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]
> > 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?
> > 
[snip]
> > ....
> > 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.

Fine. Lose the text in that paragraph after "Can you?", and my question
loses its scoffing tone. Can you now reply in more depth to what I
wrote?

> >> ....     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.
> <<

Inane and related humor: is it your opinion that some opinions should
not be expressed? If so, is your opinion one of those? (I'm sorry -- I
can't get enough of these kinds of paradoxes. :)

>  
> > 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.

And I repeat: Why would one ever want to avoid clarity?

If making a point clearly is hurtful, it is not the clarity but rather
the assertion itself that is hurtful -- and, assuming the assertion is
true, merits the telling anyway (unless it is already painfully clear,
in which case it is still not the clarity but the fact that hurts).

If truth hurts in personal relations, business, or diplomacy, then
whatever ties have been forged are artificial and tenuous.

The nature of reality dictates that truth has a tendency to become
known, by virtue of its being real and true and by virtue of the human
thirst for truth. Avoiding clarity only forestalls the propagation of
facts. Why not be truthful to begin with, if the truth will make itself
known anyway?

Keeping that in mind, it might be considered better business sense to
follow a "painfully honest" sort of policy! Case in point: Intel. Intel
intentionally underpublicized the division bug in the first-generation
Pentiums. People found out (about the bug and Intel's lackluster effort
to resolve it). It ended up costing Intel more in the long run because
they had to replace chips in machines already deployed that they could
have corrected during manufacture, and because the company's reputation
was tarnished. Intel has done well since then, especially since they
were much more upfront about the recent bug in whatever next-generation
Pentium it was (don't care -- I use Macs).

> > 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.  

No, there is not a need at every given moment -- but there is a
long-term tendency for facts to become known. This is why lying is
inherently harder than telling the truth.

No, I am not the world's sole arbiter of reality (nor do I aspire to the
position!) -- but there are certain aspects of reality that are true
regardless of one's philosophical orientation.

> > ....
> >>      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".

I believe I wrote something to that effect. Glad to see we agree on
something! :)

> > ....
> > 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.

No, I think I read it quite literally in order to arrive at my
interpretation.

>  
> 
> >> ....      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.

A useful term!

Unfortunately, what I wrote is not a straw man. Anything involving a God
or gods or anything else mystical is a religion (or whatever else you
want to call it, like "truths," even though that's abuse of a beautiful
word!). Religious teachings are irrational because they are predicated
on non-truths.

> > 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.

Yep, I oversimplified. But one's own senses and intellect are the best
means of discerning truth. After all, if I take someone else's word for
it that the world is round, didn't he hear from someone else, etc., all
the way back to someone who actually sensed it himself? Truth begins at
sensory perception and ends at the logical output of the human mind.

> >> ....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.

Considering that this is a computer-related (at least in the charter! :)
newsgroup, I think there are probably at least a few folks who would
consider the verifiability of a binary 1 of the utmost importance.
Perhaps even in the same way that deep philosophical questions are
important... after all, whether one decides to name something for what
it is, in the end, is a philosophical decision. So I think "computer
science" (to glom a bunch of disparate ideas together) is, as far as
importance is concerned, equal to other (and more conventional)
philosophical questions.

>      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.

In many (even most) cases, this last statement is true. But the fact
that science is working to uncover those causes is proof of its
intellectual nobility (just as Heinlein exhorts us to forever increase
precision), as opposed to religion, which glazes over such questions
with a pat, "correct," and completely illogical answer.

>      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.

But he will be fooling himself (at best, if he can find such a guru),
because he is wrong.

> 
>      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.

Not at all a bad idea.

So call me the "God is not true" person. Can you direct me along a path
which will lead to an understanding of the Supreme Being?

[snip]
> > > > Is the answer to this question "No"?
> > > >
> > >
> > >      No; it is "Yes".
> > 
> > An interesting and original (but still incorrect) answer.
> 
>      Really?

It's the closest I've seen to a correct answer, but a fully correct
answer would have to be infinitely long and recursive: either "No, it is
'Yes it is "No it is 'Yes...'"'" or "Yes, it is 'No it is "Yes it is
'No...'"'".

Yuck!

> 
> > 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


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














(sorry -- my news server sucks)