COMMENSAL ISSUE 94

Theo (C93.5.5) - Monthly Newsletters : With this regard your failure is greatly appreciated.

Norman Mackie (C93.7.5) - Life Is Sacred ? Viewing all life as being sacred is a lovely idea but unfortunately rather impossible. Like it or not you must draw a line between what you consider 'life' and what you don't. For example, rats. If we viewed rats as sacred we'd be overrun with the things. Or locusts!? How about mildew? That's a living fungus, with every bit as much right to exist as you or I. (?) And my own personal favourite... the salmonella bacterium. Face it Norman, its them or us!

Kevin Arbuthnot (C93.10.4) - The Paranormal : Another lurker steps from the shadows and disagrees with me. All is right with the world.

There are sceptics and there are people who are merely sceptical. You may call yourself a sceptic but your acknowledgement of the possibility that you might end up wearing a daisy chain and flip-flops betrays the fact that you are actually too open-minded to be a true sceptic. What I think needs to be avoided is not constructive debate but the all too commonplace slagging matches that the people I call sceptics (perhaps I should call them cynics) seem to love. People who don't understand the paranormal should approach the subject with the attitude of a student who is eager to learn not with the attitude of a tutor who thinks he already knows everything. I have seen people who know nothing about UFO's trying to convince people who have actually seen them that UFO's don't exist and thereby implying that the witness must be stupid. Unfortunately such people are enormously plentiful but thankfully absent from the Aquarian SIG. If you wish to discuss paranormal issues then I suggest you join the Aquarian SIG, just as anyone wishing to discuss cats should join the Feline SIG (or whatever its called), and provided you treat the existing membership with the kind of respect that you'd expect from them, then I'm sure your observations will be most welcome. Any discussion about paranormal issues in this newsletter should be confined to their philosophical aspects. For example, the difference between evidence and proof. Only an idiot would deny that there is evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial life but at what point does it become irrefutable proof? If a UFO landed on the White House lawn would that actually prove anything? How many people need to believe in something before it becomes real? Etc...

Michael Nisbet (C93.11/12) - Humour : There is some merit in viewing humour as a living thing in so far as it is undeniably dynamic. Any attempt to analyse humour as a concept must first take into account the fact that what’s funny changes from decade to decade. Great comedians of yesteryear are simply not funny anymore. (One of Paul White House’s characters on the Fast Show illustrates this point perfectly.) And I'm told that in their day some of Shakespeare’s plays were considered comedies. Such attempts as I have seen by philosophers to define the nature of comedy always seem entirely too rigid to permit this phenomenon.

Furthermore it must also be remembered that what is considered funny in one country may well not be so elsewhere. The Larry Sanders Show springs strangely to mind.

Michael Nisbet (C93.12.3/4) - Self-Awareness : Thank you for trying to help with the macaque dilemma but I'm not sure that its done much good.

You say that monkey's "have negative perceptions of themselves". Are you saying that creatures that are not deemed 'self-aware' are however aware of what they are not, if not actually aware of what they are? And do other proponents of your broad viewpoint also agree on this important detail?

You also say that "a monkey ... in so far as it is conscious of its own existence at all, perceives itself as 'a monkey that is not another monkey'." So you do acknowledge that a monkey is in some way conscious that it exists and that it is a monkey. Perhaps the dilemma stems from a question a degree. You seem to be saying that all animals are self-aware but some are more self-aware than others. Is it therefore possible for a monkey to be aware that it exists but not have a 'self'? Perhaps we need to clarify what the term 'self' actually means before we speculate any further about whether or not monkeys possess such things.

The use of a mosquito may be, simply, to be a mosquito, but art is fundamentally different in that we don't make mosquitoes. If a man were to make lots of mosquito's he could be accused of wasting his time for his creation serves no purpose. Of course some would say that artists waste their time by creating art but plenty of others appreciate the efforts of the artist. A man-made mosquito could potentially be intelligent enough to disagree that it's creation served no purpose but a work of art has no such subjective viewpoint. Art therefore, unlike mosquitoes, should and does serve a purpose, even if in some cases, only to its creator. Perhaps God has a purpose for mosquitoes that we don't know about but that is for him to discuss with his peers if such entities exist.

I hope that clears that up for you. (???)

Valerie Ransford (C93.14.3) What's The Difference Between Knowledge And Belief? : I have heard it said that the first step towards wisdom is to admit your own ignorance. Perhaps the existence or at least the overuse of the word 'knowledge' is holding back the development of mankind?

Theo (C93.15.1) Infinite-Valued Logic - Mathematical Proof Of Mankind's Ignorance : As 'i' is infinite and all of the values in {Pi} are fractions the product will always be zero. Therefore nobody actually knows anything. Everyone's world view is equally worthless.

Anthony Owens (C93.23.5) - The Evolution Of Nit-Picking : As with Michael Nisbet, my thanks to you also for trying to answer my macaque dilemma. So are you saying that a monkey doesn't know where its flees live? It simply picks off its own flees as a conditioned response to being bitten and thereby derives satisfaction from grooming itself. Once its finished grooming itself it can then derive a similar satisfaction from grooming any nearby furry object. The decision of the first monkey to groom another monkey was based on a desire to experience the satisfaction of grooming rather than on sympathy to the plight of its comrade.

This does seem to explain how monkey behaviour could develop as it has without the need for monkeys to be self aware but we are still left with the problem of how creatures intelligent enough to figure out reflective surfaces could fail to realise the fact of their own existence once confronted with their own reflection. The real problem is that a monkey can look down at its body and see itself. When it sees this body reflected in a mirror it should recognise it as its own. Perhaps it cannot grasp the concept of there being two of itself. Maybe it perceives the reflection of a food item as a second food item that points to one that can be eaten but a second monkey pointing the way to its own location is still a monkey other than itself and should be treated as such. Problem solved? I doubt it! Any further ideas most welcome.

Stef Gula (93.24.3) - Justifiable Smugness : Thank you for offering me the courtesy of having the last word and I promise not to take it as a sign of victory by default. After all there is no victory to be had because the only argument was between you and Theo and with all due respect you were both wrong. I can say this with some certainty because you were arguing about what I meant. However if you are gonna start levelling accusations at me then obviously I'm gonna defend myself.

Basic factual error... Pah! Who said I was using a biological term? I am not a biologist, this is not The Biology SIG, therefore I used a simple English word as defined in simple English dictionaries. And you are most welcome to check my usage. I have nothing to fear. 'Bat' is a species of animal. The fact that there are many species of bats is irrelevant.

Theo (C93.27.6) - Creation Mythology & Scientific Analysis : You say that if the scientific model for the origin of the universe is incorrect then the failure of quantitative predictions will prove it so. Is it your opinion then that this has already happened to earlier religious motels ? Or are such mythologies exempt from this kind of scientific analysis?

Theo (C93.33.1) - Murder : You seem to think that Sheila is condoning killing simply because she states that legal killing isn't murder, but, it seems clear to me that she is not saying that all state approved killing is OK. This debate isn't about ethics but merely semantics. You define murder as 'unethical killing' whereas Sheila defines it as 'illegal killing' and I'm inclined to think that she is probably on firmer ground. It does appear to me though that her more technically correct usage does leave a gap in her vocabulary. So...

... Sheila

What word would you use to describe unethical killing if the word murder is to be restricted to purely legal terminology?

John Neary (C93.34.1) - Population Control : You say that the Chinese use of compulsory sterilisation for men who have fathered two children is condemned by the western world as a deprivation of human rights but as a member of said western world I have to say that I am not as quick to condemn the practise as you might think. There is little doubt in my mind that in some cases population control is necessary. Over-population is a very real problem that can potentially destroy the quality of life of millions of people, and too few individuals have sufficient social conscience to restrain their own primordial instincts. Having said that I don't relish the idea of being sterilised against my will but this prospect would be an adequate deterrent to prevent me from having that second child. With some people having only one child this would balance out the inevitable imperfections in the system that allow a few individuals to slip through the net and propagate illegally. Unfortunately a long term side affect would be the evolution of the human race towards criminal tendencies.

John Neary (C93.34.2) - Crime and Banishment : I have also long considered the banishment of criminals to some uninhabited island to be an obvious alternative to prisons and many sci-fi writers have elaborated on this concept. However, like all good ideas, it is not without its problems.

Firstly you must decide if you are going to have one island for men and a second island for women or if you're going to have a single mixed island. One island is obviously cheaper and provides a more natural environment for your chaos society to develop but gives rise to the tricky problem of children. By creating this artificially lawless society you must accept responsibility for its consequences and an inevitable consequence of a mixed society would be children. These children would be innocent of any crimes themselves and yet condemned to grow up in a society run by hooligans and psychopaths. A solution is to sterilise all inmates before they are incarcerated, however this is but one small step from imposing our own set of rules on the society, which is what you seem to wish to avoid.

The other problem is that of the threat to our own society posed by an alternative lawless one. You may think that without the rule of law this society would be incapable of forming an effective enough infrastructure to support the kind of war machine needed to pose a threat to our own world but consider the advantages they would have, such as slavery for example. The strong would undoubtedly enslave the weak and a highly effective tyrannical power structure would emerge. You may also think that no one, economically isolated, little island could pose a threat to the vast nations of the rest of the world but do not forget the power of modern weapons. If this society could manage to create a biological, chemical, or nuclear devise and find a way of deploying it, you could be looking at millions of innocent casualties. But why would they bother? What good would it do them? It probably wouldn't do them any good but the ruler of this society would inevitably be a criminal, quite possibly a psychopath who may simply view it as sport. Do we really want to give such an individual the opportunity to rule a country? And could we control such a country enough to protect ourselves from it?

John Neary (C93.37/38) - Democracy : Fascinating! True Athenian democracy sounds pretty good in a sexist kind of way. And could potentially re-emerge in the virtual world where it is possible for 4 billion people to assemble. What you don't mention though is what happened in 322BC to bring about its downfall. I have a vague recollection of a Persian invasion and subsequent reign of Alexander The Great happening about then but I'm probably mistaken. If such a system could re-emerge we'd do well learn to from the eventual failure of the original version.

Martin Lake (C93.42.2) - Civilisation : If a civilised population is one that "puts aside its instinctive reactions and substitutes more considered, and less violent, responses" then perhaps its time we had something better than civilisation. Suppressing our instincts is no solution. What we need is a social framework that allows us to live according to our true natures without harming others.

I was going to add selected comments on C92 at this point but that might be construed as out-staying my welcome. See ya...

Rick Street