On Functionality

[CommieBastard]

This is kind of a follow on from the previous threads 'On Language', 'On Falsity, Conjecture and Truth' and 'On Reality and the Self'.

I concluded that we can truthfully speak about our own personal and individual experiences in the terms of themselves. That our experiences are the extent to which there is anything real, and anything which amounts to a 'self'.

But what good does this do us?

Well, we can truthfully talk in specific terms about these experiences.

There are certain states of being that we appreciate, and others which we do not. We can truthfully say this. We can also truthfully say that there are ways to achieve the states we appreciate and avoid those we do not. We can also truthfully compare the functionality of these different methods.
We cannot truthfully say that we ever understand for certain the causality which operates in the world, as for every cause we consider to be relevant, there is an infinite number of other possible causes, such as computer simulations, god's actions etc.
However, we can talk of causality in terms of an observed conjunction between two events, and an observation of the repetition of this conjunction when perpetrated by ourselves.
When we want to achieve a particular aim we can identify the particular causal conjunctions which are required to occur. Having identified these we can work out how to achieve our aim. If we have direct experience of seeing a possible solution then we can try that, and if we don't then we can make inferences from similar previous actions to work out a solution. The best method, ofcourse, is to try everything that occurs to us, as even if a method fails, we at least know that it wouldnt work, and it might have succeeded, and made our overall method more functional.

There are also functional ways of thinking.
If we invest ourselves in basic thoughts about the world, such as 'there is a god', 'there isnt a god', then we are making a functional error. The most functional concepts to invest ourselves in are those which distinguish between the validity of other ideas, and there are some more functional than others.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
If we invest ourselves in basic thoughts about the world, such as 'there is a god', 'there isn't a god', then we are making a functional error.

This does not seem to follow from your earlier statements.

We live in a world with a large number of people who are fervently convinced that "there is a god" and are quite willing to use some very nasty methods of "persuasion" on those who think otherwise.

This creates a "state of being" on the part of the unbelievers that is very unpleasant indeed.

Being selfish, I would rather create an unpleasant "state of being" for the believers...both by attacking their faith on this board (with reason where possible but with contempt and ridicule where necessary) and by attacking their power, wealth, and prestige in human society generally...should I ever have the opportunity to do that.

That does not seem to qualify as a "functional error".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[CommieBastard]

I haven't experienced (and seriously been threatened by) those methods of persuasion since i was a child, have you?

There is no unpleasant state of being i can personally find relating to any religious person i know.

Being selfish would mean that you wouldnt care about the state of being that the beleivers occupy. Though you might care about your own state of being, and if you associate their state of being with your own, then you might care about theirs. I don't see any reason to believe that making the state of being of believers in god unpleasant will make the state of being of unbelievers inversely happier.

If you can show that the contempt and ridicule you are 'using' to 'attack' their beliefs is actually fulfilling this function then i might accept that that is why you are using it, and not just because you get a pleasure from bringing down others.

I would agree, however, that is certainly is not a functional error to attempt to eradicate the means which others use to attempt to subvert our ability to reason.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
I haven't experienced (and seriously been threatened by) those methods of persuasion since i was a child, have you?

Does such behavior become "less unreasonable" if the victims are "only children"?


There is no unpleasant state of being I can personally find relating to any religious person I know.

You do not find the still wide-spread popularity of those unreasonable views "unpleasant"?

I certainly do...particularly in light of both their historical and their current practices.


I don't see any reason to believe that making the state of being of believers in god unpleasant will make the state of being of unbelievers inversely happier.

That's not the motive but it is the real-world effect. I am "happier" when I see their superstitions lose power, wealth, and prestige...and they are, presumably, quite unhappy about that.

But, of course, my happiness comes from progress towards a more reasonable world...which necessarily involves the defeat of unreasonable ideas and their advocates.

And, unlike yourself, I think the numbers are very important.

I wish to see a world where reason is (for all practical purposes) universally accepted...and unreason is confined to a small number of cranks with organic brain defects (and I want a cure for those defects too!).


If you can show that the contempt and ridicule you are 'using' to 'attack' their beliefs is actually fulfilling this function then i might accept that that is why you are using it, and not just because you get a pleasure from bringing down others.

Actually, there was a post not long ago from someone on this board who trashed their religion as a consequence (they said) of my sharp attacks.

So, I'm doing "some good". :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
I haven't experienced (and seriously been threatened by) those methods of persuasion since i was a child, have you?

Does such behavior become "less unreasonable" if the victims are "only children"?


No, all I was saying was that they are no longer relevant to me. They were relevant to me when I was a child, but now I am not, and so they are not.



There is no unpleasant state of being I can personally find relating to any religious person I know.

You do not find the still wide-spread popularity of those unreasonable views "unpleasant"?

I certainly do...particularly in light of both their historical and their current practices.

You are finding something which does not exist within your perceptual world to be unpleasant. That is irrational, and could prove a hindrance for you.



I don't see any reason to believe that making the state of being of believers in god unpleasant will make the state of being of unbelievers inversely happier.

That's not the motive but it is the real-world effect. I am "happier" when I see their superstitions lose power, wealth, and prestige...and they are, presumably, quite unhappy about that.

