Number 94 : November 1998 |
Greetings to the 30% of members who are rapiers that sally forth, saliva dripping, with unsheathed pencils to draw the blood of virgin text (C93/8) and the 70% of members who are the lurkers who cower in the shadows waiting for their moment of glory when they strike at the quarry's temporary weakness!!!
Peter Conway (C93/6) : The Bible is outdated and localised. The values of the Israelites were different to the values we currently have. In 2 Kings 10 : 19-27 Jehu tricks all the Baal worshippers into gathering together for a special sacrifice. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell them that THEY are the sacrifice (to Jehovah). He promptly cold bloodedly murders them and burns them all in the Baal temple. Would Jehu have used a gas chamber if one was available at the time ?? All of this occurs with the full approval of God !!
The Bible is inconsistent, long-winded and definitely written by man (rather than by God, as some people maintain). Having said that, it is still worth reading as a great collection of books (treat it as History / Poetry & Song / Inspiration & Advice / Prophesy ). There are still many parts which scholars have yet to decipher, eg. the mysterious Song of Solomon, the prophecies of Daniel, Why did Jesus say 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' on the cross?, who is the Anti-Christ (he is definitely not Satan).
Norman Mackie (C93/7.3) : There is, NO real difference between life and non-life. All molecules behave in different ways. It follows that certain molecules will be more stable than others. The stable molecules get into a positive feedback loop whereby they become ever more stable. They do this by growing in size, reproducing and by developing energy-expensive organs which in the long run lead to greater stability (eg. the brain). These developments do not involve premeditated design but are the result of evolution.
Kevin Arbuthnot (C93/8) : I personally think it appropriate Theo does do immediate replies to letters. This helps to stir debate and ensures at least a minimum level of feedback. Commensal on the Web would not be Commensal ! Hard-copy Commensal is a product of its mode of operation which I currently believe is quite optimal. Maybe we can have a two-tier Commensal where those people who prefer intense discussion would receive Commensal-1 and those who currently feel daunted by the standard of interaction can contribute to Commensal-2 instead. Stratification in Commensal ?? Where will it all end ??
Michael Nisbet (C93/11) : Humour is a cultural by-product. Young children do not naturally watch TV - they have to be taught how to do so. Similarly, we are not naturally humorous - it is a learned response.
Valerie Ransford (C93/13) : JC was a great man. People fell into 3 categories in JC's eyes:
Out of the 3 types, type 2 people were the important targets since they were the lost sheep and the Prodigal sons.
However JC had his limitations. The system of Christian values as he proposed it was unworkable and failed to acknowledge the base aspects of human nature. It also drew upon the false premises of a fight between good and evil and the existence of a God.
Theo Todman (C93/14-15) : Working out the probability of a world-view (POAWV) is all very well but it depends whether you talk about mutually exclusive states or independent ones. The POAWV would also be unduly affected by wild beliefs. If I believed the Sun was going to rise in, the West, my POAWV would unrepresentatively fall close to zero !!
Albert Dean re Valerie Ransford (C93/16.4) : It is interesting to compare Socrates and Jesus Christ. Both were benevolent leaders that died for their beliefs. Socrates lived about 500 years before Christ. Both believed that death was not the end of life and that their souls would continue. It is also interesting to note the public reaction to the deaths of great people. Shades of Princess Di !!
Albert Dean re Vijai Parhar (C93/19.2) : I assume the sentence about chicken/egg and question/answer is linked to ‘emergent properties'. Of course the answer comes last. Let's not try to cloud our thinking with apparently clever sayings. The flower is not there for the sake of my pleasure - it is there to promote its own survival via the bee. My pleasure is a second order phenomenon resulting from the way my mind works.
Tying Beauty to Sin and Pain sounds very contrived and pitifully insubstantial. If you want to bring Sin into it you necessarily bring Morals and Religion in too. What is more beautiful - a circle or an ellipse ?
Rick Street re Mike Rossell (C92/24) : On a related note, Rick, how is Beauty a quality (you mean, property ?) of the relationship between viewer and flower. The flower is not (substantially) aware of the viewer and so cannot relate to him. Are you alluding to the concept of Gaia or perhaps, Universal Consciousness ?
Sheila Blanchard (C93/32) : "if its not illegal it is not murder". Surely SB is talking technicalities here. Technically speaking the Nazi genocide was not murder because it was perfectly legal. But, of course, it was murder in the common understanding of the concept.
Theo Todman (C93/35.4) : You allege that because few people believed in the Berean's message, it was very unlikely to be true. This is muddled thinking. The truth of an assertion is independent of how many people adhere to it. Not many people believed in the abolition of slavery but were they unjustified in their beliefs ? On the other hand lots of people watch soap operas on TV. Does this mean soap operas are the pinnacle of quality TV ? Should everyone be forced to watch them ? The best thing to do is to judge an assertion on its own merits.
Theo Todman re Roger Farnworth (C93/41) : 'Light operates on both its sides' : I will attempt to translate but apologies to RF if I get it completely wrong. Things happen in the external world. Light bounces around. Light hits our eyeballs. Patterns occur in our consciousness. The patterns in our consciousness are directly strongly correlated to the patterns of light from the external world. Therefore light operates on both sides. This points towards a strong link between subjective experience and the objective world. In this sense it is said to be a narrowing of the unbridgeable chasm of dualism.
Roger Farnworth (C91/37.4) : The thought experiment RF proposes is somewhat meaningless. Memory and emotion are an intrinsic part of the brain. It is similar to saying 'What if we take an aeroplane's wings off, drop it from a great height and see how its trajectory through air is affected’ !! The dumbing down suggested makes a nonsense of the brain. Similarly David Taylor (C92/33.7) says 'he assumes absence of experience implies absence of consciousness' - this is a complete nonsense because it is pointless to imagine what the brain would be like without experience.
Back to Roger Farnworth's original text C91/38.1. You (ie. Roger ? Ed) take consciousness to be different to my understanding of it. According to you, consciousness is not the same as 'the greatest complexity in the Universe'. Is consciousness the sum total of the various markers of consciousness ?
The eyeball does not see anything - it is a gateway to the visual area of the brain. The 'seeing' occurs in this area. It’s quite obvious from this that the eyeball is 'more minimal than is generally believed'. Is your idea of consciousness analogous to the eyeball / brain scenario ?
My own thoughts on Dualism are as follows:
Surely the intelligent view is to see Dualism as a comfortable but entirely man-made and insubstantial idea. Bit like Religion, isn't it ??
Albert Dean (C93/19, item 13) : Checkmating is the GOAL of chess.
Theo Todman re Vijai Parhar (C92/37, last paragraph) : Theo, I see you've hit that huge obstacle called Abundance. Don't worry, everybody must confront it sooner or later. The thing to do is to realise that much of it is bullsh*t (hello, lnternetters). Also try to lead rather than follow. The world is full of followers but not many leaders.
Well, that's all folks! I can't attend Braziers, due to a shortage of 'spondoolicks'. But I host my own discussion group every fortnight in Bracknell which is entirely free. All welcome to attend. See Mensa Face to Face.
Vijai Parhar
PS. I recently read about Netiquette. This is an idea for making Email on the lnternet more expressive so you could judge more easily the tone of the sender. In reading Commensal, I feel it could benefit from more 'Netiquette'. Carefully utilised Commas, Underlines, CAPITALISING, Bolding etc. goes a long way. It makes the text more readable and greatly reduces the scope for miscommunication.
Vijai : I agree with you on the last point, provided the accentuation is supplied to me. Otherwise I may be adding to the misinterpretation by adding my own