On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:20, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I´m also very heterodox with respect to physics. Although I have a
degree in Physics, or just because that, I understand that physics
has exerted a reductionist fascination that has ruined every social
and human science, including philosophy. Now it has been substituted
by information theory, computer science and biology, which are more
appropriate to the understanding of ultimate existential questions,
but the danger still exist. there are still too much physics envy in
human sicences and the biologist-computationalist reductions may or
may be not equally dangerous. Almost all the human sciences are
nothing more that religious sects that try to explain every human
aspect as a result of a single entity that creates meaning: the
notion of "culture" formerly "class" or "race" before Hitler for
example. This is noting but crap. Philosophy has followed this
nonsense until it annihilated itself.
I agree. But computer science is saved from reductionism by
incompleteness and incompleteness-like phenomenon. We have just to be
aware of the gigantic gap between ideally true computer science (God,
if you want), and computer's computer science.
Bruno
2012/8/23 Stephen P. King <[email protected]>
Dear Alberto,
I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am
not conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and
yet am conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the
sense of rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern
progressives seem to be anti-progressive in their actions and so I
think of them as just naive or worse.
On 8/23/2012 1:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Roger,
I tend to believe what you say. But, in an effort to be objective,
I belive that emotionality is the trait that apeear in a culture
when it is dominant and mostly unchallenged. Now the progressive
culture is dominant, so the lazy-thinking people go to the
progressive culture, but this neither is the root nor
defines the progressive culture. At least I don´t think that people
Mill or Rawls are emotional. They may be very coold. However there
is something demagogic and self-indulgent in every progressive
ideology, this makes more lazy.thinking people in its side.
Both groups have two different ideas of what reality is, and two
different ideas of human nature. Progressives may be or may not be
very rational, but they start with different beliefs, so that even
with equal goals, the consequences for action are completely
different than in the case of conservatives.
I´m conservative, this is evident, this is a disclaimer, but if I
as conservative and more or less rational were persuaded that the
social reality is not a consequence of human nature, but the result
of an external ideological repression which make very difficult a
possible unlimited human and material progress , if I were
persuaded that all men have not inside the seeds for evil, so that
the evil could be eradicated by political measures, then i would be
progressive with the same rationality, and with the same goals of
doing the best for the whole society.
For this reason, it is necessary to gain a scientific knowledge of
human nature, I believe that evolutionary theory brings so. the
gofod news for me is that the picture that emerges from it is
conservative. The bad news is that the progressives feels
themselves challenged in their beliefs and they will not accept it
easily.
2012/8/21 Roger Clough <[email protected]>
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to
get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet.
They speak completely different languages. Two completely different
views,
two different tribes always at war with one another.
Because of the bicameral mind metaphor (Jaynes and others):
Left brain metaphor
(top or intellectual portion of monad humunculus)
Conscious, thinking, discreteness, sequential, control, logic,
yang, male, ego,
insistent, sun
Right brain metaphor
(feeling or middle portyion of monad humunculus)
Subconscious, Feeling, global, nonlinear thinking, submission,
aesthetics, yin, female,
noninsistent, moon
Two different tribes, the ought or moral coming from the right hand
brain
metaphor, the "is" coming from the left hand brain metaphor. The
bicameral
mind
Let me just state my basis for the assignments. I think Lakoff
wrote a book
not long ago on the subject of words and politics.
Liberal (ought) arguments are usually morally based (we can't let
the poor starve
so we need to tax the greedy rich) while conservatives try to
reply using the "is"
weapons of facts and logic (we can't afford that stuff, we're going
bankrupt).
Roger Clough, [email protected]
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
