Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 19 of 19
Byte
Some years ago there were a number of threads that ended up discussing what is the nature of proof, and what is the nature of reality.
In the end, no one can really know the absolute truth, b/c even 'I think, therefore, I am' is unprovable. And no one can actually logically prove anything either b/c in order to do that, you'd have to examine everything in the universe for all time to determine there was not even one instance where something was false. (It's why scientists propose the 'null hypothesis' and attempt to disprove it. B/c all you have to do is find one instance where something isn't true to disprove it. Certainly an easier task than examining the entire universe to check if something is true.)
So, regarding your claim that either SignyM or I could 'prove' anything - it's not possible. Not just for us, but for anyone.
BUT, generally speaking, Occam's Razor is a good start to any of our flawed understandings of the world around us.
Your proposals about population control have not a shred of hard data to support them and much hard data which indicates they are not true. Instead, you have to resort to ever more complicated and self-contradictory suppositions on top of other suppositions to maintain them. (For example, you seem to think that TPTB are smart enough to control the entire world's population, but too stupid to know that poverty drives it up.)
The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for poverty is that it is the result of systematic concentration of wealth. And not a deliberate scheme invoked to specifically to control population.
I mentioned that this topic seemed volatile to you and where some of the drive to believe as you do may be coming from (distrust of TPTB and fear of infringement on personal decisions). But in this case your emotions are misleading you. I hope you can remove yourself from your emotion-driven and already established beliefs and find a more objective viewpoint. B/c being a conspiracy theorist and chasing after things which are not true is, in the end, far less productive and satisfying than having a realistic and productive relationship to the world.
***************************************************************
BTW - may I suggest you read the book 'Emotions Revealed' ? While this book is about how to read facial expressions (and the work is the basis for the TV show 'Lie to Me') the author spends almost the entire book examining the role of emotions in general, of the specific emotions he discusses, and of their effect on our perceptions (among other topics).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not you, Byte. Humans in general.
totally irrational ways that humans react to population issues. Ye gods I wish that this supposedly rational species Homo sapiens could actually think....
I find that you, personally, are thoughtful, intellectually and emotionally honest, and downright nice. Which is why I'm discussing the topic with you. (If you were PN or O2B, I can guarantee this conversation wouldn't have even been started.)
This kinda goes to the Animal Intelligence thread. We humans are very clever. Good at teaching- and learning- abstract ideas which may have little resemblance to everday experience. The ability to think about electrons is the same ability that gives us human rights, capitalism, angels, demons, and god. We are even MORE clever at rationalizing what is essentially irrational decision-making. And we have - as a species- almost no ability to understand and manipulate our basic impulses. Which is why we breed like rabbits, with no thought for the future.
ETA: I just wanted to add something which may more properly belong in Animal Intelligence but also has a bearing here.
I have a veiw of the human brain as something like a ladder: It contains all of the functions of the more "primitiv" versions- the brainstem and cerebellum, the deep gray matter of the thalamus and the hippocampus, and the cortex or gray matter, which sits like icing on the cake. JUST BECAUSE we have extra gray matter with superior folding doesn't mean that the more primtive versions disappeared. Oh, no. There they are... taking in sensory input, creating associations, making memories, calculating status, motivating action.... we don't acknowledge it, but it's there.
Let me give you and example: Here I am, typing away. The topic excites me, I like communicating with you. But... on the other end of the scale, I'm at work, on break, my time is limited. I kinda have to go to the bathroom. People around me are talking. But it isn't until my nose itches that my wet computer tips to the other side: I am impelled to get up and go pee. The curious thing is that my leg-controlling motor cortex lights up before I've even consciously "decided" to get up. Such are humans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I built my arguments on the facts you have presented, my interpretation is the only thing that's different. I haven't argued with your facts, once.
I did not say prove, I said disprove. I said you could disprove anything that I have to say. I said that I think you could do so easily, because you have more access to facts, because you've had probably around ten extra years to study them. The facts you have presented did disprove that the methods I have suggested are causing population reduction, but I am not convinced that they disprove my statements that population reduction is an end goal.
Occam's Razor, as I'm aware of it's use, is about not making assumptions beyond NECESSITY. I think any assumptions I've made have been essential to my argument. Also, in regards to the simplest explanation clause, the common interpretation is that if the conclusion is the same, the simplest explanation is best. Our conclusions in this matter do not appear to be the same.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.
"... but I am not convinced that they disprove my statements that population reduction is an end goal."
That's where Occam's Razor comes in. Whenever we cite a fact that does disprove your ideas, you comes up with an even more complicated reason why it's really true.
And, UUhhhm, there is quite a bit more to your proposal than this. You propose that TPTB of a certain type want to reduce populations to some optimum number (enough to exploit, not too many to control) to optimize THEIR economic benefit. However, not being able to enter their minds, none of us can do anything but suppose their intentions.
What we CAN do is examine the facts for logical consistency with your schema. If they really DO wish to control population size to their economic benefit, and they really DO have enough power to do that, and they really ARE smart enough to plan and execute such a scheme - then they are doing a remarkably bad job of it.
There are other problems with your proposals which I don't have time to discuss now, but I hope this discussion continues.
Also, I added some things to my post, so you may wish to look back.
I hope to see you on the other side ! 
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The other side? >_> <_< Are we moving?
I'll see if I can find where the additions are.
I've seen Occam's razor applied before to compare contrasting conclusions and choose the one with the simplest explanation... But as I understand it, the original context of the use of Occam's razor was in observations of the natural world, where the conclusion was generally the same, but the explanations/hypotheses about the conclusion were at odds.
EDIT:
Yeah, I admit that the basis of my arguments are founded mostly on distrust for corporate entities, the very rich, and their government cronies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While refraining from comment to avoid throwing wrenches in the discussion, I *am* observing this with interest, much like Siggy, the topic and resultant exploration of why we view or believe things a certain way holds particular fascination.
Just didn't want y'all to think I was pointedly ignoring, much as not wanting to be a loose cannon on your deck cause it's so *interesting* as it is.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Changing thread title back to original, as per recent agreement among members on thread title changing.
Also, I am being characterized as unthinking.
Lovely.
Not once have I argued that resource management is not important and necessary, not once have I argued that environmental impact shouldn't be considered. Not once have I even argued with the facts as presented, I have accepted them as truth. I have only said that I think there is some danger of abuse with state sponsored population control, and explained how I think it's happening even now.
Byte, if you took my comment as being aimed at you, please rest assured that it wasn't. I apologize for the unintended offense. As Syg pointed out, you are thoughtful and articulate. My comment was aimed at our species as a whole (and I include myself, heaven only knows I've done plenty of irrational things). As individuals, we often do behave rationally (though obviously not always), but in groups we tend to do much worse. I'm sure you can think of many examples. As for my comment on teaching people to think, I don't do that at all here - I only correspond with people who have demonstrated that they can, whether I agree with them or not. I don't even read messages from people who clearly can't. But in the real world, that's part of my job, and I work hard at it (sometimes with results, sometimes not so much!). In any case, I meant you no offense at all and I enjoy your comments (even when I don't agree with them.........)
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME