Oh... I understand completely and that is why I added the chart of the free-fall of poverty... a direct impact to the median.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Trump Appeals to So Many Americans, IMO
- Thread starter joe1776
- Start date
Of course it is!
No matter how great (or poor) a con artist I might be, the gullibility of my mark doesn't absolve me!
Does the preacher in the pulpit believe in Bible stories?
Does the socialist on RF believe they have the better system?
Does the conspiracy theorist believe in faked Moon landings,
secret alien technology, US government behind 9/11, etc.
Generally, yes.
They're not a "confidence man" when their beliefs are sincere.
no matter how loopy or counter-factual.
What proof have you that loonies lie rather than believe?
People believe weird ****.
You see it here on RF.
It's why we're here.
Last edited:
I agree.
But since I never claimed any such thing,
I wonder why you make that strident point.
Actually, they don't all really believe those things -- certainly not the preacher in the pulpit (at least the educated ones -- not those trained by Billy-Bob's Bible College On-Line). In fact, as Bishop John Shelby Spong will tell you -- and as United Church of Canada Minister that I once lived with, and who saved my life told me -- they are quite aware that they are telling stories as if they were true knowing full well they are not. But they do it for a reason: to influence beliefs in other people.
Here I disagree. No matter how sincere my belief in something might be, if I can't demonstrate it, and yet work to convince you of its truth, then I'm a con man.
That was a question best not asked. There is an immense amount of literature that speaks exactly to that question.
But let's have it your way -- let's assume that the loonies believe rather than lie (and I admit that there have been some of those). Does that make it better? Does strong belief justify proselytizing? Then why don't we allow it here on RF? I mean, if Christian missionaries are good to go out and strip the faith beliefs of "heathens," why can't they do it here?
And that's why I'm here...to point that out to them.
But you said, "if they believe the con, it's not a con." I maintain that belief by the mark or not, a con is still a con.
Would you call believers of religions "con men" because
they cannot prove what they say true? Would you even
say none of them believe what they say they believe?
If you cannot prove your claim that they don't really
believe as they say, would this make you a "con man"?
You're going to hate me for this, but here goes.
Yes, I say that anyone who tries to convince anyone to accept what they cannot themselves prove is a de facto con man. "I have confidence, therefore you should too!"
Now this is a much harder question, and one that I can only answer from my own opinion. But I've spoken about this before -- the truth is, I understand "belief," in the religious sense, to be very often not something that I would place under the heading of "sincere belief." By that, I mean what you truly believe in your heart of hearts. I believe that fire will burn me, and I don't thrust my hand into the fire. I believe that gravity will cause me (and the flying sheep) to plumet to the ground, and so I don't try to fly on my own. You can see my beliefs in my behaviours. True belief informs our behaviours, would you not agree?
Now, I could enumerate all sorts of ways in which religious believers that we've all seen in the news -- from whatever faith, I don't care which, make claims about what they believe, and then behave in ways that, frankly, make them liars. Think of Fred Phelps' Westboro Babtist church that claims to believe both "God is Love" and "God hates ****." Can anybody with half a brain reconcile what they claim to believe with what they actually do?
I may not be a "believer" in the religious sense, but like every human being, I believe a great many things -- simply because I have to in order to survive. But the things that I do believe in, while I may not be able to prove them, I abide by perfectly. I've told everybody here many times that I despise capital punishment, and I do. If you murdered my lover today, I would plead that you not face that punishment. That's the strength of my belief.
Sorry, had to stop. Was getting lost in my own verbosity -- and my 7th bottle of beer...nighty-night, all.
I don't hate people for merely being wrong or not even wrong.
Believing in things verifiable is fine with me.
You've addressed believers who act badly.
But believers who behave well & consistently with their
beliefs still lack proof. By your view, they're "con men".
I disagree about both, ie, if they believe in what they
say, they're not "con men".
If you believe things not provable,
I advise against judging yourself.
Augustus
…
And , based on the peer reviewed evidence provided, is also rejected by many. Your criteria for trusting the experts was that there is no real disagreement.
As demonstrated in this thread, there is significant disagreement, yet you strangely ignore this easily verifiable fact as it goes against you interests. You have made no argument that these sources are wrong, just asserted your opinion as fact. Funny that.
Unbiased readers will note that, as well as obviously contradicting your own stated position on when to trust 'experts', you avoid the 4 simple true/false questions that prove your entire objective, perfect morality schtick is wrong.
