Re: Apple II and God (was Re: Notice to Scott Gamon)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Amitai Schlair writes ...
>
> ....
> Why did/do you buy your computer(s)?
>

     partly for fun and partly for power


 
> .... I just thought that, since you
> value your beliefs, you might like to try to convince me of their 
> truth. But that's fine if you don't want to.
>
> It seems that you don't want to confront the fundamental question of
> God's existence. Is this because you are not as qualified as the TV
> evangelists to explain, or is it because there is no good answer, or is
> it something else entirely?
> 
> I am not interested to reread one of the basest works in all world
> literature, one of which its myriad authors were so ashamed as to
> ascribe its writing to someone else.
>
> ....
> What sort of truths does your Creator reveal? Quantify them. Prove 
> them. Can you? If not, I don't care to hear any more on the subject.
> And don't tell me I won't understand because I take Heinlein too
> literally; if I don't understand, it's because what you're shoveling is
> several thousand years' worth of bullshit.
>

     It is written: "Rebuke not a scoffer." Your wish is granted.



>> ....     A gestalt is a grouping of elements, like bricks, which becomes a 
whole, like a wall. Similarly, a collection of ideas can become a single 
idea.
<<

 
> Really? I'd need an example of some sort to understand this.
>

     Okay. A concept is a simple form of idea:

     fish, water, vehicle, stealth --> submarine


>>     Effective, creative problem-solving requires both convergent and
divergent thinking, both the creation and breaking-up of idea structures. 
If, while working on a problem, someone is unable to break up structures, 
forstall convergence to a conclusion, and play with modifications, then, 
he/she will tend to get stuck in a rut.
<<
 
> That's pretty obvious.

     I thought so, too; thanks!


> Why does it need such unusual terminology?
>

     It's kind of like computer stuff. When you get used to speaking with 
learning theorists about problem-solving, you get used to the jargon of 
learning theory.

 
> Again, an example would help me quite a bit.
>

     Suppose the concepts, etc. with which you are working keep pushing 
you ("converging") toward an unsatisfactory answer. That is, "it's all 
you can think of"; but, you are aware that it will not work. One 
problem-solving approach is to take some time off and see a movie, play a 
game, go to the beach, ... with the object being to break off the 
convergence and come up with a modified set of concepts, generalizations, 
etc.. This may lead to a different, more satisfactory answer. A more 
direct approach might be to introduce seemingly nonsense ideas into the 
input mix.


>> ....     Accuracy is not always desirable. For example, BASIC's INT() 
function destroys unwanted accuracy. Similarly, in conversations, it is 
sometimes best to avoid crystal clarity in expressing an opinion.
<<
 
> I have never encountered such a situation, and I have opinions which 
> are usually in disagreement with others'. Why would one ever want to 
> avoid clarity?

     For any number of reasons. The reality is that, in personal 
relations, in business, in diplomacy, ..., perfectly clear expression of 
opinion can be hurtful, provoke anger, and terminate relationships.


> I can see how, in the short run, it could make things easier --
> but in the long run the truth will be served no matter what one tries 
> to do to forestall it. This is a necessary condition of reality ....

     That is the point. In human relations, there is not a need, at every 
given moment, for perfectly clear, complete expression of opinion. You 
are not everyone else's sole arbiter of reality.  


> ....
>>      When accuracy is desirable, it is, almost always, valuable to know 
how much accuracy is needed. Highly precise calculations and  
measurements can be very time consuming and very costly.
<<

> You are confusing the terms "accuracy" and "precision." ....

     When doing measurements, high accuracy normally implies a need for 
high precision. If the weight of an item is 1.500029 grams, saying that 
it weighs 1.50003 grams is more accurate than saying that it weighs 1.5 
grams. It is entirely proper to quantify "accuracy".


> ....
> Heinlein's ideal, I believe, is not an unlimited _number_ of decimal
> places, but rather the _act_ of searching for more and/or the exclusive
> _desire_ for fact.
>

    That, essentially, is how it was characterized. In short, to 
understand the statement, one must first realize that its literal meaning 
is rubbish.
 

>> ....      As for the irrationality of religious teachings: in the context of 
the current discussion, this is a 'straw man'. Feel free to burn it to 
ashes.
<<....

> What means this term?
>

     A "straw man" is an idea, position, etc. which one side associates, 
inaccurately, with the other side and, then, procedes to destroy. An 
example would be to meet a proposal to ban pornographic magazines from 
the school library with a fierce attact on Nazi book-burning.
  

> Again, so you don't think I'm a nut case, I have seen firsthand 
> evidence that the world is indeed round, and even if I hadn't I'd be 
> pretty sure of it. And again, to clarify, one cannot be certain of 
> anything until one has seen for oneself.
>

    "Seeing is believing"?! That one will cost you 10 points.

>> ....Any reasonably cohesive philosophy can defend itself against such 
attacks. For example, were you to meet Toby and say that the "nothing is 
true" statement involves a logical contradiction, he could reply: "See, 
even logic isn't true!"
<<

> But he would be using logic (admittedly twisting it severely) to make
> that statement.
> 
> How does one defend a philosophy which holds that nothing is true? I am
> sitting in front of a computer right now listening to a recording of
> Andre Watts playing a Liszt piano concerto through the external CD-ROM
> drive. The sound is coming out of a pair of AppleDesign Powered 
> Speakers II. Am I to believe that these are actually not the II but the 
> original Powered Speakers models, or some other model, or .... How does 
> my computer even boot off of the internal SCSI drive if SCSI is 
> not true? For that matter, how can my CPU do any sort of processing if 
> it can't definitively call a binary 1 a binary 1?
>

     For most persons, none of the above would suggest an "important 
question". The label on a your speakers, the label on the CD, and the 
fact that your computer boots are entirely acceptable as identifiers and 
proofs.

     If, however, you were to claim having a conversation with a space 
alien, things would be different. Most persons are aware that the 
existence of space aliens on/around Earth is an important issue. You 
would discover that, for many persons, virtually nothing you said, 
pictures you showed, etc. would be acceptable as sufficient evidence for 
space aliens on Earth. You would begin to see the difference between 
proving something and proving something beyond any possible doubt; and, 
really, the space aliens business is not all that high on the "important 
questions" scale.

     How can you absolutely prove _anything_? Even Science does not claim 
to reveal truths. It makes observations and develops explanations called 
"theories". We cannot, even, absolutely, establish "cause" and "effect" 
for observed events.

     Yes; some things are true and others are not; but, that is beside 
the point when you take on someone who insists "nothing is true". For 
this person, any claimed truth is an "important question". He or she can 
demand: "Okay, prove ... ." You may be able to supply a 'reasonable' 
proof; you, may, even, by dint of clever argument, convince your opponent 
of the error of his/her belief. (In which case he or she may confer with 
a "nothing is true" guru, have your trickery revealed, and become more 
confirmed than ever in the old belief.) You will not, really, be able to 
deliver an absolute, "important question"-level proof.

     The way to dispel the "nothing is true" belief is knowledge of 
truth. But, how can you transfer your knowing to someone else? You 
cannot. The best you can do is direct the "nothing is true" person along 
a path which, you trust, will lead to the revelation of knowledge. 

> .... 
> Try this one: Nothing is true. Philosophy is a thing. Therefore
> philosophy is not true. "Nothing is true" is a philosophy. Therefore
> "nothing is true" is not true. ....

     All the better! You have just disqualified Logic as a useful device 
in persuading the "nothing is true" believer.



> Just like my brain-teaser, which is why I
> posed it...
> 
> > > Along the same lines, a brain-teaser:
> > >
> > > Is the answer to this question "No"?
> > >
> >
> >      No; it is "Yes".
> 
> An interesting and original (but still incorrect) answer.

     Really?

> If one answers
> "No", then the answer to the question is "Yes"

     But, that's what I said.

> (because "No" is "No");
> if one answers "Yes," then the answer to the question is "No" (because
> "Yes" is not "No"). These two conditions create a paradox, and there is
> no good answer to one of those other than "Ask me a different 
> question."
> :)
> ....

     Admittedly, "No; it is 'Yes'" is a bit of a fudge.


Rubywand