Atheism, Capitalism, Evolution, & Free Speech Go Together Like.....

[Revoltingest]

What do you think of seeing Protestantism as a stochastic system?

There would be a spectrum.
Example of one....
Anarcho capitalism would be rather fully stochastic.
A command economy like N Korea would be minimally so.
Protestantism.....I suspect too many flavors for me to place it on a spectrum.

It basically took the authority away from the Church and gave it to each individual through personal interpretation of the Bible so each individual can pursue their own spiritual self interest.

Yes, this would be less "top down" than with a very controlling church.

Protestantism supports individualism supports capitalism...
Protestants disliked the authority of the Church, they certainly aren't going to like the authority of the government much more.

The association of some religious beliefs with some economic systems is certainly there.

It'd be interesting to explore why atheism hook up with socialism, though perhaps even this is simply an emergent property of a stochastic system.

I've yet to figure out why so many socialists like atheism.
If you do, let me know, eh.

 

[PureX]

I think you're using one of the most extreme definitions I've heard. It also seems to assume that the investor will inevitably be interested in only short term gains. While this is often true, it's not built in to the system. The long term investor knows that "his" company has to contribute to a financially healthy community. I understand that this often doesn't happen, but again that's where the checks and balances come in.

I am using the real definition of "capitalism": the means of production are under the control of the capital investor. I think far too often people confuse capitalISM (an economic system) with capital investment (the practice of economic participation in a commercial enterprise). The difference is in who is controlling the commercial enterprise. In a socialist economic system, the well being of society (through some for of representational democracy) would ultimately be the controlling factor in commercial enterprise. That does not exclude capital investment, nor profitable returns, but it does deny the capital investor sole control over the commercial enterprise.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Capitalism is evil. Our long-term survival depends on its downfall.

Thank you, please drive forward.

....Bacon & eggs, with pancakes & maple syrup. (Aka, "the gang of four.)

Occasionally posters express surprise that an atheist (moi) would be a capitalist.
They associate capitalism with Christianity. This strikes me as most odd,
because there's no obvious connection between them, yet the perception persists.
This raises a question....
What control relationships are there between various religious, economic & physical systems?

Systemic differences between capitalism & religions with The Truth delivered from on high,
eg, Christianity, Islam, are striking. Such faiths are centrally directed to a great degree.
God alone determines morality, & extensively regulates conduct. Islam regulates economic
conduct even more that Christianity. Thus the individual system elements (humans) behave
according to rigid scriptural dictates.
But capitalism is stochastic, since individuals each pursue their own economic self interest,
which can greatly vary from person to person. Thus the resulting capitalistic economy is
an emergent property of a system with random inputs from individuals & conditions.
(Note that government will set regulatory limits, within which this system evolves.)

Contrast capitalism with the another popularly advocated economic system, socialism.
It allows far less random input from the individuals, & far more from central planning.
The individual cannot act as independently, eg, start a company, hire workers, & engage
in commerce with others. Socialism resembles Christianity in being more rigidly organized,
with "top down" system controls.
(Parenthetical aside: Would this simple highly controlled system would enjoy greater
system stability than stochastic (chaotic) capitalism? An interesting discussion for later.)

Biological evolution resembles capitalism in that each player (eg, microbe, insect, dinosaur,
grizzly bear, human) desires to survive & reproduce. (Random system inputs are genetic
utation & environment.) Evolution of species is the emergent property of this system.
But Christian creationism is a polar opposite kind of system because God specifies all
change down to the smallest detail.

By now, the thoughtful reader (one patient in the face of a wall of text) sees where this
will lead regarding free speech, as opposed to speech tightly regulated by authorities.
So I'll spare you elaboration.



Atheism, capitalism, evolution, & free speech...they all appeal to me for the sheer beauty
of how systems unfold from initial conditions to emergent properties both simple & complex.
However, I do anticipate some disagreement.

 

[icehorse]

I am using the real definition of "capitalism": the means of production are under the control of the capital investor.

In the US, "public" companies are owned by many investorS.

Capitalism is evil. Our long-term survival depends on its downfall.

Thank you, please drive forward.

And what should replace it?

 

[Sunstone]

Upon pondering the OP from my perch atop a towering Balinese donkey, I have come to see how atheism, capitalism, evolution, and free speech can all be seen as more stochastic systems than at least some other important systems, such as Christianity, Islam, and socialism.

It's an interesting point. All else being equal, stochastic systems quite obviously allow for greater flexibility in achieving the inherent "goals" of those systems -- and all that implies.

For instance, evolution unconstrained by any causation but natural causation would necessarily be more flexible than if some power were to impose upon it that "all successful organisms be green" in addition to natural selection. The advantage is that -- as the OP suggests -- in limiting options, a relatively less stochastic system limits the available paths to the system's "goal", and thus might enhance the chances of failure.

On the other hand, one might ask whether some limits do not actually increase the possible paths to the system's goal? That sounds counter-intuitive, but suppose you took a stream and plunged a large boulder into the center of it. The water now has at least two paths to its goal -- around the boulder to one side or another.

In fact, that sort of thing is often argued by all sorts of good fellows who insist that minimum wages -- especially living wages - would increase the incentives to replace low paid workers with robots and other means (such as scaling back on certain jobs, or perhaps hours worked). In other words, it could be argued that without minimum wages, you would have fewer paths to your goal.

If that's true, we might further ask whether there could be limitations on stochastic systems that benefited people while at the same time, increased the "stochasticy" of the systems?

All of this vaguely --- but only vaguely -- reminds me of the erlang B and poisson tables I poured over on my wedding nights in order to impress upon my now two ex-wives that I actually had a statistical probablity of creating such an overload of pleasure as to bring about in them a peak experience. "All paths busy, overflow imminent!" was quite understandably my motto in those days.

Such a pity they both fell asleep before the consummation of my theory.

Still, I miss the days of my youth when I could lecture up some good old "oral" sex just as well as the next fellow.

 

[Sunstone]

Capitalism is evil. Our long-term survival depends on its downfall.

Thank you, please drive forward.

Sounds more like reverse gear to me. What do you make of the effect capitalism has had (in a more or less well regulated form) on creating in America the world's largest and most prosperous middle class in history between the mid 1940s and the mid 1970s?

 

[Revoltingest]

Upon pondering the OP from my perch atop a towering Balinese donkey, I have come to see how atheism, capitalism, evolution, and free speech can all be seen as more stochastic systems than at least some other important systems, such as Christianity, Islam, and socialism.

It's an interesting point. All else being equal, stochastic systems quite obviously allow for greater flexibility in achieving the inherent "goals" of those systems -- and all that implies.

For instance, evolution unconstrained by any causation but natural causation would necessarily be more flexible than if some power were to impose upon it that "all successful organisms be green" in addition to natural selection. The advantage is that -- as the OP suggests -- in limiting options, a relatively less stochastic system limits the available paths to the system's "goal", and thus might enhance the chances of failure.

On the other hand, one might ask whether some limits do not actually increase the possible paths to the system's goal? That sounds counter-intuitive, but suppose you took a stream and plunged a large boulder into the center of it. The water now has at least two paths to its goal -- around the boulder to one side or another.

In fact, that sort of thing is often argued by all sorts of good fellows who insist that minimum wages -- especially living wages - would increase the incentives to replace low paid workers with robots and other means (such as scaling back on certain jobs, or perhaps hours worked). In other words, it could be argued that without minimum wages, you would have fewer paths to your goal.

If that's true, we might further ask whether there could be limitations on stochastic systems that benefited people while at the same time, increased the "stochasticy" of the systems?

All of this vaguely --- but only vaguely -- reminds me of the erlang B and poisson tables I poured over on my wedding nights in order to impress upon my now two ex-wives that I actually had a statistical probablity of creating such an overload of pleasure as to bring about in them a peak experience. "All paths busy, overflow imminent!" was quite understandably my motto in those days.

Such a pity they both fell asleep before the consummation of my theory.

Still, I miss the days of my youth when I could lecture up some good old "oral" sex just as well as the next fellow.

To see flexibility as an advantage, raises the question....to what purpose?
This would be where morality enters. This is beyond the scope of the OP,
but let's go their briefly.....

While posting earlier, I watched a TV show (the best scholarly source) on Josef
Stalin's reign. He had a set of goals which he achieved very efficiently. Alas,
individual rights & liberty were subordinated to others. Many believed his path
was right, & would see centrally managed system as advantageous.

Such a system could even be benevolent, but it does have greater instability
relative to liberty. Unlike a democratic system, wherein the people provide
greater stabilizing feedback, The Soviet system largely lacked that (with
destabilizing feedback....ie, the taiga, the gulag or the dirt nap for critics.

Capitalism, like evolution, can have management which limits (or guides)
system response in a desired fashion. We under no obligation to have a
"pure" process. If altering the incentives to achieve a desired system
response, then why not.

Disclaimer:
I'm addressing generalities in order to discuss the larger concepts.
The complexities....there are many. Perhaps eventually as the thread
ages, eh.

 

[sun rise]

Let's take evolution & creationism, ignoring which you believe to be right or wrong.....
Do you see any difference between these systems regarding the initial conditions,
the factors influencing system response, & how they differently explain the emergent
property of speciation exhibited in the fossil record?

Ignoring the God created a fossil record to play "gotcha" in which he metaphorically hides behind a tree, jumps out and says "fooled you", I see no essential difference between evolution and my own unique form of creationism. Actually it's not my own. It's just not the science-denying form of creationism.

In a very simplistic sense, this is what I have in mind. A decent search can find many such examples. Here's two:

 

[Revoltingest]

Ignoring the God created a fossil record to play "gotcha" in which he metaphorically hides behind a tree, jumps out and says "fooled you", I see no essential difference between evolution and my own unique form of creationism. Actually it's not my own. It's just not the science-denying form of creationism.

In a very simplistic sense, this is what I have in mind. A decent search can find many such examples. Here's two:

By "creationism", I refer to the divine creation & everything staying the
same afterward. This is fundamentally different system behavior than
your scenario of God initiating biological evolution.

I had to avoid going too far defining everything, since I already had a
wall of text. I'm not doing anything even remotely scholarly, ya know.

 

[PureX]

In the US, "public" companies are owned by many investorS.

And the CEOs are obliged by law to act to maximize the return on their investment. It doesn't matter how many there are.

And what should replace it?

Democratic socialism. The most prosperous times in U. S. were also the most 'socialist'. Unfortunately, that socialism was not systemic, it was cultural. And so it was soon neglected and usurped by the greed of capitalism, again, which was and is systemic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....Bacon & eggs, with pancakes & maple syrup. (Aka, "the gang of four.)

Occasionally posters express surprise that an atheist (moi) would be a capitalist.
They associate capitalism with Christianity. This strikes me as most odd,
because there's no obvious connection between them, yet the perception persists.
This raises a question....
What control relationships are there between various religious, economic & physical systems?

Systemic differences between capitalism & religions with The Truth delivered from on high,
eg, Christianity, Islam, are striking. Such faiths are centrally directed to a great degree.
God alone determines morality, & extensively regulates conduct. Islam regulates economic
conduct even more that Christianity. Thus the individual system elements (humans) behave
according to rigid scriptural dictates.
But capitalism is stochastic, since individuals each pursue their own economic self interest,
which can greatly vary from person to person. Thus the resulting capitalistic economy is
an emergent property of a system with random inputs from individuals & conditions.
(Note that government will set regulatory limits, within which this system evolves.)

Contrast capitalism with the another popularly advocated economic system, socialism.
It allows far less random input from the individuals, & far more from central planning.
The individual cannot act as independently, eg, start a company, hire workers, & engage
in commerce with others. Socialism resembles Christianity in being more rigidly organized,
with "top down" system controls.
(Parenthetical aside: Would this simple highly controlled system would enjoy greater
system stability than stochastic (chaotic) capitalism? An interesting discussion for later.)

Biological evolution resembles capitalism in that each player (eg, microbe, insect, dinosaur,
grizzly bear, human) desires to survive & reproduce. (Random system inputs are genetic
utation & environment.) Evolution of species is the emergent property of this system.
But Christian creationism is a polar opposite kind of system because God specifies all
change down to the smallest detail.

By now, the thoughtful reader (one patient in the face of a wall of text) sees where this
will lead regarding free speech, as opposed to speech tightly regulated by authorities.
So I'll spare you elaboration.



Atheism, capitalism, evolution, & free speech...they all appeal to me for the sheer beauty
of how systems unfold from initial conditions to emergent properties both simple & complex.
However, I do anticipate some disagreement.

Hmm...I'll need to think more before giving a decent answer. I have one (perhaps strange) question to help me with that, though.

To two of your four principles, I would see a concept of balance as being required. Capitalism and free speech, completely unfettered, seem less than optimal to me. (Note, I'm counting even calling fire in a theatre as an example here).

I don't think concepts of balance apply to atheism (although they do to the views atheists hold) or to evolution (in it's natural form).

Any thoughts on that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm...I'll need to think more before giving a decent answer. I have one (perhaps strange) question to help me with that, though.

Indecent is OK.

To two of your four principles, I would see a concept of balance as being required. Capitalism and free speech, completely unfettered, seem less than optimal to me. (Note, I'm counting even calling fire in a theatre as an example here).
I don't think concepts of balance apply to atheism (although they do to the views atheists hold) or to evolution (in it's natural form).
Any thoughts on that?

They're not principles....just systems....except for atheism, which isn't much of anything,
except for lack of restriction.
If by balance, you refer to system stability, I'm not addressing that (although I did in one post).

 

[Revoltingest]

And the CEOs are obliged by law to act to maximize the return on their investment. It doesn't matter how many there are.

This isn't true.
Ref....
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-required-to-maximize-profits/
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...rs/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Indecent is OK.

They're not principles....just systems....except for atheism, which isn't much of anything,
except for lack of restriction.
If by balance, you refer to system stability, I'm not addressing that (although I did in one post).

Not stability. More whether 'fettering' is even possible, I guess.
Atheism and evolution are what they are. We can build on top of them to some degree, but they remain unchanged.

Capitalism and free speech, on the other hand, can be limited or unfettered.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not stability. More whether 'fettering' is even possible, I guess.
Atheism and evolution are what they are. We can build on top of them to some degree, but they remain unchanged.

Capitalism and free speech, on the other hand, can be limited or unfettered.

OK.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which one does atheism best fit with?
A. Free-Will (which would be... a stochastic process)
B. Determinism (which would be... a highly controlled system)

Atheism would fit best with the science, which at present the most likely scenario a form of compatabilism.

 

[sun rise]

This isn't true.
Ref....
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-required-to-maximize-profits/
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...rs/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

Required by shareholders not by law.

 

[atanu]

....Bacon & eggs, with pancakes & maple syrup. (Aka, "the gang of four.)

Occasionally posters express surprise that an atheist (moi) would be a capitalist.
They associate capitalism with Christianity. This strikes me as most odd,
because there's no obvious connection between them, yet the perception persists.
This raises a question....
What control relationships are there between various religious, economic & physical systems?

Systemic differences between capitalism & religions with The Truth delivered from on high,
eg, Christianity, Islam, are striking. Such faiths are centrally directed to a great degree.
God alone determines morality, & extensively regulates conduct. Islam regulates economic
conduct even more that Christianity. Thus the individual system elements (humans) behave
according to rigid scriptural dictates.
But capitalism is stochastic, since individuals each pursue their own economic self interest,
which can greatly vary from person to person. Thus the resulting capitalistic economy is
an emergent property of a system with random inputs from individuals & conditions.
(Note that government will set regulatory limits, within which this system evolves.)

Contrast capitalism with the another popularly advocated economic system, socialism.
It allows far less random input from the individuals, & far more from central planning.
The individual cannot act as independently, eg, start a company, hire workers, & engage
in commerce with others. Socialism resembles Christianity in being more rigidly organized,
with "top down" system controls.
(Parenthetical aside: Would this simple highly controlled system would enjoy greater
system stability than stochastic (chaotic) capitalism? An interesting discussion for later.)

Biological evolution resembles capitalism in that each player (eg, microbe, insect, dinosaur,
grizzly bear, human) desires to survive & reproduce. (Random system inputs are genetic
utation & environment.) Evolution of species is the emergent property of this system.
But Christian creationism is a polar opposite kind of system because God specifies all
change down to the smallest detail.

By now, the thoughtful reader (one patient in the face of a wall of text) sees where this
will lead regarding free speech, as opposed to speech tightly regulated by authorities.
So I'll spare you elaboration.

Atheism, capitalism, evolution, & free speech...they all appeal to me for the sheer beauty
of how systems unfold from initial conditions to emergent properties both simple & complex.
However, I do anticipate some disagreement.

I think this is oversimplified from materialistic POV and wrong from spiritual POV.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think this is oversimplified from materialistic POV and wrong from spiritual POV.

"Oversimplified"?
Of course I'm using the materialistic view...I'm an atheist & engineer.
And since any systems analysis here must necessarily be accessible
to people who've never studied the field, it had to be a simple overview.
(And I've not used the math in 40 years.)

But I did contrast it with a religious view.
You may feel free to offer the spiritual systems analysis perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Required by shareholders not by law.

That is common, but not universal.