interesting - although not life-changing in terms of my ACTIONS, just my perspectives...which becomes part of my "circumstances"...so maybe more insidiously influential than it would seem on first glance?'

Sorry, I'm struggling with the meaning of this a little erm.... Your perspectives have sway on your actions of course. The metaphisical stuff for me is vaguely interesting in the same way as wondering if the matrix is actually true...wait, that is exactly the same thing.
I'm a pitifully uneducated person, I had to work the fallacy of free will out for myself. Only a couple of years ago in fact, whilst working as a farm hand in Australia - as good a place as any for an epiphany I think.
I brought it up with my family at Xmas and it was prettymuch laughed at and swiftly placed on the back burner. I didn't feel inclined to force the issue at the time but perhaps I should have. After researching it a little I find out that not only is there a complete lack of evidence for the existence of free will but that it has already become the scientific consensus that it does not (or rather that we should assume that it does not until we have the slightest cause to consider it a possibility - I think would be a more accurate way of putting it as the scientific consensus is that 'knowing' anything is almost certainly impossible).
Re: Poly marriage rights.
Do we make life more complicated than it needs to be? ...ah, after reading that again I see that's exactly what you're suggesting. Perhaps the unecessary aspects of marriage will (are already?) falling away. Many people don't go in for marriage at all in England. It means less and less. Any children are protected by law anyway and are as a default, the responsibility of those named on the birth certificate. If there is a dispute, both parties should have equal legal backing - I've wondered this; is it possible that we could have a system whereby any dispute has a basic government funding. If either pary wants more they can pay more into a fund which is then split 50/50 so you don't end up with haves getting better legal advice than have nots.
...anyway, off the subject a bit and not my area of expertise to be fair. Still, it's not a bad idea to wander from ones comfort zone. I offer my thoughts with humility.
 
Re: words and their ambiguity ... indeed many verbal disputes seem to be based on a failure (or unwillingness) to agree on basic terms and definitions. I keep a glossary on another forum and have been told that it's foolish to have a glossary, that words shouldn't be fixed to concrete definitions and that when they are, knowledge about them becomes a basis for superiority ("Look at these special words I'm using; I'll bet you don't know these words, ha-ha"). I actually maintain that without some kind of common knowledge about word definitions, communication (let alone effective communication) is impossible.

Re: the effect of a philosophical discussion on one's actions ... the effect is subtle, but I assume it must be there. Kind of like how all the celestial bodies in space tug on each other a bit, so that no orbit is perfectly circular (or elliptical).

Re: the Matrix and metaphysical stuff ... there are many models (e.g. brain in a vat) of a substrate plane that may underpin our existence, some sinister, some sublime. There is a chance that a "spirit world" is connected to our physical world, but in a very delicate way.

Re: free will ... it is virtually impossible to imagine not having free will. We perceive ourselves as making decisions all the time. We have complex thoughts that precede our decisions. Imagining all that as the inevitable movements of energy and molecules is almost as impossible as imagining death without an afterlife. For some, this incomprehensibility is proof that we do have spirits. But then, it is technically impossible to imagine a hypersphere, and yet most of us agree that our universe is in the shape of a hypersphere.

Re: marriage ... it is becoming less common in the United States as well, though conceivably less so than in England. In tandem, people are talking about the need to extend marital rights to same-sex couples (and we still have a considerable range of rights that go with marriage if my understanding is correct). I don't know what the fate of marriage is worldwide. Perhaps as Jane suggested people will write up their own marital contracts.

Re: equalizing legal funds ... an interesting idea, may take awhile to take hold in the U.S. though, where wealth is still somewhat seen as a sign of honest hard work and virtue. Redistributing wealth is seen as a communist value, and we still have lots of people who are paranoid about communist values.

Just musing out loud,
Kevin T.
 
Re: Words and their ambiguity
I think you'd agree that there's something to be said for allowing room for interpretation in various situations; perhaps when precicion in a situation is less important than brevity but when hackles begin to rise or beforehand, all paries must check themselves and acknowledge the debate not as opposing forces but as agents intent on reaching the common cause of truth. This is where clarity becomes all important and words must be defined or replaced for terms such as those commonly used in philosophical debate.

Re: Celestial bodies.
'Logic is the gravity of truth.' - me

Re: Metaphysics
There is of course always going to be the possibility of possibilities but surely no unfounded possibility should be considered more likely than any other unfounded possibility? Actually, I think I disagree with myself there; if a possibility sounds feasible it's more likely than one that sounds absurd.

Re: Free Will
On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how we possibly could have it. I mean, I know it is kind of intuitive but this is because we're doing precicely what our minds are telling us too! It's difficult to come up with a metaphor to express the non-existence of something. Our brains are full of neurons, that echo eachother. It's not so difficult then to consider our conciousness as an echo of subconcious messages (I think there are three types - sensory, and um ...) relevant to the immediate (even if what is happening in the immediate is reflecting).

Re: Marriage
People should write their own marrital contracts because people are individual, with individual needs and any relationship between two or more individuals is as individual as those involved. That's not to say a contract would need to be as complex of course. It may be that they want no rights other than the legal default.

Re: Commies
Ha! Well perhaps a country so against Communism shouldn't have put itself in the pocket of China (though that is Communist only in name (but then what country ever has been truly Communist?)).
Wall St is no less insidious ...insidious? Brazenly dictatorial I mean. Capitalism is just 'the devil you know'.

Re: Free Will (again)
It's no wonder the powers that be aren't so keen to make the fallacy of free will known (or to let atheism run loose). How else can they justify their wealth? Not believing in free will doesn't nullify the effects of incentives of course. Perhaps Capitalism could work if people weren't so swamped in the egotism that can only come with belief in free will.
 
Re:
"I think you'd agree that there's something to be said for allowing room for interpretation in various situations ..."

Agreed (and believe that any glossary should, within reason, reflect that).

Re:
"Perhaps Capitalism could work if people weren't so swamped in the egotism that can only come with belief in free will."

Perceiving free will as an illusion does have a certain humbling effect ... though I suppose it could also be used as an excuse to act badly. Sigh.

Re:
"Well perhaps a country so against Communism shouldn't have put itself in the pocket of China."

Oh snap; :)
 
Re: Free Will
'it could also be used as an excuse to act badly.'
And what will this 'excuse' buy them? Incentives are there for good reason. There are differences of course. It makes no sense to take comfort in anothers misery, only in the thought that that misery may make them a better person. We shouldn't take pleasure in punishing our children so why would we with anyone else?
One can also take a certain comfort in knowing that an unhelpful member of society is being confined/inhibited from being unhelpful again.
So what positives do we loose in rejecting the notion of free will?
Now, as for what we gain:

Studies consistently show that criminal activity is closely linked to unfair distribution of wealth. As Kevin pointed out, the wealthy feel justified in their wealth and deserving of their good fortune.
Humility lessens the need to show everyone how great you are, so dampens the desire to have more than others.
This more accurate sense of self makes hate as we know it turn into something far more managable.
I don't know enough about psychology to even consider myself a beginner but think of all the ways that people are fucked up. How many of them are so because of this skewed perception of self and what comes with it; greed, shame, hate, many aspects of fear, jealousy, vanity...
...and repurcussions of these things - notably distrust and all of the above.
So what will we gain as these things shrivel like an iced scrotum?
Well truth for one.
 
Well amidst all the pros and cons, the main advantage in my view is gaining an accurate map of the terrain. It is possible that we have some kind of unseen spirit world, granting us this thing called free will, but I personally think the odds of that are pretty slim. So, as you pointed out, truth is perhaps the most important thing to be gained here.
 
Yep, there is always the possibility of a possibility but that could be said of anything. Remind me; what do we stand to lose if we take off our free will glasses?
 
Well, I don't feel it's any great loss. If anything, the loss for me, in my own exodus from the church, was realizing I had no afterlife to look forward to. But I've kind of made peace with that as well.
 
Well I don't know about you but if the bible's anything to go by, I'd rather be dead and without conscious than have to spend the rest of eternity with the likes of Yahweh.

As for free will; here's a guy who's saying pretty much everything I've been saying but perhaps with more clarity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
 
That was a cool talk. So cool that I just forwarded the link to several of my family and friends, and encouraged them to watch it and comment.

I like the fact that he seemed to cover all the bases. He addressed the idea that *even a soul does not grant us free will.* He addressed the idea that it still makes sense to try to make the right "choices." He showed that having no actual free will doesn't mean that we should or have to just throw up our hands and do nothing. And perhaps best of all, he shows how this idea (of free will being an illusion) helps us follow Jesus' counsel to "love our enemies."

At first I figured "Ugh, this is over an hour long." But within about five minutes I could tell that it was going to be an hour well-spent. So I recommend it to any others reading this thread. Even if you don't agree with what the guy says, it's still an interesting (thought-provoking) talk.

As for the classic description of Heaven, you're right, it doesn't sound all that fun to float around playing a harp for the rest of eternity. From an LDS viewpoint, LOL, I long ago imagined myself spending the rest of eternity sitting through boring church meetings, and decided that didn't sound very fun either.

Now if an afterlife could come with some freedom (such as to travel around exploring the Universe), that wouldn't be so bad. Ah well, even a short mortal life, blessed as I am in my particular circumstances, is still infinitely better than to not have existed at all. I've learned and experienced much that is good, and it seems to have been worth enduring the bad.

Re: the Bible and its description of God ... yeah, the Old Testament especially describes (what to me is) a scary Deity. I like Richard Bach's God better. :)
 
If anyone has any objections to it I'm all ears.

When I was young, I briefly converted to Satanism (of the fundamentally Christian type). This was partly due to seeing 'the garden of delights' by Hieronymus Bosch. It wasn't exactly idyllic but it looked far more fun than any depiction of heaven.

Anyway, we're past all that silliness and the new transition is this emergence from the free will bubble. So... what's next? Well even for those who fully agree that free will is a fallacy may still have a long way to go in fully accepting it and all its implications all the way to the bottom of ones subconscious. This is a pretty accurate description of myself I think. It's been over 2 years since I had my epiphany but I'm still prone to making nonsense egocentric thought processes. This emergence is an ongoing process. Any time I notice a glitch, I find the switch and flick it. It'll keep flicking back for a period but it's the same as any learning I think.

As for heaven, well... It may well be possible to create one, not just in the sense of a Utopian future but as an extension to that - an immortal simulation of one sort or another. I don't hold out much hope for our generation that we can be part of this (that's if it's even possible or likely to be achieved) but whatever's possible, we can be a generation to push humanity in the right direction.
 
Yes, life extension is unlikely in this generation (alas for me in my selfishness). I believe it will happen in some future generation, but of course no one can "predict the future." Not with that many variables.

The number of variables involved in how we "make choices" is probably one of the reasons why we have thought (in the past) that we had free will. Decisionmaking is an extremely complex process. As the guy was saying in the talk, so much goes on in our subconscious of which we're unaware. So due to the complexity, we've been able to say, "It's all very mysterious; it must be free will." But as the guy said, if I can't predict my next thought, how then am I controlling that thought?

It's also hard to lay aside the free will paradigm because it's built into our language. It's hard (some would argue convoluting) to purge our everyday conversations of their "free will elements." I tend to just suggest to people ahead of time, if I think they're open to the idea, that I mean words like "choice" in a colloquial way.

Yes, I believe that Heaven exists somewhere in the future. An "on Earth as it is in Heaven" type of Heaven. A "the meek shall inherit the Earth" type of Heaven. But I can't exactly predict what that Heaven will be like, as everyone's idea of Heaven is a little different, and I value the diversity of our various personalities.

Re: Satanism of the fundamentally Christian type ... LOL, there's a mind-bender.
 
In standard deterministic terms we're talking purely factors rather than variables. Variables only come into it with the element of chance as far as we have reason to believe (although we have little if any reason to believe that chance exists. If it does, it could well be confined to the realms of quantum mechanics).
Hmmm, that gives me an idea...
...if that is the case and the only time chance effects us is when these quantum events have an effect on our existence, then what if we instegate the occurance of quantum chance events and regulate their interaction with existence at large? True - we still have no free will in this but in doing so, we may be able to alter the course of existence. I don't know what causes chance (if anything) but this would be a new layer of occurance no?

Re: Ambiguosity of the word 'chance'. Yeah, I still use the word to signify something other than a quantum event. Something closer to 'a vaule that is unknown by me/unknown by anyone/unknowable due to known unknown contributing factors/known unknowable contributing factors (like quantum events)/the possibility (there's a similarly missused word) of there being unknown unknown factors/the possibility that even given all relevant factors, we'd not be able to do the math.
Maybe we need a new word but for the time being I'll just say 'chance'.
Perhaps it's true to say that globally, language is less than adequate to convey progressive thinking - even with modern philo terms. Wouldn't it be nice to have a universal language for this purpose?
Re: Valuing 'diversity in personalities'.
Shit, I'm all for diversity but at the moment, homosapiens generally differ in the most pitiful of ways. (Almost all of which are directly the fault of our skewed perception of self (the rest being medical issues that would be less likely to have occurred/far more likely to be curable in a world where the fallacy of free will is forgotten)).
Once we begin to iron out these fundamental flaws, we will start to really explore the worth in personality as well as begin to make close interpretations of our emotions rather than continually swamped in our defence mechanisms.
There is no reason why 'Heaven' cannot be diverse in itself.
Satanism as I understand it is the name given to non-christians like pagan, wiccan or heratic but it supposes a belief in Satan who is obviously included in Christian superstition. I acknowledge that many so called Satanists don't actually believe any Christian mythology but consider Satanism to be a hedonistic philosophy.
 
Re:
"In standard deterministic terms we're talking purely factors rather than variables. Variables only come into it with the element of chance as far as we have reason to believe (although we have little if any reason to believe that chance exists. If it does, it could well be confined to the realms of quantum mechanics)."

I think I see what you mean. I was actually using "variable" in an imprecise sense without conscious intent. Like you said, some things seem like "chance" because they're unpredictable to us given our limited scope of knowledge and computational ability.

Re:
"What if we instigate the occurance of quantum chance events and regulate their interaction with existence at large?"

By "instigate" I take it you mean that things we do can bring about further quantum chance events, making us participants in odds or chaos. I'm less certain how to interpret "regulate," unless you mean some future technology by which we can decide how quantum chance events play out?

Re: language ... I'm somewhat pragmatic in that area; that is, I think changes in language evolve slowly, so I am resigned to working with what we have for the most part. Hopefully sometime in the future, people will have a better-defined and more-progressive way of expressing themselves in everyday life.

Re: fundamental errors that people harbor ... humanity has far to go before attaining even a truly civilized existence. However, I like to see most people as basically good people who sometimes do bad things. For sentient life as a whole, the road to Heaven may be paved with good intentions. I just don't expect us to travel that road in a few generations.

Re: Satanism ... I can't tell if you actually believed in a being called Satan, or were more of just the wiccan/heretic camp and perceived as a "worshipper of Satan" by Christian persons. It doesn't sound like something you stayed with a long time, in any event.
 
Yes, firstly in incurring quantum events, we (the molecular world) are expanding the role that chance has on reality. By regulating (perhaps isolating unwanted effects of synthesised chance events) we (the white horses of causality) may be able to interact/create reality around us on a new plane.
There is always the very real possibility that I'm talking out my arse but it's a thought. :D
Re: Language.
Yup, things do generally happen gradually and often it's for the best but it doesn't always have to be slow and it's not always for the best. Look at evolution. Look at the chaotic mess of our bodies; the vas deferens, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the inverted retina. Evolution works but it isn't ideal because it can't go back to the drawing board or design things. Similarly, the development of language works to a degree but it's hardly succinct. I'm well aware that there are other things that give a language value and I'm not in any way suggesting that we scrap all the others but a universal language designed to be succinct rather than just tinkering with the existing ones would be a great idea I think...though a bit further down the line perhaps.
Re: Satanism
Nah, I didn't stick to it for long but I was Christian in the sense that I held a belief in the existence of the Christian god but turned my back on the useless cunt and started pandering to Satan instead. After that I developed a stronger faith than ever before in a different fantasy wherein I was from a fairly civillised collective of aliens who'd used me in a scientific project to collect data by living as a human. I shit you not I believed it and would spend hours talking to the night sky, begging them to take me back. I was not the happiest of children. :D
Ah well, logic is prevailing now and one day I may even become a well adjusted human being. If there is such a thing.
 
I can relate to the sensation of belonging to a different planet; I've had the sensation, although I didn't go so far as designing a belief system around it. I've also gone through various stages of not having too high an opinion of (Christianity's) God. These days I kind of shrug my shoulders and figure everyone believes in a slightly different God, which they are welcome to do if it's what brings them happiness.

Re: the future ... I fancy that eventually technology will change things on an order of magnitude that we couldn't even imagine or comprehend at present. I know some view technology as evil, dysfunctional, or "playing God," but I have a more optimistic view of it. Like language and physical form, it won't evolve perfectly, but it will evolve and gradually improve. Right now it's enough that we figure out what to do with the knowledge we have, but far future generations will have far more to play with.

Re: well-adjusted human beings ... it's not healthy to be perfectly happy with the world that we have since there is much amiss with it. However for the sake of sanity and endurance we need a certain amount of ability to just enjoy/appreciate the here and now. Each person needs to find their own balancing point as far as loving or hating this brief mortal life is concerned. It's lucky at least that we have a forum like this where we can talk and ponder these things.
 
Re: Believing god exists.
I'm a live and let live kinda guy. If it doesn't effect anyone detrimentally I'd say there's not even an argument but it is detrimental isn't it? Especially for those who influence others (especially young children) into believing the same. If it isn't logical, it isn't rational, it isn't reasonable and isn't ethical. You can't have ethics without logic so any belief system that relies on religious faith isn't ethical.
There are some circumstances where I think it may be for the best to leave people to believe these things. Ineffectual people who are close to death generally. Those with one foot in the grave. My nan is Christian but it seems hardly worth getting into a serious debate with a 98 year old. I think she's got over her piety these days anyway.

Re Tech
True; it won't 'evolve' perfectly but unlike biological evolution, it will be designed. It's major limitation will be in it's designers.
Re: Well adjusted human beings
Some are better equiped than others in putting up with the current state. They tend to be not so well equipped in other areas. I often wonder why Ethiopians (for instance) don't just top themselves. How did people go from day to day in the dark ages? I suppose they didn't live all that long anyway and they we're all high on chemicals induced by untreated wounds, infections, malnourishment etc... they must have all been stark raving mad.

Now, as much as I appreciate conversing with you Kevin, I think you'll agree it would be good to hear opinions other than our own. Shall we start a new thread or two. Perhaps on free will (as it may not hit the same wall as religious debate tends to).
 
Back
Top