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

[amitai.schlair@usa.net (Amitai Schlair)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

> Amitai Schlair writes ...
[snip]
> > I'm sure this is an apt comparison, but I am unable to decipher its
> > meaning. After all, isn't playing a CPU-intensive game as good a way as
> > any to verify the quality and speed of the hardware outside the possibly
> > subjective frame of the store? ;)
> 
>      Computer users typically find it difficult to admit that the chief
> motivation for purchasing a machine is to play games. Similarly, some csa2
> users prefer to mask their true motivations for participation. Evidently,
> they believe that championing the exchange of factual information and
> devaluing other exchanges makes them appear superior.

Okay.

In my case I'd have to disagree because I bought a Mac IIci specifically
for learning Pascal and UNIX (it can run NetBSD) and doing school
papers. I don't even have any games on the hard disk. :(

Back in the day, my mom forked over several thousand bucks for a Mac
Plus and an ImageWriter II so she could do some DTP and Quicken-type
work.

Why did/do you buy your computer(s)?

[snip]
> > That's where I'm coming from. Even though you don't agree, do I make
> > some sort of sense? Please poke gaping holes in any of my philosophical
> > errors; that is, after all, how one learns.
> >
> 
>      Attempting to poke holes might be a fun challenge. Thanks for the
> invitation.
> 
>      Still, it is not anyone's responsibility to bring you, kicking and
> screaming, to a knowledge of and belief in the creator of the universe. If
> you are interested, start at the beginning and read his 'letter'. You
> could be in for a surprise. For help, there are one or two good teachers
> on TV who cover its contents chapter by chapter and verse by verse.

No, it isn't your responsibility at all. 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.

[snip]
> 
>      Yes; it is pretty interesting. 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.

> 
>      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. Why does it need such unusual terminology?

Again, an example would help me quite a bit.

> > >      On the whole, it would be unfair to pick apart Heinlein's
> > > statement. Obviously, it is intended to convey an ideal. It is
> > > intended to be extreme and to be understood as intended to be extreme.
> > 
> > And that is the beauty of it! Can you picture a world in which this
> > ideal is in universal practice? I, for one, do my best to adhere to a
> > similar credo; Nathan, whatever my disagreements with whatever his
> > religious beliefs may be, does pretty damn well too.
> >
> 
>      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? 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; humans do
better when they acknowledge it and act accordingly. Hence my agreement
with Nathan's approach (mostly) and his choice of .sig.

>      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." Accuracy is a
measure of how closely a measurement reflects an actual condition.
Precision is a measure of how reproducible the measurement is. In a
well-run experiment, the two are closely intertwined, but they still
have separate meanings.

>      Absolute accuracy in physical measurements is not possible. So,
> Heinlein's ideal is unobtainable. Anyone who reads the statement is
> supposed to know that, at some point, you have to stop adding decimal
> places.

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.

> 
>      The Heinlein quote is the kind of advice the crusty old reseacher
> might give a group of novices while pounding on the lab table. It is
> 'over-kill' designed more to create an impression than to be taken
> absolutely literally.

It would definitely work in that context! Still, it has relevance to any
human endeavor.

> > .... If one chooses ideals that are irrational
> > and impracticable, i.e., religious teachings and their secular
> > outgrowths of "charity" etc., then obviously one is going to encounter a
> > sort of peripateia in which this divergence of worlds occurs. It's
> > entirely self-wrought. Because I reject those ideals, I haven't
> > encountered any such problems other than the deadening numerical
> > majority of my philosophical opponents. Sometimes that's hard... but I'm
> > young and stubborn and I'll make it.
> >
> 
>      That's the old stuff!
> 
>      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?

>      Religions are man-made structures. It is to be expected that they will
> incorporate errors and, sometimes, propagate silly ideas.

Because man is fallible and a "higher" being is not? That has nothing to
do with it. Man is the only species with intellect sufficiently capable
for infallibility. Religion is, by my definition, a belief system
founded on un-facts; anyone who adheres to it has forfeited his chance
at infallibility.

>      The truths revealed by the creator are not supposed to be a religion.
> What is true is true. To the extent that man's methods can present an
> accurate picture of what is, to that extent there will be no disagreement
> with the truth.

Not only does this statement presuppose that Christianity is valid and
other religions aren't (and yes, Alex, Christianity is a religion -- you
won't get away with redefining it), but it is also nebulous. Plus, if I
read it correctly, it's wrong.

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.

> > > > I read somewhere a very interesting point: most of us in today's society
> > > > have no empirical evidence for believing that the world is round. ....
> > ....
> >
> > >      Probably, you now wish that you had not written the above. A ....
> > > TV view of Earth from the Shuttle are pretty good empirical evidence
> > > that the Earth is "round". To seriously question such evidence is to
> > > believe in a conspiracy of truly amazing proportions.

I've thought about this a bit more. Who needs a conspiracy? All it takes
is one person with the wrong information and enough other people who
take his word for truth. Stupidity, gullibility, etc., all work just as
well as conspiracy, if not better in this case.

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.

> > Not at all; I'm just being extremely literal. I'm pretty sure the Earth
> > is round, and certainly a conspiracy to make people think the world is
> > round is immeasurably improbable. Nevertheless, I have not seen the
> > planet shrink from my view as I recede from the ground in a rocket, so
> > strictly speaking I cannot be certain. That's all I meant by the example
> > (originally propounded by George Bernard Shaw, then reexamined by Neil
> > Postman, BTW).
> >
> 
>      If you believe that the probability of an "earth is round" conspiracy
> is virtually zero, you should require no direct experience at all to be as
> certain of the earth's roundhood as you are certain of anything you can
> perceive with your senses. Strictly speaking, the fact that everyone says
> that the earth is round is _better_ evidence than anything your senses
> might tell you when departing Earth in a space ship.

Strictly speaking, that's quite possibly the least supportable assertion
I have ever read. Except for (maybe) that God thing.

Even if I were to generally believe what everyone tells me, there is no
substitute for the use of one's own senses to perceive reality.

> > What I tried to write (but clearly didn't explain very well) is that
> > asserting "nothing is true", one is assuming by use of logic that one's
> > own statement is true, and therefore the assertion is false. .... that's
> > what I meant when I wrote that you've all probably heard it before. Not
> > a scintillating refutation of relativism, but it suffices for a quickie.
> > :p
> >
> 
>      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 not speakers at all? Or
that what I am hearing is not really Andre Watts playing Liszt but
rather Vladimir Ashkenazy playing Rachmaninov? Or that the words I am
typing and reading on my monitor are not really there, as there is no
such thing as a computer monitor? 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?

Oh, I see. It must be that "nothing is true" is not to be taken too
literally, just like that annoying Heinlein quote. "Nothing is true" is
only valid (can't say "true," can I? :) in certain cases. So then it's
more like "some things aren't true."

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. 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. If one answers
"No", then the answer to the question is "Yes" (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."
:)

"Maybe" doesn't work for similar reasons ("Maybe" <> "No", so answer is
"No"; "No" = "No", so answer is "Yes"; etc.).

Your full answer was "No; it is 'Yes'." Which <> "No", etc....

> Rubywand

-- 
Amitai Schlair
amitai.schlair@usa.net
--