But, of course, my happiness comes from progress towards a more reasonable world...which necessarily involves the defeat of unreasonable ideas and their advocates.

And, unlike yourself, I think the numbers are very important.

I wish to see a world where reason is (for all practical purposes) universally accepted...and unreason is confined to a small number of cranks with organic brain defects (and I want a cure for those defects too!).


That's the kind of World I would prefer as well. However, your concept of what reason is, I think, makes you a little unreasonable yourself.
You seem to feel threatened by people who have no direct impact on your life



If you can show that the contempt and ridicule you are 'using' to 'attack' their beliefs is actually fulfilling this function then i might accept that that is why you are using it, and not just because you get a pleasure from bringing down others.

Actually, there was a post not long ago from someone on this board who trashed their religion as a consequence (they said) of my sharp attacks.

So, I'm doing "some good". :)

If it was for the sharpness of the attacks, then you will have succeeded in changing somebody's mind only on the basis of the fact that they feel ashamed. This gives them no basis for their new belief.

I suspect, however, that if it was your attacks that changed their mind it was because they contained within them some kind of coherent argument as to why their beliefs were wrong.

Just because the sharpness of the attack and the result coincided does not mean to say that they share some causal relation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
No, all I was saying was that they are no longer relevant to me. They were relevant to me when I was a child, but now I am not, and so they are not.


You are finding something which does not exist within your perceptual world to be unpleasant. That is irrational, and could prove a hindrance for you.


You seem to feel threatened by people who have no direct impact on your life.

I put all these quotes together because they seem to me to illustrate the extremely narrow range of your position.

The way children are treated does affect your life and mine...even if we're not close enough to actually hear the screams.

Children grow up to be adults; and adults who have been treated unreasonably as children are not likely to be reasonable adults.

Adolph Hitler was treated like shit when he was a kid. He took his revenge on "a cruel world" in a rather drastic fashion.

The same is true of other forms of unreasonable behavior. You can't pretend that "it doesn't affect me at the moment -- and therefore I don't have to worry about it."

It's a little late to start developing a reasonable critique of Nazism when the Gestapo is pounding on your door.

Trying to "reason" with the Grand Inquisitor while you are being tied to the stake is unlikely to be very successful.

"Bad stuff" -- violently unreasonable behavior on the part of large social collectives -- takes time to develop.

You have to pay attention to what could happen if you want to prevent it ahead of time.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[CommieBastard]

I put all these quotes together because they seem to me to illustrate the extremely narrow range of your position.

The way children are treated does affect your life and mine...even if we're not close enough to actually hear the screams.

Children grow up to be adults; and adults who have been treated unreasonably as children are not likely to be reasonable adults.

Adolph Hitler was treated like shit when he was a kid. He took his revenge on "a cruel world" in a rather drastic fashion.

My point in saying that "They were relevant to me when I was a child, but now I am not, and so they are not", is that they are not something directly relevant to me or my welfare, and it is those things which are directly relevant which have to be dealt with first. Simply due to prioritisation on a basis of which is likely to have the largest positive impact on my life.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that (overall) societal change is a pointless goal. It is simply that I do not think it is a goal in and of itself. Personally I believe that society will change to become 'reasonable' in response to how well developed and how well expressed a reasonable position is.

The way you view things seems to be 'jumping the gun' to me. Something you have accused me of. You think that I am wrong to think that reason has already won, and that i should be fighting in the world to spread it. Rather, I think that reason has to clarified before there is any point in trying to make people in the world believe in it.


The same is true of other forms of unreasonable behavior. You can't pretend that "it doesn't affect me at the moment -- and therefore I don't have to worry about it."

It's a little late to start developing a reasonable critique of Nazism when the Gestapo is pounding on your door.

Trying to "reason" with the Grand Inquisitor while you are being tied to the stake is unlikely to be very successful.

"Bad stuff" -- violently unreasonable behavior on the part of large social collectives -- takes time to develop.

You have to pay attention to what could happen if you want to prevent it ahead of time.

I didn't say there is no reason not to 'worry' about different forms of unreasonable behaviour that could affect us. Rather, my point is that it is best to identify the problem as it is, and to come up with solutions relevant to it. You identify specifically nazis as being a target. Identifying one specific form of unreason and finding a way to defend yourself from this is debilitating i feel. If we identify what unreason is by a definition, irregardless of what particular conclusions the type of unreason identifies, and the types of techniques that unreason attempts to employ against us, then we can more clearly think of a means of defense.

I would argue that the most important line of defense is one's own mind, and the extent to which it has a developed and valid concept of the world.

More than this, though, you fear the threat to your wider welfare from the unreasonable actions of these people. Again, I think it is an error to identify particular types of unreason and the particular methods employed by them. It is better to look at a broader concept of what constitues being unreasonable, and what constitutes a harm to your welfare. With these in mind we can have an adaptable system for meeting with those hindrances that there are.

As for 'what could happen', we have no basis to know 'what could happen' other than that which has, within our experience, happened. It is these things for which we have the best basis for preperation.

There is some basis for preparing to meet problems that we know of through 'hear say', but only when the problem we have heard of has potential immediacy and extent.

As for damaging unreasonable behaviour on the part of large social collectives... well, that's just how society as it stands IS.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
Personally I believe that society will change to become 'reasonable' in response to how well developed and how well expressed a reasonable position is.

That would be nice...but history suggests that things rarely run so smoothly.


Rather, I think that reason has to clarified before there is any point in trying to make people in the world believe in it.

Greater clarity is always desirable...but surely what we have now is sufficient to confront the major sources of social unreason that presently exist.


I would argue that the most important line of defense is one's own mind, and the extent to which it has a developed and valid concept of the world.

That's a really tough conjecture to refute.

And yet, I think there's "something" wrong with it...because it implies the cultivation of one's own mind and the neglect of the "social dimension".

That is, one can understand the world to "near perfection"...but if one does not act to change it (confront unreason and defeat it in its practical manifestations) -- then what has one accomplished?

To be sure, one's highly developed reason will allow one to foresee and escape most of the really outrageous manifestations of unreason (you move from Germany to Uruguay in 1930).

But it somehow seems a waste...a supercomputer used for balancing one's checkbook or keeping track of one's grocery list.

In the end, the enormous power of reason should be used to do something besides merely contemplating the world.


As for damaging unreasonable behaviour on the part of large social collectives... well, that's just how society as it stands IS.

True enough...but should we tolerate that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
Personally I believe that society will change to become 'reasonable' in response to how well developed and how well expressed a reasonable position is.

That would be nice...but history suggests that things rarely run so smoothly.

Really? I'd like to see where in history we have ever had a well developed and expressed argument for reason.

Anyway, do you deny that if we had an argument which was both indubitable and understandable to the vast majority of people that society could not change?



Rather, I think that reason has to clarified before there is any point in trying to make people in the world believe in it.

Greater clarity is always desirable...but surely what we have now is sufficient to confront the major sources of social unreason that presently exist.

If by 'what we have now' you mean society, then apparently not. In fact, I would say the very fact that major sources of social unreason have NOT been confronted succesfully highlights the fact that the argument for reason has not been articulated sufficiently well.



I would argue that the most important line of defense is one's own mind, and the extent to which it has a developed and valid concept of the world.

That's a really tough conjecture to refute.

And yet, I think there's "something" wrong with it...because it implies the cultivation of one's own mind and the neglect of the "social dimension".

That is, one can understand the world to "near perfection"...but if one does not act to change it (confront unreason and defeat it in its practical manifestations) -- then what has one accomplished?

To be sure, one's highly developed reason will allow one to foresee and escape most of the really outrageous manifestations of unreason (you move from Germany to Uruguay in 1930).

But it somehow seems a waste...a supercomputer used for balancing one's checkbook or keeping track of one's grocery list.

In the end, the enormous power of reason should be used to do something besides merely contemplating the world.

It does imply the cultivation of one's own mind, for sure.
I'm not quite sure where you got the implication for the 'neglect of the "social dimension"'.
One can spend forever trying to imptove the "social dimension" but if you do not have a clear idea of what you are doing then you will act counter-prodictively, and you will have no guarantee that you are even doing the right thing, in even the vaguest sense.

I would like to know where i said that we should not confront unreason and its practical manifestations... In fact, it is very much the point of my argument about reason that we should do exactly that.



As for damaging unreasonable behaviour on the part of large social collectives... well, that's just how society as it stands IS.

True enough...but should we tolerate that?

I can certainly tolerate it where it's effects have no direct impact on my world (I don't really have much of a choice).
As for whether we should tolerate it generally, I have very specifically said in the thread 'Reasonableness, Authority and Anarchism' that we should not. That in response to any given act of unreason we should respond with an attempt to establish reasonable grounds for communication. Failing this all we need do to stop the impact of an unreasonable person's actions upon our life is to ignore them. Failing this, relocating either them or oneself would seem the next best course of action.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
Anyway, do you deny that if we had an argument which was both indubitable and understandable to the vast majority of people that society could not change?

It would help...but I don't think it's necessarily a "sure bet".

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong," etc.

And the reasonable have trouble with chance and circumstance as well.


In fact, I would say the very fact that major sources of social unreason have NOT been confronted successfully highlights the fact that the argument for reason has not been articulated sufficiently well.

Or perhaps it's been quite well articulated...but is powerless (for the moment) against guns in the hands of the unreasonable.


That in response to any given act of unreason we should respond with an attempt to establish reasonable grounds for communication. Failing this all we need do to stop the impact of an unreasonable person's actions upon our life is to ignore them. Failing this, relocating either them or oneself would seem the next best course of action.

That seems to boil down to: (1) Try to reason with the unreasonable; (2) Ignore the unreasonable; or (3) Flee the persistently unreasonable.

I see no space here for a different option: confront the persistently unreasonable and by force put an end to unreasonable behavior and, if necessary, the unreasonable themselves.

Or: the capitalist class cannot see reason in terms other than their own advantage; they cannot be ignored; and there's no place to run to in order to escape them.

The only reasonable option is to overthrow them.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif