What the hell is wrong with you?
I'm right. If we begin with that assumption this will all be much easier. I am right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It's not an assumption on my part. I know I'm right. I've taken great care to be right - right around the time that humankind has reached epistemic and technological maturity.
The advent of computers marks the threshold of epistemic and technological maturity - the bahmitzvah of binary, if not yet the quinceanera of qbits, a coming of age that isn't reflected philosophically, sociologically or politically.
There are reasons we can look to. Galileo leaps right off the page. He moves! But it's not just that. I have posited the theory that the arrest and trial of Galileo had a stultifying effect on the subsequent development of philosophy - that fed into the industrial revolution, and was exported by colonialism, but it is beyond belief; even though all this happened - that the Church exercised a prohibition against taking science seriously, all round the world for 400 years. I know that really. I posit the theory to illustrate the argument that science is significant knowledge we need to pay attention to if we want to survive as a species. I'm wielding Galileo's telescope like a club - and I'm asking:
'What the hell is wrong with you?'
Where to begin?
The advent of computers marks the threshold of epistemic and technological maturity - the bahmitzvah of binary, if not yet the quinceanera of qbits, a coming of age that isn't reflected philosophically, sociologically or politically.
There are reasons we can look to. Galileo leaps right off the page. He moves! But it's not just that. I have posited the theory that the arrest and trial of Galileo had a stultifying effect on the subsequent development of philosophy - that fed into the industrial revolution, and was exported by colonialism, but it is beyond belief; even though all this happened - that the Church exercised a prohibition against taking science seriously, all round the world for 400 years. I know that really. I posit the theory to illustrate the argument that science is significant knowledge we need to pay attention to if we want to survive as a species. I'm wielding Galileo's telescope like a club - and I'm asking:
'What the hell is wrong with you?'
Where to begin?
Comments (115)
Good OP and interesting question. I guess the answer is not about where to begin but where to go back. Since the Italian renaissance, with Spinoza as thinker, we have separated the development of human knowledge. They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. Since then, we do only practical issues but not philosophical. We reached the ability of creating computers and complexity but not asking questions about how is the behaviour or the nature. Most of the people do not want go further. They are full-filled with money.
Galileo did a good step because he changed the way of thinking thanks to his ability to questioning everything and going deeply where the humans used to be. So, he wasn't only a scientist but a good original philosopher.
When some says "what the hell is wrong with you?" Is due to you want to break the rules. Probably this was been told to Stephen Hawkins when he said: There is no god.
So I guess we have to develop a better educational criteria
In court, the defendant tells lies that are believed. Can there be justice? No. So, effective in what regard? Effective to justify political power on an ongoing basis - and all the many wonders that flow from it. I'm not complaining. Where I live it's lovely. I'm observing that to retain political power, it was necessary that science as an understanding of reality be ignored and/or maligned, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution. As a consequence, we've applied technology - which is to say developed resources, very badly - and are blundering toward an abyss. I have absolutely no interest in wresting political power from anyone; but I do have a legitimate interest in the survival of the human species.
A broad based scientific understanding of reality implies that we need massively more energy - not less, to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, and can do so very much in our favour if we act now. I want to drill for magma energy on an industrial scale. If only used to extract carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - at least initially, we'd have more time and more choice going forward.
I've stated all this repeatedly here, and barely raised an eyebrow. Hence the question. I didn't intend to reply to this thread. I want other people to tell me what I must be missing, because as I said, I know I'm right. Yet tumbleweeds all round the order of the day! What gives?
It's tough to be enlightened, innit?
And Galileo, the Recanter, as a role model? Sheesh.
We're in the same epistemic situation Plato's prisoners were in the Allegory of the Cave.
via iphone!
That's a lot of years. So many great thinkers flushed down the toilet by religious nutjobs. An ugly truth whose effects we still endure even as the 21st century approaches its golden jubilee. Ignorance, in my humble opinion, casts a long, very long, shadow.
Pardon the brevity of my earlier response; my concentration is elsewhere. I have some time now, to explain - that by 'via iphone' I mean to suggest that we are not in the position of those chained to the wall of a cave in Plato's allegory, knowing reality only as shadow play cast by the light of the fire. It's true because it works! And it astonishes me that people don't see that there's a relationship between the functionality of the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and the validity of the scientific principles upon which the technology is based.
What kind of legitimate interest do you have in the survival of the human species? Twenty-five species disappear from this planet every day, so certainly we are on the docket (sooner of later).
Rule one, everything comes and goes...
It's a matter of who I am, and it's the difference between masturbation and sex for procreation - as to whether I belong to a species with a future, or if all this is just self pleasure - without issue!
Quoting synthesis
Not necessarily. We have intelligence, and intelligence deserves to play out to the fullest - to carry us as far as it can, and maybe - who knows, to star after star. That so, one could say the opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future is potentially infinite.
cp, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but yours' is one of the most interesting personal positions I've encountered vis a vis existence. Consider the following...
As part of the Earth's matter (literally), and then being a part of the solar system's matter, so on and so forth, we are part of the whole, and because of this (potential) truth, we are part and parcel, ONE. That is, we have been EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE!
Isn't that enough?
In what way is it not reflected philosophically?You mean you can’t name a single philosopher whose ideas have the ‘maturity’ of the fields you mention?
Quoting counterpunch
What specifically do you object to in post-Galilean developments in philosophy? How do you envision the lineage of Descartes-Spinoza-Leibnitz-Hume-Kant-Hegel-Marx-Nietzsche, etc might have differed without this ‘stultifying effect’?
Make it yours and then you would be interesting too. At its core I don't think my position is all that complicated. In the fewest and simplest words possible I think science is our best bet at a future. I don't think that rash or irrational - rather I think it rash that's not where we stake our trust.
As an objective body of knowledge science is a level playing field upon which we might co-operate initially in one specific regard - and that is to harness magma energy on a truly massive scale to the challenge of our existence, and do so because in terms of what is most usefully and objectively true - which is to accept, not absolutely - if you will at least admit, reliably true hereabouts, it is the right thing to do!
We could do wonderful things - build on a massive scale and protect nature at the same time as meeting our energy needs carbon free, developing the value of land and resources, while preserving unique habitats, producing resources that ultimately are a function of the energy available to create them. We need to claim the energy of the earth and intelligently direct that energy to promote the life upon, and of the beauty of its surface. Thereafter we might look to build in near orbit, moon and neighbouring planets, catching asteroids and mining them and aligning materials across the solar system for later use. I dream of catching asteroids, it's true. But it begins with the single, most scientifically fundamental thing necessary to a sustainable future - that is, plug into the planet.
I didnt realize comparing the value of different cultural modalities came down to a processof elimination.
You are a true true-believer, no doubt about that!
We've had a couple of discussions about science and I like I've conveyed previously, I see it for what it is, but it's just part of the overall deal (albeit an important part).
I take each moment as it comes and try to do the best I can. What else can one do?
Mining asteroids (which is why you want to catch them?--See John Donne below), to bring ores to earth for refinement in furnaces fueled by magmatic blasts from the deep, the better to expand into the solar system. I think there's been one or two science fiction stories along these lines. Just because Sci-Fi has gone where your dreams also dared to go is nothing against your dreams, of course.
Quoting counterpunch
Your "better living through magma" scheme has a lot going for it. Your belief that the Church exercised a prohibition against taking science seriously for the last 400 years has much less to recommend it. I would not argue that the church was a leading advocate of science. Rather, whatever the church thought of science became increasingly irrelevant. The forces of Science and Technology were inconvenienced by the views of the church, no doubt, but they were certainly not vanquished for 400 years. Science, mathematics, technology, and engineering advanced in every corner of Christendom.
Certainly there were holdouts. One thinks of religious objections to Darwin's evolutionary system, from fundamentalist Christians, for example. [Fundamentalism is an approach that is not native to nay particular faith tradition.] The fundamentalists were first offended by 19th century analysis of the Bible which called its divine origin into question--a result the fundamentalists found intolerable, being literalists and believers in biblical inerrancy, as they were. A multi-millions (or billions) year period fo creation was intolerable too, even if we didn't descend from apes.
As strong a group as fundamentalists are, they were unable to brake the on-rush of science. For one thing, science and technology are just fine with fundamentalists, as long as it brings personal benefits (like antibiotics or cancer treatments) or better crop yields, or industrial processes that make money. Religious people, even ardent fundamentalists, learn to co-exist with science because they can't argue with the many ways that "science works". Airplanes, television, cell phones, computers, atom bombs, etc. Fundamentalists, like most believers, wall off the exercise of their faith from mundane realities.
I agree that the pope blocking Galileo was a damned shame, but can you site actions the pope (or others acting on his behalf) took that crippled science in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries?
I accept that. I'm less certain of this:
Quoting Bitter Crank
...for the truth value of science as an understanding of reality does exist in an identifiable, intergenerational blind spot even unto today. Science has been used, no doubt about that, but science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit has not been acknowledged, less yet valued. That requires explanation, or at least re-examination as we approach upon a climactic and environmental catastrophe of our own making.
Scientifically and technologically there's a very reasonable series of measures we could take, that are beyond the wildest dreams of the ideologically arranged regimes that have met two dozen and two times to discuss the climate and ecological crisis. If science were true we could solve it. Attacking the problem from the supply side, to provide more energy not less - to extract carbon, desalinate, irrigate recycle etc, would create wealth - and avoid all the implications of the current green approach, to pay more and have less, or go without. We could make the deserts bloom.
Do you mean to imply that the people, the intelligentsia specifically, were in cahoots with the religious establishment and coordinated the 400 year period of scientific ignorance?
I suppose there's a grain of truth in that. Correct me if I'm wrong but scientists back then were actually supported - financially and morale-wise - by the church and the reason for doing that was to prove scriptural claims. As it turns out the church's plan backfired - observation, mostly astronomical, instead of lining up, as hoped, with the claims in the Bible actually contradicted religious doctrine. The rest is, as some would say, history.
I'm agnostic, and sceptical. I really don't know if God exists or not, but recognise the significance of the fact that all civilisations have been built around the concept of God, under his eye one way or another. Consequently, I deftly sidestepped the majority of your previous post. I'm on a philosophy forum and here epistemic implications are necessary to demonstrate the rightness of my proposals, but I have no particular interest in commenting on your traditions. I accept there are people who do not believe what I believe and you're one of them. Those I'm trying to convince are in fact very few, and I'm trying to convince them of one specific thing, refined from the understanding of reality I discuss; that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.
6:20 in Albion; soon you will awake. Good Morning. I totally disagree.
Look: Science is true. Science isn't the problem. It's self-interest -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules. One of which is pursue self-interest over the short run and fuck everybody else. The golden rulers are remarkably unimaginative.
Take automobiles: Well, let's just replace internal combustion powered cars with electric cars. Problem solved. There are about 1.4 billion internal combustion powered cars. Has it not occurred to them that building another 1.4 billion cars (even if electric) might possibly have hugely adverse environmental consequences? Power so cheap it won't be metered hasn't arrived yet. Somehow an additional immense amount of electricity must be produced without adding CO2 to the atmosphere (never mind the pollution caused by the extractive needs of producing 1.4 billion cars with batteries, rubber, plastics, roads to run on, and so on.
I really have nothing against your [i]Magma Carta[/I]. Good idea. The reason no one is busy drilling big 10-20 mile deep holes is that the means to make vast amounts of money from this idea have not materialized.
The people who run things are focused on a) continuing to be the people who run things; b) continuing to accumulate wealth because c) money and what it buys is an essential requirement of power d) making sure that would-be change-agents like you and me remain feckless non-entities until death removes us as an item of concern.
So, let's take our place on the Great Mandela as it moves through our brief moment of time.
Mary Shelley is an interesting example to take into consideration of your question; and the endless parade of similarly mad scientists, spawned from the example of Frankenstein. All the while science surrounds us with technological miracles, culture regards science as something between dangerous and unholy. It's difficult to make a action movie without a villain, but there's a consistent anti-science, pro God loving flag waving hero theme running through a lot of our cultural output. Understandably, but cumulatively so, that even now - the functional truth value of science as an understanding of reality isn't recognised or claimed to the benefit of humankind, even in face of the climate and ecological crisis. Is Frankenstein an archetype thrown up by the interplay of social forces, merely defined by Shelly in the mode of thought of the day - the ghost behind the curtain of our incomprehension of science, but in any case, a dramatically disproportionate characterisation of cost/benefits science has demonstrated in real life.
Blaming the climate and ecological crisis on the rational self interest inherent to capitalism is in my view a very shallow analysis. It's oppositional politics appealing to jealousy of the rich that underlies the current green approach, and it's wrong. Malthus was wrong.
In the 1770's Malthus predicted that people would multiply, outstrip food supply and starve to death. Instead we invented tractors, and developed land far faster than population grew, and now there are 8 billion people better fed than ever.
Similarly, if we shift perspectives on science, and on that basis apply magma energy technology, we can support continued rational self interest - and secure a sustainable future. Whereas, tackling the climate and ecological crisis without re-evaluating our relationship to science, implies authoritarian government, imposing "have less, pay more, tax this, stop that" type policies on people, and it won't work.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If we harnessed magma energy and attacked the problem from the supply side, we could carry on using cars, continue buying petroleum from countries to whom it is a major export commodity and revenue stream - and extract carbon and bury it by the megaton instead. So my approach allows that we can decouple infrastructure costs from loss of revenues in the short to mid-term. The cost of applying magma energy and carbon extraction technology is far less than the double whammy of scrapping the internal combustion engine, and building windmills and charging points by the million, to say nothing of the destabilising effect on geo-politics.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Magma Carta! Clever. But I'm not talking 10-20 miles deep. I'm talking about drilling close to magma pockets beneath volcanoes, in the 1-5 km range to reach solid rock heated to 700'C. There are almost 500 volcanoes in the Pacific Rim.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My approach is designed to avoid those very obstacles by appealing to the interests of those few people - whoever they are. Magma energy need not be applied in direct competition with fossil fuels right way; and so decouples infrastructure costs while protecting revenues, giving us more time to divest, and diversify - promoting prosperity.
I did not mean to imply that you were religious, just that you believe in "something," which is becoming rarer these days. It's the reason I enjoy chatting with you. Most people don't believe in anything (especially themselves). And I do understand your positive outlook on the future and think that's wonderful. Truly positive people are another rare commodity these days.
I don't put my point of view out there in order to get people to "understand" me, as I know there is little chance at that taking place, instead, I do it simply to give people exposure to different way of approaching life, my intention being to challenge people to keep an open mind, that all kinds of possibilities exist when you are unburdened by previous experience.
I suppose there is always the chance that you are right about what you comment on but I believe we are intellectually so primitive that our take on what's going on is kind of a joke (constantly "proven" as new discoveries are unpackaged (albeit delivered with their own expiration dates).
Keep up the good fight and keep an open mind and you will find the few...
Energy is not the problem. Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain.
Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy).
Quoting Bartricks
I would amend his question to also ask "To whom the hell are you asking this question?"
That's really good to hear, thank you.
Quoting synthesis
Open mindedness is a valuable quality to bring to the search for truth, and that's what I try to do. That said, I have come to decisions on debateable questions - looking to the implications to find a way through to a sustainable future that doesn't upset the pre-existing apple cart. Re-evaluating our relationship to science as a basis to harness magma energy is the greatest benefit with the least disruption to the status quo. I need to prove that philosophically, but I'm not suggesting; to paraphrase Popper 'we make our representations conform' to science as truth, and so become atheistic, amoral truth robots. I understand your alarm at such an implication, but the shadow is much larger than the object casting it.
Quoting synthesis
I could not disagree more. We are essentially good. Starting naked in the forest with nothing but sticks and stones, we have survived and built all this. We're doing well, but need now to take measures to continue our meteoric rise from ignorance and squalor into knowledge and prosperity. It's not a moral question for me; it's an epistemic problem - and that is subject to remedy sufficient to politically justify the measures necessary to a prosperous sustainable future.
I think it's obvious mine is an attention grabbing title - that reflects to some degree, how I feel about my reception here, and apparent lack of wider impact. It's tongue in cheek - like my assertion that "I'm right." It's a means of introducing the topic. A hook, to use the colloquialism - with some basis in truth. I address very serious issues; navigating some difficult philosophical territory, to arrive ultimately at very reasonable and promising conclusions - and do feel that's worthy of more attention than its gotten, and I'm saying all this ironically, to whomever the cap fits.
I am a philosophical anarchist (when I must think :)) because I believe that if you get any more than a few people together, all hell breaks loose. The best hope for man remains his individual spiritual development.
And I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that man is inherently good. Again, I believe the best hope in this regard is to minimize group activity. The history of the world is replete with horror after horror in the name of every damn thing. Individuals can only do so much harm whereas groups are capable of unspeakable crimes committed on a regular basis.
There's a lot of truth to this. I've never been a fan of individualism but I also dislike group think and collectivist policing. But how the hell do you re-engineer the entire world of billions around individual lines? Do you have some non-theoretical, practical solutions?
Unfortunately, the elite have always known how to deal with the rest of us...fear, lying, coercion, extortion, murder, fraud, theft, counterfeiting, and of late, bribery.
On the other hand, a great number of people seem to want to do very little or nothing to help themselves out, so your guess is as good as mine.
You do what you can to get your own act together and then you help others when and where possible. Otherwise, try to get three people to agree on something, yet 8B!
My sense of it is that we are but a temporary surface nuisance here on the planet and we should be leaving sooner than later.
I agree, as a dominant species humans have a use-by date and the planet will be just fine without us.
Saddened to read your resigned perspectives. Does it imply that you don't believe a sustainable future is possible? Or is it that you don't believe it's possible for us? Is your resignation a consequence of the unlikelihood of this plan being put into effect? Had you considered that the right move would necessarily be improbable? The probable course is what you're resigned to! And further you seem to imply that you're aware of the inadequacy of the current approach - that it probably won't work.
Quoting Tom Storm
You say, as a basis to pass on the opportunity to prolong that date - like it were you now, with the right to decide if humankind is worthy to exist. Our ancestors thought so; they planted trees the shade of which they would not sit in - but you're resigned that it should all come to naught on your watch? That saddens me immensely when I've explained why and what trees you might plant to provide shade for subsequent generations. So, is it not possible, or is it not possible for us?
What on earth makes you say that? You need to stop being so jumpy. :smile: I am simply speculating that we will end. I suspect pandemics or war are just as likely to do the job as rapacious corporate fuck- the-world culture. That said, you have no way of knowing what I or anyone else has done or does outside of a little forum.
I hope you're wrong.
I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens.
If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add).
I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can.
Sounds to me like you're constantly exposed to the opinions of dumb fucks.
I hope you succeed amid your context. Best of wishes.
So you're saying that you don't know if a sustainable future is possible, but probably not because people are stupid? I don't need to point out the irony there, do I?
Quoting synthesis
I see myself as having inherited huge gifts from previous generations - it is my obligation to use such that I pass greater gifts onto subsequent generations. I live in the moment that is the current link in that great chain, and seek to make it a strong link. I don't think I dwell in the past or future overmuch, so I'm slightly puzzled as to why you offer this advice. But thank you for saying it's a noble endeavour.
Quoting synthesis
I love nature, but do not romanticise it. Evolution is a brutal and prodigiously wasteful process, so being in concert with nature would make you genocidal. There's a great deal to learn from studying our evolutionary history, but the occurrence of intellectual intelligence marks a qualitative boundary that breaks any naturalistic fallacy type implication; that because it's natural we "ought" do this or that. For example, earlier you said that 25 species a day go extinct - but does not imply that we will, or ought not be concerned - because we can act upon knowledge to avoid catastrophe, and I believe it is, at least scientifically and technologically possible.
I wouldn't characterize people as being stupid, just ignorant (with a plethora of psychological issues [as our nascent intelligence has obvious factory defects]). Considering our potential, we appear to be serious underachievers.
Quoting counterpunch
I believe the greatest flaw in man's intelligence is the idea that he can outsmart Nature. Observe some of the species that have been around significantly longer than have we and I believe you will find they are incredibly well-adapted to the way things are (not to the way they would like them to be).
Humanity contains genius. The distribution of talents is uneven, I accept that. I think I'm slightly above average, but I'm not a hugely social person. My impression could be wildly off. We are an intelligent species, and I'm quite proud of what has been wrought from the bare earth by what seems to me, extraordinary intelligence and effort. We are all part of that - such that for instance, I don't know exactly how this computer works, but I live in a world that does. I don't need to comprehend that knowledge to benefit from it.
Quoting synthesis
I get your point, but it goes to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the ability to form forward facing strategies for survival. Man is by nature - outsmarting nature, because in lieu of claws, sharp teeth and the ability to run very fast, he lives by his wits. Intelligence is his niche. All this is wrought from the earth by intelligence. Not mine, admittedly, but by the genius of my species.
Never met the right people.
Quoting counterpunch
What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest.
You could argue, that it is in the rational self interest of the person making the decision, to save the rainforest, because they themselves (or at least their grandchildren) will be affected negatively by the destruction.
But look at the world! These decisions ARE being made for the worse. Corruption is a norm.
Either actual people are not your model person pursuing rational self interest and instead cling to irrational self interest.
Or indeed capitalist self interest has no connection to "the good of humanity" and continued rational self interest, as you put it, works towards some equilibrium, which has absolutely no connection to a flurishing society, and therefore can neither guarantee, nor even stop itself from attacking this ideal of humanity.
So I will be the pessimist I am:
Let's say you do convince people in power to agree to your magma project, through showing them, that it has monetary value as well and investments are made, to pay for the technology.
There will be competition between countries, possibly between corporations, to get the most out of the operation. One entity has to invest tremendously to develop the knowledge and technology and all others will try to benefit from the investment.
Even without bad intentions, high economic pressures lead to hastily decisions.
I heard somewhere that Tschernobyl happend due to lack of financial interest in paying for good securities of the system.
Imagine systems operating on magma. Security would take tremendous costs, which are factors, most people in charge will try to cut, by downplaying. And I sencerely can not imagine, what a catastrophe in this field would look like.
If a capitalist system manages to almost destroy the world, just by producing CO2, with the implications only recognized decades later, innovative science might well be the only saviour.
But it will also always be the next tool the capitalist system is ready to abuse.
Compared to what? Of all the intelligent beings that may occupy The Universe, let's just say that we're probably not near the top of the class. Our intelligence doesn't have a great deal to show for itself other than various forms of gadgetry (IMO)
Quoting counterpunch
Sounds like you're a homer (a term given to a person who has an overly-optimistic appreciation of their home sports team). For another sports (baseball) reference, it's man v. Nature, and its the top of the ninth inning. It's not looking good for the visitors (man), as Nature has a million run lead, and Sandy Koufax on the mound for Nature (and happens to be pitching a perfect game).
The final three batters to face Koufax are first, Joe the Politician, who doesn't even know which end of the bat to hold, Betty the CEO, who finally broke the glass ceiling but has no skills other than stabbing men in the back, and finally, Yvonne, the neo-Marxist liberal who is so busy complaining that it is doubtful whether she'll even make it to plate.
Several million years from now, if you made of list of the contributors to life on this planet, I believe we might be listed somewhere between the cockroaches (give them their due for longevity) and the ants (kudos for persistence). Or perhaps not quite so high on the list.
Quoting Johannes Attenkofer
Were there significant quantities of clean energy available, with which to desalinate water to irrigate land, while at the same time laws prohibit burning the rainforest; then it wouldn't be in someone's rational self interest to burn the rainforest. It would probably be easier and cheaper overall, to irrigate the desert to grow crops, and that's what this is about - creating overall conditions that align rational self interest and sustainability. It's not capitalism per se, that's the problem, but rather the context within which capitalism occurs. Currently, pollution is an externality, but with limitless clean energy - not necessarily competing directly with fossil fuels right away, such externalities can be internalised, without being internalised.
Good question. I'm really struggling to answer it. I appreciate it's not the meat of your post, but I'm kind of hung up on it. That's a head scratcher. How can I quantify human intelligence in the cosmic scheme of things, with no other intelligent species to compare it to? Is it sufficient that I'm writing this on a laptop, sending a wi-fi signal to a router connected to fibre optic cables, running to a junction box, to a larger bundle of fibres, connected to a satellite dish, sending a signal bouncing off a satellite, and by reverse of all above and some mutually shared software, I'm able to ask, isn't it obvious we're intelligent? No? If you will ask stupid, incredibly difficult to answer questions - you will get an answer. Eventually.
Quoting counterpunch
I can fully agree with that notion: The self interest lies always within the context of the worlds response to it.
It becomes your self interest to not burn down the rainforest, because doing so would give you the legal and financial problem of breaking the law.
I honestly think though, that skipping over the pragmatic details leaves us missing the exact points which doom our utopias to fail:
Who is passing the law, who is imposing the law?
And I think this kind of brings it back to your initial question.
Why did the church prevail, while critics could be silenced (even though they were more truthful)?
It is always those with (political) power, who make these decisions.
Whichever means of power this may be,
In the very end, it will boil down to plain physical force, i.e. man-power, which can be bought with all of the above.
Don't get me wrong:
I don't think power in itself is the problem. Some institution has to be in power to make a decision, this is inherent to making such large-scale decisions.
My problem is:
I see no inherent connection between the process by which an entity gains power over and the interest of humanity. The appearence of such a connection is forced upon the world through democracy, when in actuality there is just a link between the two, initialised through a medium (public perception of parties and people leads the public to cast their vote).
But precisely because it is not inherent, but dependent on a human-developed system, it allows for exploitable failings (invisible corruption; the politicians focus on boosting public image instead of being authentically the best choice).
Now here's my pessimism applied to your comment:
Quoting counterpunch
This comment suggests, you seem to have a quite robust trust in our democracy.
My argument is: If it initially lies within my rational self interest, that I should burn down the rainforest for financial gain, seeing that the law is about to get passed, it must also be my rational self interest to stop the law from being passed.
Now obviously, if I have no power to do so, there is nothing to be done and I must except, that it is no longer profitable to burn it down.
Unfortunately, and this is what we are witnessing on all levels of industry and government, I am NOT powerless in that situation, if I have the means of power, to pursuade lawmakers.
Virtuous lawmakers will not give in to corruption, but already 2 mechanisms of my democracy failed, even before I start bribing:
This leaves me, the briber, with enough bribable delegates to stop anything from passing, which would lessen my rational self interest.
If the bribe costs me more than the loss through the law, I will let the law pass, that is simple economics.
But you see, there is no inherent connection between rational self interest and truth or good.
(though, no inherent connection to evil either)
And even in the artificial connection you propose, Quoting counterpunch the entity tasked with creating those conditions is itself only a tool to anything with the most power. And if power can be bought because of current self interests, then self interests become self sustaining, in that they will never allow to be regulated away unless even greater power replaces them.
This is also my explaination for your OP question.
Events in human history happen, not BECAUSE something is truthful or good, but because they are necessitated by the biggest current power .
In a case, where truth is the strongest power in convincing, as with an obvious lie, it will prevail.
But it is precisely not BECAUSE it is true, that it prevailed, but because it had the POWER to convince.
But there simply is nothing to take power away from a heavily convincing or even unfalsifyable falsehood.
To come back to your formulations of a better world.
I understand, you might see from the outside looking in, new, even stronger interests could be found in other fields. If the oil or tech or coal mogul invested in irrigating the desert, he could become wealthier, such that his bribs against environmental laws financially wouldn't pay.
For one, I'm not qualified to check the reality of that.
My take: When a huge investment in land and technology has already been made, we see coorporations rather invest as much as necessary (which seems to be little enough) in fighting legislation than in rebuilding their entire industry/ building a new one (which from my completely unprofessional idea seems to have to be a lot).
That is to say: Outdated entities stay with us, because they have lived and are fighting to stay alive.
If you really want them gone, you'd have to kill them.
I don't yet know what that last sentence means, but it seems to be correct for the metaphor.
Stupid? Compared to what? :)
Perhaps if you could gather up the most intelligent species out there, you might find that we don't stack up too high.
Not only that, but I would like to suggest that because of our intelligence, we don't even stack up very high with many (if not most) species in our own neighborhood.
I believe that you (and almost everybody else) waaaaaaaaaaaay over-rate intelligence. Give me adaptability (any day) over intelligence. After all, look at what we do with our ability to do things creatively. The average person out there believes that nirvana is a McMansion, a Ferrari, and plenty of fatty, salty, sugary food.
Aren't we the intelligent ones!
Other animals, inherent complexity, other people, the progress of civilisation, survivability, and imagined absolute intellect - I think, describe the axis by which I gauge human intelligence. It's not a question I've asked before. I have taken it as self evident that we are an intelligent species.
Welcome to the forum. I haven't seen you around before - and now here you are, suddenly, and at such great length. I'm very pleased my ideas have you so excited that you can't shut up about them, but your posts are too much for me to respond to. Sorry.
Yes, it was my first day, I might have gotten caught up in trying to cram my whole world view in there. :sweat:
I must say, from what I've seen, this forum seems like a very healthy place to expose your ideas to others and have enlightening discussions. I guess, I'll get around to the customs, adequate lengths and such eventually.
So, I guess, till our next encounter. Hihi
You are welcome for the welcome!
Most people have. It's sort of like we are made in God's image. Talk about self-flattery.
Again, I get it that perhaps we are the "most intelligent species on this planet," but only if we use our own metrics. If you study Nature (and particularly observe other species), it becomes difficult to believe that we are better suited to our environment. Just watching ants alone is amazing. Those little critters got it figured out!
I've always kind of thought that one should get the simple stuff right before they move on to the more complex. Man has not done this well.
Is it arrogant to suggest we're smart enough to survive? I don't think so. It's well within our capabilities. We have knowledge of the threat, and the technology to obviate it. We have the resources, skills, industrial capacity and systems of monetary exchange - all of which will be disrupted by the climate and ecological crisis. We have to act in anticipation of this threat, and maybe that is the real IQ test.
Quoting synthesis
Ants are not afflicted with intellectual intelligence. Ants exhibit the behavioural intelligence of 150 million years of evolution. It's amazing to look at them and wonder where exactly the apparent intelligence resides, but it's not more amazing really than to consider one's own complex biological processes, functioning subconsciously, and in that sense - human intellect too is built upon the behavioural and physiological intelligence of organisms, created by testing organisms in relation to the reality of the environment. And if you're wrong, you're gone.
Quoting synthesis
We've misapplied technology, basically because we didn't recognise science as a significant truth; but used said science in pursuit of ideologically defined ends. Perhaps understandably so, but with the benefit of 300 years of hindsight, theoretically - an error. Ideally, we might have done differently, and we can learn from that imagined ideal.
Human beings are afflicted with intellectual intelligence, and it's my contention that we have to be intellectually correct to reality to survive - at least insofar as is necessary to survive. Thinking in these terms, it seems more possible we might survive - for I would suggest it implies a rationale for application of technologies necessary to survival; a rationale that can be adopted, because it can be legitimately limited in its implications to that which is necessary to survival.
I believe affliction is an appropriate characterization of human intelligence. People think they know what they cannot know, so they go about things ass-backwardly. If people could only use their intelligence like the rudimentary tool it is, we would be a lot better-off.
Imagine believing that we can understand something of infinitesimal complexity when our system is little more advanced than any of our predecessors who mixed all kinds of notions and potions in their intellectual cauldron and called it "knowledge," as well.
Quoting synthesis
I've considered this at length, and it's not that we go about things ass backwardly, but are backwardly oriented in our regard for the Creator at the beginning of time. Intelligence is embodied in culture, man looks to - to reconcile his plans with the existing order. As a consequence of power relations religions tend to construe people as devolving from the presence and perfection of the Creator - and this inspires a lot of anti-human rhetoric masquerading as morally righteous modesty with regard to knowledge.
I look around and see civilisation about me, functional and illuminated - and I see something different. I see the intelligence and effort it took to build all this, and project that onto the future - and I see no good reason beings smart enough to build all this would not want to continue to prosper indefinitely.
I have told Dave Pearce directly I think his arguments play into accusations of the arrogance of science, so don't worry, I'm not talking behind his back.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523639
I agree with the conservatives. That's some scary stuff. I too believe science should be regulated in its use, but regulated in relation to science as an understanding of reality, understood by the moral being. At least ideally! Our relationship to science and technology is far from the ideal, but we can think in ideal terms, and in doing so can envisage a prosperous sustainable future. It's there - and maybe all it needs is for someone to reach for it.
cp, I do realize your methodology involves some serious projection, but consider the following...
If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place.
Most importantly, if you do what you can to take care of the present, somehow the future seems to take care of itself, no?
my main problem is that I see what is. Not what could be, what was, what might be, etc. All the possibilities are grand, and very easy to get caught up in, so...don't do that. Look at what is:
Our climate has gone to shit. Maybe it was going there anyway, geologically we know it heats up and then cools down in a cycle, and yes, it was on a heat up cycle, although the scientific consensus is that humans increased the rate of heating substantially. Not a selling feature for our intelligence; smart enough to do it, too stupid to realize we shouldn't.
Our population continues to increase, despite the number of starving people out there. Argue as you like about having enough food to feed them; they are starving anyway. Smart enough to make the food, too stupid to deliver it. Again, doesn't speak well for species intelligence.
Death is unavoidable to the individual. Doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or what you choose to do; you are going to die. Yet, we call most deaths "preventable". Um, NO. End of story. Delayable, maybe. So... Smart enough to create language; too stupid to use it correctly. Just pathetic.
The list is nearly endless and I will not bore anyone further by providing further examples.
Can humanity ensure its future through technology and intelligence? I sincerely doubt it. However, as I watch some asshole swerve to rundown a porcupine that is walking along the side of the highway I hope with everything I have that we can't. We don't deserve to.
Quoting synthesis
No! As I said earlier, we have to act in anticipation of the threat. Climate change will disrupt the economy - undermining our ability to address it. I can show that revolutions in energy production have preceded every great leap forward for human civilisation. Yet rather than leap forward, the prevailing plan seems to be to back down - tax this, stop that, pay more, have less. It will not work.
I am science oriented, and in those terms - it follows from the second law of thermodynamics that we need more energy, not less. To maintain any ordered state requires the expenditure of energy. The world could develop that energy from magma - and; do you not see the advantage of attacking the problem from the supply side - it would not be necessary to stop this, tax that, pay more and have less - to address climate change. All the social, political and economic turmoil a 'limits to resources' green approach implies can be sidestepped; because in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and the technology exists to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We could be much wealthier in future - and free from guilt by design.
I don't know what 'all the possibilities' refers to. I see a slim chance for a very particular, enormously beneficial possibility - that is, harnessing massive clean energy by drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, lining the bore holes with pipes, and pumping water through to produce steam to drive turbines to produce massive amounts of clean electricity. It's a little 'out there' I guess, but I think it is viable from a technological standpoint. In my view, the molten interior of the earth is the only source of clean energy large, reliable and concentrated enough to meet our needs - plus, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We cannot do all that on wind and/or solar power. It's not enough to take the edge off our carbon emissions. I'm suggesting we attack climate change and defeat it. It's an unlikely possibility, I accept that - but it would work.
The coronavirus likely wants to carry on in perpetuity as well. Doesn't mean it should.
The fatal flaw in all prognostication is the assumption you know what the critical issues (to be confronted) will be. If you look back into history, you will see that this rarely (if ever) happens, and when it does, it's by mere chance. What happened to the ice age predicted in the 70's or any of the other absurd predictions that have been made in the last 50 years?
This is why all the sages of the past, school the people to concentrate efforts on the present and let the future take care of itself.
Quoting counterpunch
Like I've mentioned previously, energy is the least of our worries. There is unlimited energy available. It's just a matter of reducing the cost which is what capitalism does better than anything else.
And wealth is one thing, but man will never be guilt-free. When yo think about it, guilt might be the only thing there is more of in this world than energy!
Okay but you realise I suppose my argument suggests we come to this impasse as the consequence of a mistake - 400 years ago, in our relationship to science. The world would have been very different if not for this error, and you would be different too. It's very difficult to reconstruct 400 years of alternate history, but had science been welcomed and pursued as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and had been imbued with divine/moral authority, it seems likely technology would have been developed and applied in accord with an emerging scientific understanding of reality while at the same time, science were woven into the fabric of politics and economics over centuries; ideas from which people draw their identities, purposes and values. Had that been so, you wouldn't be the misanthropic doom monkey you are - because of the "current state" the world is in! It shouldn't have been. That's the point.
It's a peculiarity of philosophy, I suspect, accustomed to appeal to the dustiest tome, to fail to recognise that science moves forward as a body of knowledge from a flurry of hypotheses toward more certain knowledge over time - such that "absurd predictions" later disproven as we falsify possibilities to zero in on knowledge, is exactly what we should expect to see.
Quoting synthesis
Wisdom is only wisdom until it becomes common sense.
Quoting synthesis
There is unlimited energy, but we do not have unlimited energy available for use yet. It needs to be developed, and there are balances of interests in doing so. I seek to show that it is technologically possible and philosophically correct, as a basis to humbly suggest the minimal necessary implication might be politically possible. Currently, we are being forced down a narrowing corridor by the climate and ecological crisis, but more energy would give us more time, and more choice going forward - including more discretion about how we ultimately transition.
I don't see current plans adding up. For example, from 2030 the UK intends to add the energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. Not all at once, obviously - there aren't enough charging points! But what if instead, efforts were focused on attacking the issue from the supply side by developing magma energy and using that to extract carbon from the atmosphere? It would be possible to continue driving cars longer, so decoupling infrastructure costs from climate ambitions, protecting economies overly reliant on fossil fuel revenues and giving them time to diversify, and so addressing the threat without guilting people into poverty.
Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever).
The issue is that the truth of the matter cannot be known, so the educated come up with all their theories, hypotheses (and even "proofs") that serve society well until they have worn-out their welcome (as well as their ability to reproduce capital) and off to the dustbin they are consigned (just in time to be replaced with the newer, more improved version).
cp, I am not anti-science, I simply understand it's limitations. And I don't disagree with a great deal of what you are saying (except your sense of urgency). People have always believe that the sky was falling (and maybe it is this time) but it's never been the case, so if their might be a worse wager than betting against the FED over the past 30 years, yours' might be it.
What the hell is wrong with you?
You need to take a step back and see this in its entirety. You seem overly preoccupied with saving everybody while failing to appreciate the transient nature of all things knowable.
Again, I see what is. We are not worth saving, period. If things had been different...blah, blah, blah, pointless discussion. If I weren't me and if we weren't us has no value, we are what we are, and I don't think we are worth saving.
Your approach suggests that we are somehow "all wrong" due to the influence of the church, however, I suggest that far before the church intervened in anything, we were already "wrong". Welcome to humanity, we kinda suck.
Quoting synthesis
Synthesis, With all due respect further discussion is pointless. You're wrong and refuse to be corrected. It's not possible to establish any rational standard with you. Everything just falls through the big hole in the net. No truth - no point!
I accept we are who we are. I've said many times we have to get there from here. In scientific terms, the molten interior of the earth contains massive base load heat energy, in places - within easy reach of drilling technology, that we could exploit on a monolithic scale to completely change the existential equation. Harnessing massive amounts of energy is the single most scientifically fundamental thing we could do, necessary to any kind of sustainable future worth having. I do not seek to convince you that existence is worthwhile; only that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.
The interesting thing about you is that you really believe that you'll be able to change somebody else's mind. This is why I called you a true believer. True believers think they know the truth and it is their job to inform the rest of the world.
Look, I understand what you are saying, but I choose to believe something else. That's all. Don't take it so hard. What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out! :)
Relax, have a beer and regal in the idea that you are free!
I'm not a believer in the sense that I believe in deliberate ignorance of obvious questions. I'm a believer in the sense that I've questioned my beliefs to destruction, over and over until what I'm left with is the most rightful view I'm able to form. I have my limitations, but it seems to me we made a mistake in our relationship to science, and the key to the future is the flip side of that error - and it matters that those two things can be explained in the same terms. I believe that.
Were you not on a philosophy forum, I could gladly let it go at:
Quoting synthesis
I don't care what you personally choose to believe. I do not accost people in the street to force my philosophical views upon them. I appeal to reason, on a philosophy forum, and you say abandon reason? I have dealt with relativist, subjectivist, sceptical and nihilistic philosophies elsewhere. In general, for philosophical purposes - I find them misconceived justifications of a mistaken relationship to science, starting with Descartes unreasonable scepticism in search of an unreasonable certainty.
Quoting synthesis
I've thought about it, and these are my thoughts. More than that I cannot say. I can explain my reasons for believing what I believe, and my philosophy points to something external to me. My thoughts are either interesting to others, or they're not - but don't imagine they are a hair shirt to me. I'm hopeful in face of it all because, from what I find I must accept, it's possible to deduce a strong rationale for a clear plan of action to secure a prosperous sustainable future, consistent with maintaining freedom! Hurray!
That's me regaling! This is me off for a beer!
The reason I enjoy conversing with you is that believe in yourself 100%! This is extremely rare and I am not sure I've met another in this forum who is like this. Just the same, that doesn't mean that I have to buy into your reality (even though you think it is airtight).
The premise that you are actually living your beliefs (and I agree with many of them) is wonderful. You should feel good and I hope you enjoyed that beer. I don't really expect anybody to understand my point of view. I am not here to change the world, I am here only to pass the time while enjoying conversation with folks that still know how to think. That's all.
I do not agree with your assessment of the state and nature of knowledge. Science has really come together since the advent of the microchip; partly due to computers for communication, and complex calculation, but also all kinds of electronic equipment and sensors, such that now, science constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - the 'truth value' of which is manifest, and should be obvious.
Technology based on scientific principles - works within a causal reality, and what is more the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. That's the functional 'truth value' of a scientific understanding of reality, that we can claim to the benefit of human affairs, starting by harnessing massive clean energy from magma, to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. We make 'truth' manifest through our actions and reap the functional rewards.
Magma energy is the right thing; occurring as it does at the nexus of basic scientific facts about energy, and sustainability as a universal, near objective moral imperative. Physics dictates that massive clean energy is necessary to any sustainable future worth living in, and magma energy offers the greatest benefit at the least cost, with least disruption to the status quo.
Recognising the truth value of science provides the rationale to apply technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality, and so - you see why I am forced to dismiss your subjectivist, relativist, sceptical, nihilistic - rejection of truth and/or morality. It's not that I care particularly what you choose to believe, but that my approach to sustainability is based on the existence of an objective reality - of which we are reliably able to establish valid knowledge.
What case can you make that man has any really grasp of reality? That can man understand anything? Remember, just because you can make something work does not mean that you have any real understanding. After all, the cave man used fire. Did s/he understand fire? There are, of course, many contemporary examples of many practical uses of things in where there is no understand (actually, everything :).
Quoting counterpunch
I keep attempting to point out that your scientific principles have a very short half-life, soon to be replaced by the next batch, and the next batch after that, ad infinitum.
I think your magma energy idea is a great one. Are people doing serious research?
Quoting counterpunch
I would be that I have used science a great deal more than have you. It's not that I don't recognize its value, it's just that I also recognize its limitation, something I feel is much more important.
Are you denying the relative nature of all things knowable (excluding morality)? Rule one...all things knowable are subject to constant change. And I do not reject truth, I just categorize it into realtive and absolute.
Quoting counterpunch
We need more affordable (clean) energy. Mining magma might be a good sustainable solution. Need more be said?
I cannot explain it to someone who will not understand. And if you ask that question, then you demonstrate your refusal to understand. You reject any reasonable standard of knowledge short of omniscience. There's no further discussion possible. Indeed, how can you understand a word I'm saying? You don't know all the words!
Just consider the possibility that there might be other ways to go about doing things.
Perhaps better ways?
Strong social media strategy?
Quoting synthesis
They train monkeys to go into space!
Quoting synthesis
Okay, if you'll consider the possibility that in theory, there is a scientifically rational, systematic application of technology that is the right way to go about a prosperous sustainable future - we might agree to differ on what we each mean by truth.
I never disagreed with any of this. My point was that you can not actually understand it. You are working within a system that produces results based on a flawed platform.
I've really never chatted anyone scientifically-oriented who would disagree with this.
You seek to hold science inadequate to an idea of truth as absolute and certain knowledge, to which science does not aspire. I make no such claim on behalf of science. Previously I've claimed science now constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we ought attend to should we wish to survive. For me, truth is demonstrated by a functional relationship between knowledge, action and consequence. It's true because it works! For you, it is omniscience or idiocy!
Now we get to the heart of the matter.
You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked!
Quoting counterpunch
Not at all. The Truth is present. We simply cannot appreciate it. What we do is use our primordial intellect to guess and then refine those guesses over time. Wouldn't it make sense to take such into account?
I am no more anti-science than I am anti-love, but I can no more understand the former than I can the later.
It is the door that makes the room functional.
Scientific principles explain how things work for real. Is that not miraculous? Have you ever felt that, understanding something scientific, you are part of something greater? I have. I don't know if God exists or not, but the control of reality we prayed for from God, is now in our hands. Because, and insofar as science is true, it can be applied to create technologies that work. Our prayers are answered - or our oblivion is assured, depending on who we are in relation to this potent truth. So far, nuclear weapons and climate change!
Quoting synthesis
Okay, so now you've switched to reality as a Platonic ideal argument against science as truth. But here's your problem; science is a practical perspective on truth. It works insofar as knowledge corresponds to reality, so your distant idealism is false in practice. Reality exists, we experience it, and can form generalisable laws about how it works - and then apply those laws to create technologies that function. Why is that not sufficient proof for you? I don't know what it is you think needs taking into account. Your dismissive tone, perhaps?
For real? Nothing in science that is thought to be true today will be in 500 years, so how is that "real?" This is not to say that I cannot use science, but you have to take into account that this knowledge is transient. Taking this position allows, (no, insists) that the individual consider other possibilities (in my situation, alternative medical treatments) critical to those who strive to push the frontiers of current practices.
Quoting counterpunch
We exist in two different domains I share your world of relative intellectual truth, but move into another when critical thinking is no longer useful (accessed through meditation). This other sphere is where Truth is absolute but inaccessible (intellectually).
This is what you rail against for no reason I can ascertain.
I disagree. Reality worked the same way 500 years ago as it does today. We didn't understand at all how it worked then, but we have a much better idea now, and because reality will be fundamentally the same 500 years from now, what is true now, will still be true in 500 years time.
In 500 years, we will know more. Physics may conceptualise reality in terms of a ToE (theory of everything) for example, but subsumed under that more highly generalised paradigm will be definite physical truths, like the second law of thermodynamics.
Consider this sequence: the Bible, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - each developed systems of planetary motion, each one improving upon the others. Even the earliest has factual content - identifying correctly that there are planetary bodies in motion. That factual content is present throughout, unto the last. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein also identify, and account for planetary bodies in motion. So this is where I disagree with Khun: commensurability is implied by the consistent nature of the object of study, and that which is factual is carried forward by increasingly valid knowledge.
Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. It is our thinking that changes as we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror.
Combine that with the idea that we can not access any particular moment in real time (we have no access to the present) and you begin to see the magnitude of the dilemma.
Ironic, given that you've just been telling me how things will be in 500 years! How is that possible?
NASA launched a probe to slingshot out of earth's gravity, to encounter another planet, and slingshot around that to travel further. As a consequence, NASA had to know exactly where those planets would be in future - down to the meter, years in advance. Scientific understanding has predictive ability - such that it's simply false to suggest "we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror."
It's not possible, but within the context of this conversation, it fits the narrative.
Intellectualizing is like people who are speaking in a specific language/context. Bring in another that is not versed in this language (from another time/culture) and it makes no sense to them.
You are staying within a specific frame of reference and saying this is the truth. I. OTOH, stray from the same and suggest that your truth very narrow and that there are as many potential truths as there are moments in time.
Before you blow a gasket, imagine somebody coming back from the year 2521 and telling you how it is. What would you think about truth then? How about if 99.9% of everything we thought to be true is no longer?
I know for you it doesn't matter and that's fine. Whatever works for you is what you need to roll with. Keep in mind that the biggest mistake people make (vis a vis other people) is assuming that their reality is shared (or worse, that it's universal). Then, they spend the rest of their lives attempting to convince everybody else that this is the case. It's probably the most common cause of relationship failure.
I've paid attention to science all my life; since childhood, whenever it pops up in the media, or conversation - I pay attention, and so I understand science in a deeper sense than most. It's the psychological concept of 'life script' playing out in relation to a Jungian archetype chosen as a child. I wanted to be a spaceman. I do not imagine everyone wanted to be spacemen. But as you said earlier:
Quoting synthesis
Reality is consistent and universal in nature on the macroscopic, causal scale we inhabit. Therefore, what is scientifically true, is true for me and you, and everyone else the same. You don't inhabit another reality because you believe something else. You may have paid attention to things other than science all your life, and so construe the world in other terms - that much, I wholly accept. But reality exists the same for you and for me - objective with regard to our particular perspectives.
Quoting synthesis
You protest should any measure of truth be claimed for science, but look around at the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and explain how technology works if the principles upon which the technology is based do not truly describe reality?
Debate about the precise nature of truth is somewhat of an aside; yet integral to the question of where we place our trust in face of the impending existential crisis. Because science is objective with regard to particular interests, recognising the truth value of science creates a level playing field, and provides a strong rationale for what I believe, is the only viable long term solution, that is - harnessing massive clean energy from magma and tackling climate change globally, from the supply side.
In doing so we internalise the consequences of society without internalising the implications to society. We need not have less and pay more, tax this, and stop that to save the world. We can solve this problem going forward, in a way that's not possible for nations thinking solely in terms of their ideological identities and interests.
Science offers a trustworthy rationale beyond all respective ideologies, the implications of recognition of which can be legitimately limited to the systematic application of technologies necessary to a prosperous sustainable future, starting with magma energy, limitless clean electricity, as a basis for carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, recycling, etc, and all before the end consumer - believer of many wonderful things, need even notice!
As stated previously, your reality is only true for a particular moment (in which we lack access). I will give you (that despite this inconvenient idea), we muddle along with our guesses, approximation, and other assorted attempts to make sense of our world, but this not what I am getting at, instead, to truly understand the transient nature of all things knowable places knowledge in another sphere.
Knowledge, although true in a particular moment, is constantly changing, like a Kamikaze gnat we endlessly chase without success. Seeing knowledge in transition is very different than seeing it statically. It is like the aphorism, "You can have everything until you let everything go."
Quoting counterpunch
Your "existential crisis" is what you reap when you plant intellectually altered seeds. Worrying about the end of the world (no matter how this might come about) seems rather silly as this is the fate of all things (they come and go). This is not to disparage your magma theory, but should it not stand on its own instead of on the shoulders of baseless fears that have over-run the last two generations?
Well, clearly, you're one of those end consumers - believers of many wonderful things, who need hardly notice that science is saving the world, because science is true; for while that does imply what you believe is wrong, there's no need for you to do that math! Afterall, if you did the maths, you'd agree with the science!
As if the world by did not survive without man's science for 4.5B years and will somehow fail to manage without the same after we are but a footnote? You truly are a homer!
And what I believe is irrelevant, instead, it is your companion, reality, which takes precedence. But instead of seeing reality as this fixed mathematics formulation spitting-out drivel like 345.3975 g/l or 5,456,231 m/s, actual reality has no doors or windows to peak through, nor any language, as it can only be experienced (which you do all the time). You are simply unaware.
You should believe whatever you choose to believe for whatever reasons you believe it is appropriate to believe things. Your reasons for believing things are obviously very different from the reasons science believes it is appropriate to believe things, but I would not ask you to adopt scientific epistemic standards as a personal philosophy. You should continue to believe whatever it is that has you wishing humankind extinct!
cp, I believe we have beat this to death.
Always enjoy our conversation. I wish there were more people like you here.
See you on another thread...
Thanks for so ably, and persistently demonstrating the problem. Clearly, there's something very wrong with you, but after pages of discussion, I'm sorry to say, I'm no closer to understanding what the hell it is!
Quoting synthesis
Obviously implicit in synthesis' statement here is the suggestion that he has ...
Quoting synthesis
...but pages of discussion suggest glib disregard of the moral/spiritual condition of man. Rather, a hostile, malign, quite possibly sadistic attitude is suggested by the persistence with which synthesis drives a discussion intended to address the relations between science and sustainability, into the long grass of epistemic philosophy, by objecting on every subjectivist philosophical grounds western philosophy has devised over the past 400 years, to the idea that science has any truth value at all.
I stated very directly what this was about:
Quoting counterpunch
Such that persistent derailing requires explanation other than the meaningful content of such arguments, which are weak and nonsensical compared to science's explanation for why the egg is sucked into the bottle. But also, these persistent objections, pages of them, are skipped between without any consistent assertion of belief:
Quoting synthesis
Sceptical subjectivism, and misanthropy.
Quoting synthesis
Nihilism.
Quoting synthesis
Sci-fi misanthropy.
Quoting synthesis
This is a take on an argument by Schopenhauer, that the future cannot be predicted from the past. He argues if you pick up a stone 100 times and drop it, you cannot be certain the 101st time, it will fall to the floor. The obvious error is that, we can and do make such predictions.
Philosophically, the argument suggests the future cannot be predicted with certainty, so prediction is not knowledge, and science is not truth. In the epistemological literature this is generally countered by the argument that knowledge is justified true belief, such that the reasonableness of the prediction, rather than the unreasonable certainty of the prediction is at issue.
All attempts to bring the discussion back to topic were consistently resisted, here with simple illogic, presumably drawing upon Absurdism, a philosophical response to nihilistic despair that maintains subjectivist disregard for objective realities:
Quoting synthesis
It is an absurd assertion that science does not progress, and it's quite difficult to deal with - but ultimately, just like nihilism, absurdism upholds no value that requires one accept absurdism. It can be simply disregarded.
Quoting synthesis
Are there religious sensitivities to acknowledging science as truth on the international level required to create a rationale to apply the technologies necessary to overcome the climate and ecological crisis?
With regard to my own cultural tradition, I'm quite up front about it. I think the Catholic Church made a mistake 400 years ago, and that science could have been welcomed theologically, and integrated into spiritual understanding and practice, such that scientific truth were invested with moral authority, and technology would have been developed and applied for more scientifically rational and moral reasons. It's not merely that we are denied the functional truth value of science that demonstrates the mistake, but by dint of reciprocated disdain, science renders a thousand years of tradition absurd.
St Augustine's view that rational and divine knowledge cannot be in conflict should have prevailed, Galileo should have been welcomed, and science should have occurred as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation. But instead of an angel bearing a scientific cornucopia of technological miracles, science was rendered as Frankenstein! It needn't be. This is a philosophical error we could recognise, and correct, if only in regard to the technologies necessary to meet the existential threat of the climate and ecological crisis.
Quoting synthesis
I think that's an insult. He's suggesting I'm imagining the climate and ecological crisis, now, after four pages of argument:
Quoting synthesis
So what I'm hearing is there's no truth, no future, no hope, but there's no climate change crisis, everyone is nuts, science is a lie, time is an illusion, everything is subjectively constructed, absurd and hopeless, and worrying about it is hopeless, because you can't know anything! And I'm hearing this from someone who claims to have:
Quoting synthesis
I wish to assure you that there is a comfortable psychological state possible upon accepting a scientific worldview; that many of the haunting shadows you seem to view from your perspective - are cast by very small objects as viewed from mine.
Well, obviously somebody wasn't done with this conversation. That was quite the rant!
cp, the difference between you and I is that you subscribe to one reality (and a popular one, at that). I, OTOH, subscribe to many (and there are infinite realities). For instance...
...and please forgive me if I have used this example previously, but it is fairly easy to point out the obvious flaws in science's language, mathematics. I am sure you would agree that each object in The Universe occupies unique spacial coordinates and is therefore subject to unique Universal forces.
It would follow that each object in The Universe is (technically) one of a kind. Therefore, exactly what does "2" mean? Does this render the entire system of mathematics as simply an approximation, or worse, a mere convenience? I rather believe the later to be the case.
And if this is the case, what are the ramifications? Has science been exposed for the poseur it really is?
I reviewed the conversation to learn what I can from it. I'm still trying to understand why you so persistently drove the conversation off topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was malicious. I think you know I care about this, and take pleasure from preventing me discussing it.
I do understand what you are saying and from your point of view it makes perfect sense. Go with it. I choose to approach life differently, a path that has worked quite well for me.
Everybody has to find there own way in this world. The key is in believing in yourself 100% which is again why I have enjoyed speaking with you.
No, I don't. I addressed this with the first line of the opening post. I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong. We are not doing everybody gets a trophy! Evolution requires that organisms are correct to reality or are rendered extinct. Your stupidity is literally killing us!
Quoting synthesis
Your personal beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. Objecting to science as a basis to secure the future because it conflicts with your fond illusions is about the most selfish and psychotic thing I can imagine. The Church made a mistake that took 400 years to manifest. You've had it explained to you in real time, and still choose wrong. I can only suppose you are malicious.
Quoting synthesis
Then you say something like this, and I can only suppose you're stupid. People don't make their own way in the world. We are part of society, which is organised in relation to religious, political and economic ideology as a basis for action. What is believed, dictates what actions are possible. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. It is the survival of civilisations at stake here. Science is true, and if we don't recognise that at the societal level and act accordingly, humankind will become extinct.
I've never had Batman used to explain the is/ought dichotomy before. Most people refer to David Hume (1711-1776.) Hume noted this disparity between fact and value, but in light of modern knowledge, it doesn't hold up. Human beings are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, such that - we cannot look at a list of facts without seeing the moral implications. It may be logically correct that no list of facts necessitates any particular value, but human understanding is a synthesis of fact and value. And how can we do what's right if we do not first acknowledge what's true?
We all have a conscience and if we violate it we pay for it with negative emotions. We strangely don’t have to follow it though.
Truth is facts but can also be how to be.
Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food, groom each other, and remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Human beings too evolved, and raised young, generation after generation. Primitive man was not an amoral brute.
For Hume, 100 years before Darwin, morality was an objectively existing set of God given laws, whereas for me, moral implication is an innate facet of human reason. For Hume, is and ought cannot be reconciled - which only holds true if they are considered external orders. Psychologically, we do this all the time.
Okay, but I doubt others will agree.
You're right to note that individually, we are not compelled by the moral sense. But, firstly, we should consider that other people are moral beings, also imbued with a moral sense they are not compelled by either. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future! Also, there is value in understanding how to reason rightly in relation to fact and value. The point being that the supposed is/ought dichotomy is false; or a trivial observation on the difference between logic and reason. Logically, no list of facts infers a Value, but as Hume notes himself:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."
Every system of morality! Are we not then required to explain so ubiquitous a mode of thought? Apparently, no! Instead Hume goes on to object that this is not logically justifiable. It's not, that's true - but we do not reason based solely on logic. We synthesise fact and value in the manner Hume observed. In my view, Hume's was an observation, misunderstood, misconstrued and magnified beyond all proportion in epistemic philosophy as a consequence of an anti-science bent that dates back to Galileo.
I am not saying there is a god. Just that it’s reasonable to take whatever you can when you want. Why should we consider others as moral beings? maybe morals are predicated on the idea of god?
Thanks for your contributions but I think I've helped you all I can. I'm running a marathon for every step you take, you repeated a question I just answered, and I cannot read that sentence above. Frankly, I deserve better!
"The fall of the Roman Empire wasn’t a tragedy for civilisation. It was a lucky break for humanity as a whole" the lead says. Here's a relevant quote:
I also took a stab on reading hume. He assumes we have a fellow feeling. This is not the case in according to personality psychology (big five)
Some people are “agreeable” and they care more about others and some people are“disagreeable” and they care about themselves. So the fellow feeling thing is absolutely wrong. Which is his basis for morality. And science figured that out.
And yes. We can talk about right and wrong. I don’t think you could say that Auschwitz wasn’t wrong.