Who is the biggest fanatic?

[Burnt State]

I suspend my disbelief and throw a lot of ideas in the air in this forum from time to time and make pronouncements that might make it appear that I think I know what I'm talking about. Hopefully, folks who have read more than a couple of my posts realize that is what I'm doing.
...
All that said, I do believe that the universe is not bound by the confines of human experience and that strange things exist that neither our senses or our minds can comprehend in any real sense. I believe the best way to safely navigate this universe is through the use of science and not fanatical or religious belief although I have been guilty of both and I know I am entirely too gullible for my own good.

Thanks for all of this post, and all its authenticity. You are a very generous writer.

I continue to burn my hands in the oven because I believe I have superhuman chef powers and that one day I won't need to have the aloe plant nearby sitting on top of the microwave.

I would also like to believe in real magic and god and UFO's, but when we had kids we promised not to cloud their minds by raising them to believe in any imaginary beings from Santa to god. One day, in the course of explaining how it was that all the Xmas chocolate magically disappeared, I scapegoated the Easter Bunny and blamed it on his spring plan for a redistribution of resources. At three years of age she roundly tured on me and pronounced, "You know and I know there is no such thing as the Easter Bunny alive on this planet!" And then we took out the digital microscope and looked at cool & beautful stuff for a while. There is a way to navigate this universe indeed.

 

[Burnt State]

And yet I know no more passionate person than the scientist fully and completely in love with the shape, texture, colour, design, sound & movement of that which they study. Be it dung beetle or beaver homes, the scientist sees a scintillating beauty in the form and manner of their subject.

Do you see a scintillating beauty in the form and manner of the dung beetle? Does any scientist see beauty in the form and manner of the dung beetle and beaver homes? Do you think, for example, Stephen Hawking does?

i think those who study these indivdual things, as their life work, see beauty in the dung beetle or the beaver home (something I do find to be infinitely fascinating in design, form and function) the way that Hawking gets all hot and flushed over black holes.

Of course when you stumble into the real ones while canoeing on the lake you see this beautiful, rounded mound of chewed sticks and trunks, and you think to yourself, submerged alien vessel, or possible landing pad?

 

[smcder]

i think those who study these indivdual things, as their life work, see beauty in the dung beetle or the beaver home (something I do find to be infinitely fascinating in design, form and function) the way that Hawking gets all hot and flushed over black holes.

. . .
Of course when you stumble into the real ones while canoeing on the lake you see this beautiful, rounded mound of chewed sticks and trunks, and you think to yourself, submerged alien vessel, or possible landing pad?

If I say this neurological state is equated with beauty, then I can go and look for that state in response to stimuli but beauty had to be defined ahead of time. As for the good - I would have to say something like "what benefits the most people" and then I would have to say what "benefits" means . . . and only then could I use the methods of science.

 

[trainedobserver]

I agree - scientists can be no more (and no less) passionate than artists, lovers, mystics, philosophers . . .

Science is a set of methods for organizing knowledge in a form that can lead to testable explanations and predictions about the universe and as such it cannot tell us what is good and what is beautiful until we define those terms.

You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

 

[smcder]

You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

You're still missing my point - in these studies how was it determined what was aesthetically (ascetically is something else entirely ;-) pleasing?

The rest of your statement is a bit thin on details (and don't assume I want to insert "God" where you have left the gaps . . . but don't assume I don't either . . . )

For example, "set in motion by primordial natural law" is a downright mystical statement and free will is . . . complex . . . are you saying you are a compatibilist?

The final part is an assertion of personal belief . . . HP Lovecraft saw something very different in exactly the same world view.

Other than that, I completely agree . . .

 

[smcder]

You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

Cosmicism is the literary philosophy associated with HP Lovecraft's writings, your position above I think can fairly be described as Scientism

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Teller writes about this:
Science and Morality

also see Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

It's very important though to recognize that it is an -ism and not to make the mistake that the only alternative is some kind of irrational or religious position.

 

[manxman]

there you go again between yall, using words ive never heard of, talking deeper than i could ever imagine, sheesh, whats wrong with black and white, its easy.

 

[Burnt State]

Just turn out the lights and close your eyes to listen to this.

 

[smcder]

You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

Send me one of the studies you reference - post it, I may be able to show you better what I mean.

 

[trainedobserver]

You're still missing my point - in these studies how was it determined what was aesthetically (ascetically is something else entirely ;-) pleasing?

I say thee nay, you're missing mine. A rough example: I can do a study to see what color choices a certain population has made when buying kitchen appliances and determine what a given demographic finds aesthetically pleasing. Yes, I must define aesthetically pleasing as something people gravitate toward, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

The rest of your statement is a bit thin on details (and don't assume I want to insert "God" where you have left the gaps . . . but don't assume I don't either . . . )

Thin? I compressed the eternal wisdom of the ages into something like 65 words! Philistine!

For example, "set in motion by primordial natural law" is a downright mystical statement and free will is . . . complex . . . are you saying you are a compatibilist?

Do I have a choice?

The final part is an assertion of personal belief . . . HP Lovecraft saw something very different in exactly the same world view.

Well, Howie had some deep rooted problems don't you know. I'm more of the cheery short.

Other than that, I completely agree . . .

Ha! Well, that was fun.

 

[trainedobserver]

It's very important though to recognize that it is an -ism and not to make the mistake that the only alternative is some kind of irrational or religious position.

Of course. You're certainly correct there Steve.

 

[trainedobserver]

Send me one of the studies you reference - post it, I may be able to show you better what I mean.

Here is the earliest and simplest example I can think of. The Golden Ratio.

 

[smcder]

Here is the earliest and simplest example I can think of. The Golden Ratio.

Yes, I must define aesthetically pleasing as something people gravitate toward, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

No, it's exactly what I'm talking about . . . did you use science in defining it that way?

The idea of aesthetics still has to precede the Golden Ratio in order to say that the GR is aesthetically pleasing.

 

[smcder]

I will listen to that as i was very taken by the gentle poetry on the site - some very nice internal dwelling there. You made me start thinking about Thomas Aquinas who a friend who was entering the priesthood introduced me to years ago. He explained to me that his God did not want a blind believer but someone who knew implicitly, with all the possible reason mustered from one's own critical faculties why God did exist. I was fascinated by this type of conversation - was it possible to use reason to become a spiritual and devout Catholic? This was unheard of for the most part in my RC upbringing.

The other things this faith and doubt conversation reminds me was in a theology class i took where the theologian explained to me one night that those people who are thinking about suicide, who are on the edge of their life - those most vulnerable, lonely and doubtful, they are the ones closest to God and in sheer terror and personal destabilization to be in the presence of the almighty who cares so deeply for his lost child. For a believer those are heavy, beautiful words. For the angry atheist them's fightin' words.

Thank you for posting the literary example as is not the entire literary canon replete with such characters whose convictions run them up against the philosophies of others, or must deconstruct the philosophy that they were programmed with in childhood? If I could I would share this book with you, The Little Girl Who Was Too Fond of Matches (i know the title is reminiscent of Steig's stuff but it has absolutely nothing to do with that trilogy):

Here's an excellent review of this short piece of fiction from Quebec. It is a gothic horror, philosophical tour de force examination of gender, madness and there's even a ghost sequence. I think you would enjoy it quite a bit. Review of The Little Girl Who Was Too Fond of Matches by Gaétan Soucy , Sheila Fischman, trans. | Quill & Quire

You made me start thinking about Thomas Aquinas who a friend who was entering the priesthood introduced me to years ago. He explained to me that his God did not want a blind believer but someone who knew implicitly, with all the possible reason mustered from one's own critical faculties why God did exist. I was fascinated by this type of conversation - was it possible to use reason to become a spiritual and devout Catholic? This was unheard of for the most part in my RC upbringing.

Were you able to follow up on this?

The other things this faith and doubt conversation reminds me was in a theology class i took where the theologian explained to me one night that those people who are thinking about suicide, who are on the edge of their life - those most vulnerable, lonely and doubtful, they are the ones closest to God and in sheer terror and personal destabilization to be in the presence of the almighty who cares so deeply for his lost child. For a believer those are heavy, beautiful words. For the angry atheist them's fightin' words.

That's been my experience - it's also a good example of two different experiences of the same reality.

 

[smcder]

Here is the earliest and simplest example I can think of. The Golden Ratio.

What is your new avatar and/or where does it come from?

 

[trainedobserver]

Yes, I must define aesthetically pleasing as something people gravitate toward, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

No, it's exactly what I'm talking about . . . did you use science in defining it that way?

The idea of aesthetics still has to precede the Golden Ratio in order to say that the GR is aesthetically pleasing.

Well, you have to call it something. What are you looking for? We're talking about looking for what human beings are attracted to as opposed to what repels them. This is one of the most basic things imaginable. It is a question that can be answered using the scientific method. Refining the question is part of the method.

Perhaps you should just explain it to me.

What is your new avatar and/or where does it come from?

It's a sketch of mine. More beams from the eyes.

 

[pduchesne]

well everyone except smcder because he has superhuman patience.

I just try every day to become the person my dog thinks I am . . . ;-)

I've been trying to be the person my dog already is. Maybe I'll try this instead.

 

[smcder]

Well, you have to call it something. What are you looking for? We're talking about looking for what human beings are attracted to as opposed to what repels them. This is one of the most basic things imaginable. It is a question that can be answered using the scientific method. Refining the question is part of the method.

Perhaps you should just explain it to me.



It's a sketch of mine. More beams from the eyes.

It's very good.

We're talking about looking for what human beings are attracted to as opposed to what repels them.

Where did you get that definition of beauty? Was it scientifically determined? If so, in response to what question?

The good:

Suppose Ray Kurzweil determines that he can replace humans with cyborgs that are better at everything he can conceive humans can do and that he should do so . . . on what basis does he decide that is "good"?

When you decide something is beautiful or good - you don't use science - science can inform your sense of aesthetics and your sense of beauty - it may describe in more and more detail some correlation with brain states and evolutionary history but these answers will lead to more questions and in the meantime you have to make a decision with this incomplete knowledge - you still have the responsibility to say this is good or this is beautiful (or to decide to wait until more data come in) - to say otherwise is to ascribe some agency to science - to anthropomorphize it and that's when you get into Scientism and that's where political agendas slip in. Similar problems come in with free will - if it's a deterministic universe, is anyone responsible for what they do? There are sophisticated answers to this - but it's an ongoing problem in philosophy.

 

[pduchesne]

To answer the question seriously, I'd say the hardcore debunker is the most fanatical. I've transitioned in my life from true believer to skeptic to debunker and back to where I currently am as a wishful skeptic. My time in the ranks of csicop introduced me to the most closed-minded, smug jerks I've ever met. I fully support the exposing of charlatans and thieves who rob people of money and freedom, but why the compulsive need to attack peoples religions? Misery loves company perhaps.

 

[trainedobserver]

To answer the question seriously, I'd say the hardcore debunker is the most fanatical. I've transitioned in my life from true believer to skeptic to debunker and back to where I currently am as a wishful skeptic. My time in the ranks of csicop introduced me to the most closed-minded, smug jerks I've ever met. I fully support the exposing of charlatans and thieves who rob people of money and freedom, but why the compulsive need to attack peoples religions? Misery loves company perhaps.

I wonder if it is simply that some folks are unable to reconcile the systemic hypocrisy and violence inherit in many religious systems with the religion's stated goals and see these schools of thought as cancers in the collective human psyche. For others I think it's just a hobby.