I'll answer them for you:
1) The brain and 2) society are complex systems - True
3) We have incomplete information on the brain and human society - True
4) You can make certain predictions about complex systems based on incomplete information - False (remarkably so if you are talking about the interaction of multiple complex systems based on very incomplete information and very long time scales)
Feel free to make a case that any of this is wrong as if these points are correct, it is impossible that your theory is correct.
Do it for the 'unbiased readers' you always refer to when you have no actual argument
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You're making a grossly exaggerated claim. My criterion is that the acceptance significantly outweighs the rejection. It does.
This thread seems to be on its last legs. So, I'll indulge you in an off-topic discussion on complexity.
Any intelligent person who has worked in a large organization, as I did for 15 years, understands that seemingly complex systems sometimes behave unpredictably. It sometimes seems impossible to manage change.
Among its proposed applications, complexity theory proposes that its knowledgeable practitioners can make that random behavior manageable. I assume they are offering their services at a price to large organizations. I don't know how successful they are. It's not a topic that interests me.
Your use of it in our debate on morality is illogical because we know that the brain's simple pain and pleasure functions manage a wide variety of effects. I simply add moral judgments to the list of their tasks. Thus, you can't use complexity theory to rule out simple causes because we know those simple functions exist. The only question is are they the proximate cause of moral judgments?
The unpleasant pain function immediately signals WRONG if a specific action is immoral or UNFAIR if its a question of fairness. If we don't get this signal, we can assume the act is justified.
Nature has a way of using simple functions and patterns and, from them, creating baffling complexity. Thus, simple causes aren't easy to find. That's why scientists prefer to test hypotheses that explain more of the observed effects. It's a staple in the scientific method.
I think it likely that the brain and society seem to be baffling, complex systems only because we don't fully understand them. I say that because most people don't understand that a society is essentially a cooperative endeavor. If one understands that, much of the seeming randomness and misunderstanding disappears.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
It's on topic, as the most basic reason you are wrong on these kind of issues is that you deny complexity exists and prefer to think in simple, linear terms. This is why you think IQ = intelligence as well.
This way of thinking works in certain situations, but it has long been recognised in both the scientific and practical spheres that there are numerous situations in which such a way of thinking doesn't reflect the reality.
Science progresses.
Nope, not about 'randomness'.
Clearly. Every time you try to insist you understand it, you inadvertently prove you do not. Yet are absolutely certain that this area of scientific enquiry you don't understand, and admit you have no interest in trying to understand better is completely irrelevant.
Ironic that you never miss an opportunity to disparage 'conservatives' as being stuck in outdated ways of thinking while steadfastly maintaining a 19th C view of the sciences and admit to being uninterested in challenging it based on new evidence.
Others argue that inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. In particular, ecologist Robert Ulanowicz says that science must develop techniques to study ways in which larger scales of organization influence smaller ones, and also ways in which feedback loops create structure at a given level, independently of details at a lower level of organization. He advocates (and uses) information theory as a framework to study propensities in natural systems.[23] Ulanowicz attributes these criticisms of reductionism to the philosopher Karl Popper and biologist Robert Rosen.[24]
Stuart Kauffman has argued that complex systems theory and phenomena such as emergence pose limits to reductionism.[25] Emergence is especially relevant when systems exhibit historicity.[26] Emergence is strongly related to nonlinearity.[27] The limits of the application of reductionism are claimed to be especially evident at levels of organization with greater complexity, including living cells,[28] neural networks, ecosystems, society, and other systems formed from assemblies of large numbers of diverse components linked by multiple feedback loops.[28][29]
As noted, any time you try to discuss complex systems, you prove you don't understand what they are in the most basic sense.
If what you say above is 'true', then either Complex Systems (in the scientific sense) don't exist, or the brain is not a complex system. Which is it?
There are no 'simple' plain or pleasure functions in the brain that can be understood in isolation. There are numerous, complex interconnected systems that we only have a limited understanding of, especially regarding their interactions.
The parts of the brain that evolved to deal with 'morality', co-evolved with those to deal with navigating coalitions, maximising our chances at reproduction, other self-interest and countless other biological functions.
Things get even more complex if we accept a multi-level selection view of evolution.
Why can we assume that? Given the co-evolution of many different, interconnected brain functions, why should we assume without any evidence that 'morality' always wins the day?
We know that numerous brain functions deal with self-deception, and that self-deception confers evolutionary advantage. From long experience, we know humans easily believe that which is beneficial to them is 'right'.
Why should we assume it is impossible for one of the other competing functions of our brain to override our 'morality'?
Why should we assume 'morality' is unconnected to any other brain function and can be understood in isolation?
Why should we assume the perfect predictability of a complex system based on incomplete evidence?
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I gave you an example of a complex system (large organizations) in my previous post but you continue to claim that I deny complexity exists. Why do you think that repeating baseless claims is valid as debate?
IQ has nothing to do with complex systems. If I'm wrong about this explain why. If you can supply a reason that makes sense, the readers of this thread will understand why you made that claim.
I won't ask you to support this claim because you can't possibly do it. It's just nonsense you fabricated.
Randomness and complexity are connected concepts. Here's a book on the topic: The discrepancy method is the glue that binds randomness and complexity.
The Discrepancy Method
You claim that you understand complexity theory better than me but you never get beyond that claim. It's my impression that you don't understand it at all because you think the theory applies to every topic we discuss. Then, you're unable to explain WHY it applies. For example, why do you think society is a system that will yield answers to complexity theory? How about offering an example or two of some discoveries about society resulting from complexity theory?
Yet another unsupported claim. In the past, you have been able to make points that can be debated. But on the topic of complexity theory, all you've offered can be summed up in the claim that I don't know what I'm talking about but you do. That doesn't even qualify as juvenile debate.
What point have you made by quoting people on topics unrelated to our discussion? Were they intended to imply that you have expertise on the topic of complexity theory?
Yes, you've posted this opinion many times. You really need to suck it up and realize that your opinions don't qualify as debate no matter how highly you value them.
Your statement is a false dichotomy since you don't allow the possibility that a complex system (in the scientific sense) might include simple functions.
So, you deny my simple explanation because it's simple, something you understand. And, you've made up your mind that the brain is too complex to be understood except by complexity theory which you're read about.
Agreed. Morality is probably associated with survival.
We should accept conscience (moral intuition) as our guide because it's probably also a guide to the survival of our species, because it's the only moral guide we have, and because we are rewarded with contentment when we do.
Your meaning isn't clear. Can you offer examples of self-deception that offers evolutionary advantage, please.
As for people who believe that what is beneficial to them is right, we don't value their opinion on morality because they are biased. That's why we use unbiased people to make these judgments in courtrooms worldwide.
Two bodily functions performing the same task in competition? It doesn't happen.
Moral judgments are a combination of intuition and reason, each performing specific tasks. The final judgment in most cases is intuitive, but that's reason's job in moral dilemmas.
We have only one system to aid us in discerning right from wrong and fair from unfair. We have to assume it's correct because we have no other moral authority to compete with it.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
You seem to use the term synonymously with the adjective 'complicated' applied to the noun 'system'. You are wrong of course, but unwilling to put in the effort to understand why.
You don't realise that each point you make rejects the very existence of Complex Systems in the scientific sense.
It is valid in debate to point out the errors of your opponent, even if they do not understand the errors they make.
Here are those errors:
Point in question 1
It is impossible to accept that Complex Systems in the scientific sense exist, but also believe that invented the 'fabricated nonsense' that simple, linear ways of thinking do not work in all situations.
This is literally the basic premise of Complex Systems theory.
Complex systems are systems whose behavior is intrinsically difficult to model due to the dependencies, competitions, relationships, or other types of interactions between their parts or between a given system and its environment. Systems that are "complex" have distinct properties that arise from these relationships, such as nonlinearity, emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among others.
So how can you accept Complex Systems exist, and also that the existence of Complex Systems is 'fabricated nonsense' invented by Augustus on RF?
You say that as if reading and becoming better informed is a bad thing
Point in question 2:
If you accept:
a) Complex Systems exist
b) The brain is a Complex System
How is it possible that the brain is a Complex System but you can also understand the brain by treating it as a simple, linear system?
Conscience is an emergent property of the brain (also note this source says the same 'fabricated nonsense' you claim I made up):
Modern formulations of emergence stem from efforts to understand the nature of life in the early part of the twentieth century, when it was realized that both the then-dominant hypotheses were scientifically inadequate: namely, vitalism (a mysterious life force) and reductionism (life can be explained mechanically as the mere sum of its parts) (Davies, 2006).
With the concept of emergence, scientists could relinquish the idea of vital forces and also deny that life properties can be fully reduced to the mechanics of their parts. Instead they embraced a layered picture of nature consisting of ascending and interacting levels of increasing organizational complexity (Figure 1), with each higher level depending in part upon, but inexplicable in terms of, the properties of lower levels alone [adapted from Witherington (2011), after Broad (1925)]. Emergentism gained traction later in the century when complexity theory and detailed computer simulations generated many emergent features (Clayton and Davies, 2006).
Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence: Eliminating the Explanatory Gap.
Do you accept that emergence exists?
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry, and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things. In philosophy, theories that emphasize emergent properties have been called emergentism.[1]
I often get the impression (which of course might be totally wrong) that people who vote for someone like Trump (but usually the party behind him just as much), is that he seems to propose the following: I will do all that I can to make your own personal life better, your community better (if it conforms to what I see as acceptable), the country better (as I visualise such), and all else is secondary to that. That is, he appeals to the first and most obvious things that we think and feel - our own welfare, that of our community, next our country and what that means to us, and anything else is much lower down in the pecking order.
Obviously such is OK in a self-supporting country having no impact on others, but very few are in such positions, especially one claiming to be 'leader of the free world'. And where there is an overwhelming consensus as to how we should all live our lives - tough for those who are without religious beliefs in a religiously dominated society then, for example. I may be wrong on what the left (or those most unlikely to vote for Trump) might believe too. In that they try to look at the larger picture always, such that some sacrifices have to be made or that we need some better solutions, even if such doesn't always get the best deal for ourselves or our own particular community or country.
Obviously such is OK in a self-supporting country having no impact on others, but very few are in such positions, especially one claiming to be 'leader of the free world'. And where there is an overwhelming consensus as to how we should all live our lives - tough for those who are without religious beliefs in a religiously dominated society then, for example. I may be wrong on what the left (or those most unlikely to vote for Trump) might believe too. In that they try to look at the larger picture always, such that some sacrifices have to be made or that we need some better solutions, even if such doesn't always get the best deal for ourselves or our own particular community or country.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I seem to use WHAT term synonymously with complicated?
And, if you'd like to continue our discussion, would you please stop insulting me?
You think that because you don't understand complexity theory. We know that because you can't explain your claims.
:
You've created a strawman by putting my "fabricated nonsense" label on a different comment. That's cheating.
No, I said it to imply that reading doesn't guarantee understanding. If you understood complexity theory, you wouldn't be limited to making claims without offering reasons to support them.
I'm not sure the brain is a complex system in the scientific sense. I haven't read of any replicated science to support the notion that complexity theory has advanced our understanding of brain function. Have you?
I'm not sure that society is a complex system which complexity theory can help us understand either. You claimed it is, but like your other claims, it was not supported with reasons or evidence.
I'm not sure that the concept of emergence actually exists but what I am sure about is that you jumped to the conclusion that conscience is an emergent property without evidence. If I'm wrong, what evidence can you offer?
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Complex Systems
As in when you claimed things like planes were complex systems and I pointed out the difference between something complicated and Complex Systems. You then responded:
Me:
This way of thinking [simple, linear] works in certain situations, but it has long been recognised in both the scientific and practical spheres that there are numerous situations in which such a way of thinking doesn't reflect the reality [i.e. the field of Complexity Science]
You:
Nope, it's the same point. Read the definition of complex systems quoted below to work out why something being a complex system rules out understanding it via simple, linear logic or reductionism [i.e. the whole can be understood as the sum of its parts]
You have reverted to the strange mode where you purposely miss out the explanation and evidence provided and then pretend it never existed even though everyone else can see that it actually does exist.
For example:
These are paradigm cases of Complex Systems. If you don't accept them as complex systems, it would be very hard to accept Complex Systems exist.
You insist it is an insult to claim you have no desire to become better informed on this, but every time there is evidence provided you completely ignore it from wikipedia to peer-reviewed scientific articles.
If you want to understand better, you can read this and then explain why the brain should not be considered a complex system
Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 1041.
Published online 2020 Jun 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01041
PMCID: PMC7304239
PMID: 32595555
Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence: Eliminating the Explanatory Gap
Todd E. Feinberg1,* and Jon Mallatt2,*
Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence: Eliminating the Explanatory Gap.
See if you can address anything substantial this time, hope springs eternal
It's complicated!
No, it's complex!
No, it's complicated!
No, it's ad nauseum.
Geeze Louise, guys...yer get'n nowhere with this.
So I'll settle it.
The brain is a very complex system.
Consciousness is an emergent property (in most people).
Anyone who disagrees will get a spanking (not the fun kind)
from @Polymath257. (Extra big photo to drive the point home.)
No, it's complex!
No, it's complicated!
No, it's ad nauseum.
Geeze Louise, guys...yer get'n nowhere with this.
So I'll settle it.
The brain is a very complex system.
Consciousness is an emergent property (in most people).
Anyone who disagrees will get a spanking (not the fun kind)
from @Polymath257. (Extra big photo to drive the point home.)
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Let's try this again:Complex Systems
Your claims were that my argument in this thread and my position on IQ were both the result of thinking in simple, linear terms and that, for some reason that has to do with complex systems, I am mistaken. Please explain your reason (s).
Last edited: