Integrative cognition and ethics
ibsham...@hotmail.com
> On 5 Jun 2006 00:02:29 -0700, in alt.astrology,
> ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Whenever a false religion
>
> point of logic there wanker boi...
Let's see... linear logic, Aristotelian logic, geometrical logic,
ecosystemic logic, chaos theory logic, game theory logic, dialectical
logic, biofeedback logic, quantum theory logic, overdetermination,
holisticism, relativity, divine logic, demonic logic? What form of
logic do you believe in practicing? And is it a logical assumption that
your method is adequate for describing the Universe or the only logic
that has any truth in it, when time after time we see a world that is
not made of lines but of all kinds of fascinating concoctions and
combinations creating myriads of different interminglings and
consummations and forms, most of them entirely nonlinear?
Point of logic? Sorry, you are the illogical ones. You commit a hideous
error, of assaying everything in reference to the form of logic you
practice and damning all other things as illogical instead of studying
the logic by which they actually run.
> Making a statement about false religion makes an non-logical
> assumption that there is a true religion.
I'm not assuming that there is a true religion, I am studying them
using integrative cognition, of assaying from without and experiencing
from within.
There's definitely truth in many of them. As I've found from the
combination of internal and external perspectives.
Known as integrative cognition. A method that I have developed
combining experience and observation.
Which is a superior method of studying religions, societies and
people's minds. One that sees their effect on those who partake of it,
as well as on those outside.
Thus understanding both aspects, using the entirety of human organism,
and being able therefore to interpolate for a mimimax outcome.
> I have seen no evidence that there is a true religion,
> ergo all religions, new and old are equally false.
That's because you don't use integrative cognition! You use mere
objectifying observational logic, which is an entirely inadequate tool
for understanding such things! According to whom the world is an
object, and as such exists for your utility. Which is in no way a moral
standpoint, and one responsible for the plundering of the planet.
Which consummation becomes inevitable as a result of your method.
Which puts a lie to your claims that you have ethics and I do not.
> Thanks for playing at an attempt at thinking.
People who can't think don't finish college at age 18.
You parting
> prize is laughter.
I'll get the last laugh.
> Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass as you leave.
I'm not that tall.
You people are a bunch of aggressive, malicious, abusive morons. No
wonder you find Ed's theories kooky, you can't wrap your little linear
minds around them.
Go burn a witch or something. Show us your true character as exploiters
and murderers that you are.
Which state of affairs, by the way, is the logical result of your
linear method of thinking.
One that sees world as an object, which becomes the point of seeing it
as a thing to be used.
With all that can be expropriated expropriated, and all that cannot be
expropriated destroyed.
So I say to you: I don't exist for your use. Other people and the
Universe does not exist for your use. I don't exist for your standards;
I don't exist for your purposes; I don't exist for your inferior logic;
I don't exist for your ignorant, stupid, malicious, oppressive
morality. And neither does anyone else, here or elsewhere.
And that, is my moral standpoint.
Ilya Shambat.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm not assuming that there is a true religion, I am studying them
> using integrative cognition, of assaying from without and experiencing
> from within.
>
> There's definitely truth in many of them.
Soooo what standard did you use to determine the *truth* in religion.
Michael Gordge
ibsham...@hotmail.com
The way to which its claims correspond with its effects.
donsto...@hotmail.com
You'll never go hungry with access to your Infinite Word Salad
Generation System (The IWSGS),
ibshambat2004eieioheykidsletsputonashowtosavetheorphanagefrommeanoldmrmcnarley!!!!.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, too vague not enough
context, can you give an example of what you mean, eg in what specific
religion did you find the truth, ie. what was the claim made, what was
the effect (that resulted from the claim) and how did you determine it
was the claim and not something else that made the effect?
Michael Gordge
ibsham...@hotmail.com
Sure, I'd be glad to.
Say, for example, you want to investigate Buddhism and its claim that
meditation brings peace and goodwill. So you do as the Buddhists: You
meditate and do good works. And then after a trial period you know
whether its claims are correct.
Or you want to investigate Christianity and its claims that it gives
you strength, peace and love for humanity. So you put faith in Christ,
go to churches, pray with your whole heart, believe with your whole
heart, don't do stupid things, and then you see whether you get what is
promised.
There are some claims (such as those of reincarnation or of heaven and
hell) that you cannot investigate in this manner; but you can
investigate claims that are testable. So this is what I've done.
Ilya Shambat.
ibsham...@hotmail.com
Another thing. I've found out that this process requires suspension of
disbelief and suspension of preconceived notions and ideologies. Which
is not easy to do and can be described by many as a psychotic break
with reality (what they mean of course by that is that it's a break
with one's previous assumptions and previous conceptions and previous
acquaintances), but which can be accomplished with greater ease the
more one's skill grows in using this method.
Cameron
ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> > ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> > > > ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I'm not assuming that there is a true religion, I am studying them
> > > > > using integrative cognition, of assaying from without and experiencing
> > > > > from within.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's definitely truth in many of them.
What makes you so sure that there are "them"? When I say "hello" and my
friend from Madrid responds with a cheerful "Hola", are we saying the
same thing, even though we are speaking different languages?
> > > > Soooo what standard did you use to determine the *truth* in religion.
> > >
> > > The way to which its claims correspond with its effects.
>From an external or internal perspective?
> > That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, too vague not enough
> > context, can you give an example of what you mean, eg in what specific
> > religion did you find the truth, ie. what was the claim made, what was
> > the effect (that resulted from the claim) and how did you determine it
> > was the claim and not something else that made the effect?
Hear, Hear.
> Sure, I'd be glad to.
>
> Say, for example, you want to investigate Buddhism and its claim that
> meditation brings peace and goodwill. So you do as the Buddhists: You
> meditate and do good works. And then after a trial period you know
> whether its claims are correct.
There is such thing as Christian meditation. A trial period huh? How
long is this trial period?
> Or you want to investigate Christianity and its claims that it gives
> you strength, peace and love for humanity. So you put faith in Christ,
> go to churches, pray with your whole heart, believe with your whole
> heart, don't do stupid things, and then you see whether you get what is
> promised.
Don't do stupid things? Wow.
> There are some claims (such as those of reincarnation or of heaven and
> hell) that you cannot investigate in this manner; but you can
> investigate claims that are testable. So this is what I've done.
Good luck though.
> Ilya Shambat.
Cameron
Cameron
ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> > ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> > > > ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I'm not assuming that there is a true religion, I am studying them
> > > > > using integrative cognition, of assaying from without and experiencing
> > > > > from within.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's definitely truth in many of them.
What makes you so sure that there are "them"? When I say "hello" and my
friend from Madrid responds with a cheerful "Hola", are we saying the
same thing, even though we are speaking different languages?
> > > > Soooo what standard did you use to determine the *truth* in religion.
> > >
> > > The way to which its claims correspond with its effects.
>From an external or internal perspective?
> > That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, too vague not enough
> > context, can you give an example of what you mean, eg in what specific
> > religion did you find the truth, ie. what was the claim made, what was
> > the effect (that resulted from the claim) and how did you determine it
> > was the claim and not something else that made the effect?
Hear, Hear.
> Sure, I'd be glad to.
>
> Say, for example, you want to investigate Buddhism and its claim that
> meditation brings peace and goodwill. So you do as the Buddhists: You
> meditate and do good works. And then after a trial period you know
> whether its claims are correct.
There is such thing as Christian meditation. A trial period huh? How
long is this trial period?
> Or you want to investigate Christianity and its claims that it gives
> you strength, peace and love for humanity. So you put faith in Christ,
> go to churches, pray with your whole heart, believe with your whole
> heart, don't do stupid things, and then you see whether you get what is
> promised.
Don't do stupid things? Wow.
> There are some claims (such as those of reincarnation or of heaven and
> hell) that you cannot investigate in this manner; but you can
> investigate claims that are testable. So this is what I've done.
Good luck though.
> Ilya Shambat.
Cameron
Immortalist
It looks as if Kant, who thought our minds structure our perceptions,
was right. Probability was built into our minds. Our minds, the
electrochemical symphony that our narrowly evolved neural ganglia play,
impose an infrastructure on our thinking. The mind imposes a background
of time and space and causal connectedness. Scientists have never seen
a "causality" in the wild. They have seen, and they predict, only
space-time events that follow space-time events. Apples on the tree,
then apples in the air, then apples on the ground. Equations and
correlations have replaced causes, just as science has largely replaced
philosophy and religion as a theory of things. No causal germ in one
event unfolds into another event. But the mind, as eighteenth-century
philosopher David Hume observed, makes it seem so and inserts the
causal links in the event chain.
Probability seems to be part of the same mental infrastructure. It
forms part of our mental background or viewing screen along with time
and space and causality and similarity and the topological notions of
continuity and connectedness. We see probability everywhere because it
lies in our glasses.
I believe that probability or "randomness" is a psychic instinct or
Jungian archetype or mental trend that helps us organize our
perceptions and memories and most of all our expectations. Probability
gives structure to our competing causal predictions about how the
future will unfold in the next instant or day or season or millennium.
Probability ranks or weights the future alternatives. Our expectations
then blend or average these future alternatives into a single
probability-weighted average. The probability weights do not exist
outside our minds. They have no physical reality but have a powerful
psychological reality rooted in our neural mi-crostructure. Hume also
thought that we make up probability as we go and use it to fill in gaps
in our mind schemes or world views: "Though there be no such thing as
chance in the world, our ignorance of the real cause of any event has
the same influence on the understanding and begets a like species of
belief."
This probability instinct seems to cut across cultures and may cut
across species. Besides the probability-laden psychology of scientists
and most nonscientists, the widespread gambling and games of chance in
primitive and modern cultures suggest that probability "reasoning" may
be a cultural constant like hero worship or fertility rituals or incest
and adultery taboos. A cultural constant suggests a biological
substrate, and that requires an evolutionary history.
Ranking future alternatives can help pass on genes. Those who could so
rank may have eaten those who could not. It allows us to bet before we
act and improve the outcome of acting. That forward-looking ability has
supreme survival value in biological evolution, the genetic variation
and selection in the last few million years that has finely sculpted
our brains and minds, and in the prior evolution that sculpted the
brains and minds of our mammalian ancestors in the last 220 million
years. Natural selection filters out organisms as they cross the fuzzy
line from the present to the future. Natural selection favors brain
mechanisms that help an organism make its next move in a changing and
dangerous world. These forward-looking brain mechanisms may run deep in
the structure of mammalian and even reptilian brains. Future studies
may find that the brains of chimps and apes and lesser-brained mammals
house a forward-looking probability instinct. At the other extreme we
should not be surprised that scientists have exalted probability
ranking into their grand organizing principle of maximum probability.
Scientists follow their probability instincts as their hominid
forefathers followed theirs. Scientists just know more math.
Fuzzy Thinking - The New Science of Fuzzy Logic
Bart Kosko
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078688021X/
Immortalist
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves in
the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is not
a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down
the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a minor
delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to detect a
snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life. THe
two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from a
line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do. These
can be called adaptive errors.
Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
affair or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The
Dangerous Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David M
Buss
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
----------------------------
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory (EMT),
proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be predictably
biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors were
asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory explains known
phenomena such as men's overperception of women's sexual intent, and it
predicts new biases in social inference such as women's underestimation
of men's commitment.
Buss comments on Error Management Theory. In an uncertain world, two
potential errors in thinking: a. partner having affair (but isn't) b.
partner isn't having affair (but is) The cost of making those two
errors are very different. Those making the first error have less cost
(from a reproductive success standpoint) than those who make the
second. Theoretically we evolved toward vigilance and are more likely
to make adaptive error. Explains why men and women sometimes have
delusions that a partner is unfaithful or might be. "It's not paranoia
if they're really out to get you!"
Shedding Light on Sexual Misunderstandings
Do men possess a "sixth sense" that calculates the risk of missing a
sexual encounter? Are women's guarded perceptions that men have no
desire for commitment true?
A fresh look at the misunderstandings between the sexes by David M.
Buss, University of Texas-Austin, uncovers new insights into why men
and women sometimes just don't get it when it comes to understanding
each other's views on sex and romance. Buss's report appears in the
December 2001 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a
journal of the American Psychological Society.
Buss uses two theories he developed to explain the different
perceptions between the sexes -- Error Management Theory and Strategic
Interference Theory. The theories explain how the biases and emotions
of women and men may actually be adaptive behaviors.
He says that two basic errors are often at work in relationships --
inferring that a misdeed was done or overlooking a misdeed. For
example, a spouse may falsely suspect a partner of sexual treachery, or
fail to detect actual infidelity.
Buss applies Error Management Theory to explain cognitive biases that
have evolved over time. These biases are, Buss wrote, not an
irrationally focused lens used to view a situation or circumstance, but
a functional adaptation. For example, men have developed a sexual
overperception bias designed to minimize their chances of missing
opportunities for sex. Women on the other hand are believed to have an
opposite kind of bias toward men, a commitment-skepticism bias whereby
men's actual level of commitment is underestimated to compensate for
the possibility of being sexually deceived by men who feign commitment.
This mismatch of biases can lead to problems. For example, setting a
low threshold for inferring infidelity means you increase your chances
of detecting infidelity if it happens, but at the same time, you
increase your rate of false accusations.
This or any similar scenario is bound to inspire a plethora of emotions
that traditional theorists have labeled "negative." But according to
Buss, the traditional notion that these "negative" emotions - anger,
fear, and jealousy - only get in the way isn't so. He uses his
Strategic Interference Theory to explain that these emotions are
actually motivators that help a victim deal with a situation.
"They [these emotions] focus attention on the source of strategic
interference, temporarily screening out other information less relevant
to the adaptive problem," Buss wrote. The Strategic Interference Theory
says that the traditionally "negative" emotions have a purpose. They:
Focus attention on the source of strategic interference
Prompt storage of relevant information in memory for subsequent
retrieval.
Motivate action to eliminate or reduce the interference and future
recurrence of the interference.
"Because men and women have evolved somewhat different sexual
strategies," Buss wrote, "the events that cause strategic interference
are predicted to differ for the sexes. The events that trigger emotions
such as anger, jealousy, and subjective distress should differ for the
sexes."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2002/pr020103.cfm
----------------------------
The principle of error management helps to explain why jealousy
sometimes seems so irrational. We live in a world with uncertainty, a
booming, buzzing chaos of cues requiring inferences about an unseen
reality. Over evolutionary time, some errors of inference were more
costly than others. Failing to detect an actual infedelity was more
costly than mistakenly accusing an innocent partner of betrayal.
Evolution, as a consequence, forged a hypersensitive defense system,
designed to sound the alarm not just when an infidelity has been
discovered, but also when the circumstances make it slightly more
likely. These adaptive biases explain why these mistakes may not really
be "errore" over the long run.
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
bob
blah blah
It's easy to open one's mind. You seem to believe that it's a unique
trait. That's half my point when I hose you.
You really aren't in touch with anything all that special. You just
have the time (and lack of focus) to write multiple page explanations
of things that could be described in a few sentences.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> Say, for example, you want to investigate Buddhism and its claim that
> meditation brings peace and goodwill. So you do as the Buddhists: You
> meditate and do good works. And then after a trial period you know
> whether its claims are correct.
There is no evidence that Buddhism is the cause of any of peace and
good things. Name the standard you used to define good.
What do you mean by brings peace and *good works* just by learning
about Buddhism? I can find lots of examples of peace and good things in
the world without a Buddha being within thousands of miles. Thats not a
good example of finding something that non-religion cant also do.
I used to own an orchard out in the country 7 miles out of a small
rural town and we had a large pond for irrigation purposes, it was
surrounded by large pine trees and native bush frequebted by birds bees
insects the usual and when I wanted peace I would go down there lay
down under the pines and just listen to the noises of nature.
I would use that time to solve problems, problems that if solved would
give not only my life but also those close to me, more meaning. eg I
would invent new gadgets for our home and our orchard or design, in my
head, engineering type machinery we needed, or I'd plan a holiday or
plan time with my family etc etc. and not a Buddha in sight.
Do the Buddhists go to hospitals when they become seriously sick or
injured and are the hospital owners, the cleaners, the doctors, the
surgeons and nurses all Buddhists?
What sort of modern day inventions, which do or contribute/d in solving
the problems of human survival, that have been directly attributed
Buddhism?
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge