Is freedom to breed a right?


jts

Recommended Posts

On 5/29/2018 at 9:58 PM, william.scherk said:

The right to work, a chance to succeed and thrive, European citizenship?

-- whatever rational personal philosophy formed the backbone of this man's character, his action appears more instinctively-human than derived from speed-of-thought cognition; impulse to act baked-in early at least, whether by instruction or not. But appearances of instinctive anything may deceive.  Barbara Branden has already schooled me ...

 

William:

"...more instinctively human than derived from...cognition". 

I beg to strongly differ. If one assumes *Objectivist* - and true - "cognition" which begins with the senses, identifying, evaluating - and lastly, feeling - there s nothing "instinctive" about it, unless one erroneously views only the tallest timber (of our emotions). Agreed, the process happens extremely fast, to seem instinctive.

To most everybody, this man made a selfless action driven by sympathy, compassion, etc. Does it have to be proven what is evident, you don't know until you "see"? - that you have to see, perceive and knowingly assess a situation, AND, critically, have the pertinent "values"- in advance of any action (and corresponding emotions)?

In this case, the objective value perceived in danger, by HIS consciousness was another human's life, a child, and the man's almost instantaneous processes of observation and thought arrived at: something must be done - what could HE do about it, knowing he had the necessary athletic skills, and so he coolly carried out the action at no sacrifice to himself, and little potential of self-sacrifice (considering how lithely and swiftly he accomplished it).

For what will regrettably go down as "instinctive" selflessness, a self-sacrifice, was actually a fine act of self-fulness based on a man's rationality and objective values, unhindered by his emotions (arriving later). Man's "value" substitutes human "instinct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Heroism" ... is not altruism ... part 1251.

On 5/29/2018 at 12:58 PM, william.scherk said:
On 5/29/2018 at 11:38 AM, Peter said:

Dig into Rand a bit more and you will come to the realization that brave acts may not be altruism, but profoundly rational acts. What is important to you?

The right to work, a chance to succeed and thrive, European citizenship?

My puckish point was that a transactional view of heroism suggests the climber was hoping for benefits, and benefits he got.

Less puckishly, I also advanced an opinion or observation.

On 5/29/2018 at 12:58 PM, william.scherk said:

-- whatever rational personal philosophy formed the backbone of this man's character, his action appears more instinctively-human than derived from speed-of-thought cognition; impulse to act baked-in early at least, whether by instruction or not. But appearances of instinctive anything may deceive.  Barbara Branden has already schooled me ...

"But appearances of instinctive anything may deceive."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony quoted Sam Harris: Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible? end quote

It is horrible. Yet the bright side is clearly visible on personal electronics, when thousands of people at a concert light electronics up instead of lighters. Virtually all younger people carry those devises. Will electronics be the savior of rationality? Batteries that “carry” electricity are heralding in a “new age.” Who can believe absurd propaganda when the truth can be found on your phone computer hybrid?

“Check out the traffic conditions,” Hon, “and then the veracity of what the Prime Minister just said.”   

Peter

Do the armies of the preposterous wear a  “Striped pair of pants?” or a “Yellow cotton dress?” Profoundly good lyrics when he explains his relationship to his love; yet also irritating, like crazy old bible verses or the communist manifesto. I left out a chorus, comrade . . . .

MacArthur Park as sung by Richard Harris

Spring was never waiting for us, girl
It ran one step ahead
As we followed in the dance
Between the parted pages and were pressed
In love's hot, fevered iron
Like a striped pair of pants

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took too long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

I still see the yellow cotton dress
Foaming like a wave
On the ground around your knees
And the birds, like tender babies in your hands
And the old men playing checkers by the trees

 . . . . There will be another song for me
For I will sing it
There will be another dream for me
Someone will bring it
I will drink the wine while it is warm
And never let you catch me looking at the sun
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
You'll still be the one

I will take my life into my hands and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
And my passion flow like rivers and the sky
And after all the loves of my life
After all the love of my life
You still be the one
You keep wondering wanna know why

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
It took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Oh, no

Songwriters: ADRIAN DROVER, JIMMY WEBB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Dana Perino just came on Fox. If she were in a room I would have a hard time not staring at her like an idiot. 

William wrote, "But appearances of instinctive anything may deceive." 

I remember Rand called some actions “automatization.” Peter

quotes:

From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Instincts [Premises and emotions] Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:20:27 -0500. Barbara Branden wrote: >Dennis, would you explain what you mean by << instincts>>? And why you think they exist in human beings? There are many different concepts of instincts that I don't know what you're referring to.

The concept of "instincts" refers to a continuum of behaviors exhibited by animals.  Lower creatures exhibit behavior largely genetically preprogrammed.  As creatures become more complex their preprogrammed behavior is augmented by learned behavior.  Note I said augmented, not replaced. As much as some philosophers don't want to believe it, humans are animals not far removed from those in the wild. The list of instinctual behaviors exhibited by humans to some degree or another is quite large.  Some have been studied more than others, some are obvious, some subtle, and many are controversial to those who wish to place humans outside of their place in evolution.

Some examples: Fear of snakes, spiders. Deep terror created by the sounds of some predators.

Face recognition/beauty [Bill Dwyer mentioned]. Sexual attraction related to scents. Other aspects of sexual attraction. Fear of heights [some people genetically don't have it]. Infants sucking. Revulsion/attraction to certain tastes and smells   and their changing nature with age or pregnancy. Blinking when an object approaches. Fear of inhaling fluids [some man-made fluids can   be breathed].

The primary lesson in all of this is: you cannot ignore evolutionary biology when you are talking about humans.  We are a product of that evolution and we are far from pure-reasoning creatures. Reason [learned behavior] can overcome some instincts.  Many phobias or other mental anomalies are the result of genetic error involving instincts.  If these anomalies are helpful they are passed on to offspring, if not they are a burden which may impair reproduction.

I fully expect that some version of autism allowing fantastic memory or calculational abilities will become part of what it is to be human many generations from now. Dennis May

From: "William Dwyer" To: <Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Instincts [Premises and emotions] Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 00:04:54 -0700. Barbara Branden asked Dennis May what he means by the term "instincts."  Dennis replied: > The concept of "instincts" refers to a continuum of behaviors exhibited by animals.

This is not a satisfactory definition, because it is simply too broad.  But perhaps Dennis didn't intend it to be.

He continues. >Lower creatures exhibit behavior largely genetically preprogrammed.  As  creatures become more complex their preprogrammed behavior is augmented by learned behavior.  Note I said augmented, not replaced.

So is Dennis saying that instinctive behavior is "genetically preprogrammed"?

>As much as some philosophers don't want to believe it, humans are animals not far removed from those in the wild.

Even the emotional responses of animals can be learned.  A dog will feel fear, if it is beaten and abused, but will be friendly and affectionate if treated well, although some breeds are obviously more aggressive and others more friendly by nature.

>The list of instinctual behaviors exhibited by humans to some degree or another is quite large.

I don't know whether this is true or not, since we still don't have a satisfactory definition of "instinct."

>Some have been studied more than others, some are obvious, some subtle, and many are controversial to those who wish to place humans outside of their place in evolution.

Still no definition.  What is the defining characteristic of "instinct"?  Dennis has yet to tell us with any clarity or precision.  But in what follows, he doesn't hesitate to give us examples. I'll assume that by "instinct", Dennis means a response that is not learned or acquired through experience.

 > Some examples:  > Fear of snakes, spiders.

I'm not afraid of spiders nor of snakes that I know are not poisonous or dangerous.  So how could this be an instinct?

>Deep terror created by the sounds of some predators.

As Barbara pointed out, unless one associates the sound with animals that one has ~learned~ are predators, it is unlikely that there would be any fear.

>Face recognition/beauty [Bill Dwyer mentioned].

Here I think that there may be a learned basis for one's response to beauty that we're not fully aware of. The reason is that people from different racial groups have different standards of beauty, which are probably based on familiarity.  It was reported by anthropologists that black African men found white English women, upon first encountering them, to be the ugliest women they had ever seen.

 > Sexual attraction related to scents.

This is interesting.  There may be a biological basis for pleasant versus unpleasant scents, in the same way that there is a biological basis for a sweet or sour taste.

>Other aspects of sexual attraction.

As Barbara has pointed out, this probably has a learned component.

>Fear of heights [some people genetically don't have it].

I think that fear of heights results from our recognition of the danger of falling.  If we had no knowledge that falling from a great height could hurt or kill us, I don't think we'd feel the same fear.  I definitely don't think this is instinctual.

 > Infants sucking.

This may be reflexive, and therefore not learned.

>Revulsion/attraction to certain tastes and smells.

Yes, this may be innate in the same way that pleasure and pain are.

>and their changing nature with age or pregnancy.

There may be a learned component to this, however.

>Blinking when an object approaches.

Undoubtedly reflexive.  So if by instincts, Dennis means "reflexive," then yes, there are instincts.  No question.

>Fear of inhaling fluids [some man-made fluids can be breathed].

This has to be learned or else is simply the result of caution around something unfamiliar, since the only thing we typically breath is air.

>The primary lesson in all of this is: you cannot ignore evolutionary biology when you are talking about humans.  We are a product of that evolution and we are far from pure-reasoning creatures. Reason [learned behavior] can overcome some instincts.  Many phobias or other mental anomalies are the result of genetic error involving instincts.

I don't agree with this last point regarding phobias.  Fears are learned responses. Bill

 

Psycho-epistemology is the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious. “Psycho-epistemology,” a term coined by Ayn Rand, pertains not to the content of a man’s ideas, but to his method of awareness, i.e., the method by which his mind habitually deals with its content.

Subconscious Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn’t, you don’t . . . .

The subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic. For example, the skill of walking is acquired, after many faltering attempts, by the automatization of countless connections controlling muscular movements; once he learns to walk, a child needs no conscious awareness of such problems as posture, balance, length of step, etc.—the mere decision to walk brings the integrated total into his control.

A mind’s cognitive development involves a continual process of automatization. For example, you cannot perceive a table as an infant perceives it—as a mysterious object with four legs. You perceive it as a table, i.e., a man-made piece of furniture, serving a certain purpose belonging to a human habitation, etc.; you cannot separate these attributes from your sight of the table, you experience it as a single, indivisible percept—yet all you see is a four-legged object; the rest is an automatized integration of a vast amount of conceptual knowledge which, at one time, you had to learn bit by bit. The same is true of everything you perceive or experience; as an adult, you cannot perceive or experience in a vacuum, you do it in a certain automatized context—and the efficiency of your mental operations depends on the kind of context your subconscious has automatized.

“Learning to speak is a process of automatizing the use (i.e., the meaning and the application) of concepts. And more: all learning involves a process of automatizing, i.e., of first acquiring knowledge by fully conscious, focused attention and observation, then of establishing mental connections which make that knowledge automatic (instantly available as a context), thus freeing man’s mind to pursue further, more complex knowledge.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Anthony quoted Sam Harris: Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible? end quote

 

 

It is horrible. Yet the bright side is clearly visible on personal electronics, when thousands of people at a concert light electronics up instead of lighters. Virtually all younger people carry those devises. Will electronics be the savior of rationality? Batteries that “carry” electricity are heralding in a “new age.” Who can believe absurd propaganda when the truth can be found on your phone computer hybrid?

 

 

“Check out the traffic conditions,” Hon, “and then the veracity of what the Prime Minister just said.”   

 

 

Peter

 

 

Do the armies of the preposterous wear a  “Striped pair of pants?” or a “Yellow cotton dress?” Profoundly good lyrics when he explains his relationship to his love; yet also irritating, like crazy old bible verses or the communist manifesto. I left out a chorus, comrade . . . .

 

 

MacArthur Park as sung by Richard Harris

 

 

Spring was never waiting for us, girl
It ran one step ahead
As we followed in the dance
Between the parted pages and were pressed
In love's hot, fevered iron
Like a striped pair of pants

 

 

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took too long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

 

 

I still see the yellow cotton dress
Foaming like a wave
On the ground around your knees
And the birds, like tender babies in your hands
And the old men playing checkers by the trees

 

 

 . . . . There will be another song for me
For I will sing it
There will be another dream for me
Someone will bring it
I will drink the wine while it is warm
And never let you catch me looking at the sun
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
You'll still be the one

 

 

I will take my life into my hands and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
And my passion flow like rivers and the sky
And after all the loves of my life
After all the love of my life
You still be the one
You keep wondering wanna know why

 

 

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
It took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Oh, no

 

 

Songwriters: ADRIAN DROVER, JIMMY WEBB

Well and good, what the New Atheists and Sam Harris do very well, up to a point, Peter. (Thanks for MacArthur Park). But their ethics don't follow their rationality, and there's the difficulty with some or most atheists. 

My impression (Dawkins is one I once read three books of, and respect his work and his integrity) is that they are all reductive- materialists, who more or less discounted the mind when dispatching with the 'immortal soul'. Opposed by Rand and Objectivist mind-body "compatibilism" or integrationism. (Rand wrote sarcastically, concluding BFSkinner's theories: "No, man is not empty, he is a solid piece of meat") . ;)

I suspect too they are "eliminativists", as David Hume is described here. "Similarly, by denying that there is an ego or persisting subject of experience, Hume was arguably an eliminativist about the self". [Stanford]

If, as I am sure, the New Atheists' ideas of man's nature fall somewhere in those categories, which makes them skeptical about the conscious mind, ego and "self", it explains their puzzling and explicitly altruist positions in Germani's article. For them, if men are pieces of meat all the way through, and who do not have a "persisting subject of experience" - I theorize that logically the NA's would be far more inclined to advocate altruism, as they do.

After all, if one hardly owns a "self", "self"-sacrificial altruism is a slam dunk, must-do...

That's the trouble I see with the limitations of secularism. It provides no rational-moral substance to replace those leaving religious faith, as likely to turn to the far Left instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

If, as I am sure, the New Atheists' ideas of man's nature fall somewhere in those categories, which makes them skeptical about the conscious mind, ego and "self", it explains their altruist arguments in Germani's article.

It is sometimes good practice to moor a general term to a person or persons gathered under the term -- especially when discussing critical particulars of the philosophy espoused by the off-stage unnamed. You might be interested in the Daniel Dennett riposte to Sam Harris, linked below.  And yes, Dennett has been labeled one of the "New Atheists."  I  don't see a hard bright line separating any New Atheists from garden-variety Old Atheists, and I think we should note meaningful disagreements among them.

Before we condemn a collectivized New Atheist for varied sins against Reason, I think we should quote the fiend or fiends and deal directly with their claims and arguments ... 

REFLECTIONS ON FREE WILL -- A Review by Daniel C. Dennett

I will give the Germani essay another good read. 

(the more I take in Sam Harris -- by way of his painfully-long rambles via podcast -- the less mental comfort I feel with his hard-as-steel opinions, the more I suspect he has one or two idées fixes, as they say. I think he might be a Right Man, invincibly correct under the cover of 'science.' The main reason for discomfort is how often he comes off as incorrigible, and not in a good way. By way of example, the painful exchanges with Ezra Klein.)

Anyway, Sam's invincible rectitude alongside Dawkins', Dennett's and the late Christopher Hitchens' is not so apparent in situ, so we can bear that in mind too. A large, even monstrous arrogance may be  justified (which of course brings us back to the Topic Header and the arrogance of Langan, arbiter of reproductive freedoms). One can also reread "Preposterism" and gain more perspective on who does the tough homework. 

In any case I think Dennett is the better thinker and writer and expositor, that his 'science' is more robust while amenable to change upon evidence.  There is something about Harris's routine about all the lies and deliberate dishonesty of his critics/interlocutors ... but to be fair I did not finish his The Moral  Landscape -- which strangely or not is uncited in Germani's notes.  

Here's Langan's more kooky ideas auto-captionized by Voicebase. Thank you, Voicebase.

 

 

-- on an unrelated note, what does the latest science or scholarship from the Ayn Rand humanities say about "psycho-epistemology"?

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
BG color change, grrrrrammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

There is something about Harris's routine about all the lies and deliberate dishonesty of his critics/interlocutors ... but to be fair I did not finish his The Moral  Landscape -- which strangely or not is uncited in Germani's notes.  

Not so strangely. The Germani essay was first published in 2008, and Harris's book was first published in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2018 at 6:40 PM, william.scherk said:

"Heroism" ... is not altruism ... part 1251.

My puckish point was that a transactional view of heroism suggests the climber was hoping for benefits, and benefits he got.

Less puckishly, I also advanced an opinion or observation.

"But appearances of instinctive anything may deceive."  

Heh. More puckishly, if cavalierly, you could consider, as I did briefly, that the entire event could have been staged. (Interesting how 'practiced' seemed our hero's moves, and why weren't the adults on top doing anything effective, and where is the usual press follow-up on the child and parents? And for what purpose did the Malian migrant acquire his climbing skills?) But I'll rather assume the rescue, uncynically.  

The fine thing about rendering assistance - non-dutifully - to some 'other' in trouble (or being rendered to oneself)? You then part ways. Neither you nor the helper needs to take the other into their lives and homes, and feel the slightest commitment to take extended care of him/her. The rescued/assisted person gains back their independent state and both of you amicably move on with your own life. There is no expectation of reward. (Giving to charity, for instance,  hasn't a 'moral' imperative or benefit, as with the religious). I say this since there might be perceptions from critics or by some rational egoists that "selfishness" indicates that for every interaction with another person, there must be material compensation. Your "transactional heroism" prompted this, as I think any idea of "transactional egoism" is wrongly motivated, as one's purpose and value in helping some unfortunate stranger is not a financial/etc. gain - the value perceived is in the other as a human individual, in their own right. This is a world apart from the doctrine of self-sacrifice, you can see, in which narrative everybody suffering or in trouble is and always will be your responsibility and duty to help for life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

More puckishly, if cavalierly, you could consider, as I did briefly, that the entire event could have been staged. (Interesting how 'practiced' seemed our hero's moves, and why weren't the adults on top doing anything effective, and where is the usual press follow-up on the child and parents?

Staged!  Heh.

Re the 'usual press follow up' on the child and parents, the child's identity is protected and the father/guardian of the tyke will appear in court in September, facing three years in the pokey, as he was out of his apartment at the time. The child has been drawn into custody of the state. See my paraphrases detailed here.

I don't know who the people are on the adjoining balcony -- the angle may prevent viewers from below seeing their actual  relation to the tyke. I'll have to dig into French media for those fine points.

The 'spiderman,' whose name is Mamoudou Gassama, had a few words to explain his actions, from the story at the link:

"I ran. I crossed the street to save him," Gassama told Macron. He said he didn't think twice. "When I started to climb, it gave me courage to keep climbing."

God "helped me," too, he said. "Thank God I saved him."

Gassama said he trembled with fear only after he had reached the boy, gotten him safely back over the balcony railing and taken him inside the apartment.
 

Since the story broke in international news, it has subsided back into French-language media. If you use Google Chrome as your browser, checking out French media translated is easy, as the browser gives you the option of translating the results page, and subsequent followed pages.  There is some sad, awful, grand knock-on whoopee and hoopla. You know how the French can be ...

Tony, your grasp of Anglo-Norman will probably allow you to get the gist of this headline from today ... speaking of 'staged.'

FrenchSenatorSeesSpiderManPlot.png

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Brrrrrkrash browser, grammar, added links. "How the French deal with Complots" sounded clunky, even in italic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2018 at 12:44 AM, william.scherk said:

It is sometimes good practice to moor a general term to a person or persons gathered under the term -- especially when discussing critical particulars of the philosophy espoused by the off-stage unnamed. You might be interested in the Daniel Dennett riposte to Sam Harris, linked below.  And yes, Dennett has been labeled one of the "New Atheists."  I  don't see a hard bright line separating any New Atheists from garden-variety Old Atheists, and I think we should note meaningful disagreements among them.

Before we condemn a collectivized New Atheist for varied sins against Reason, I think we should quote the fiend or fiends and deal directly with their claims and arguments ... 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

William, The "collectivized New Atheist", "Old Atheists" and nearly all of my experiences of atheists point in the same direction. Diving down the four individual rabbit holes is revealing but not essential when you can read/hear enough to see their basic commonality. As I'm trying to point out, how does one get more basic than one's view of consciousness w.r.t. physicality? There are very few roads that must follow logically from that fundamental. Again, and very broadly from philosophical thought, there is either traditional dualism (a moral and identity conflict between body and mind/'Soul'), or there is more modernly, a type of monism (reductive materialism, mechanism, and "meatiness"). Or - the clear solution - integration/compatibilism. These four thinkers are strongly in the second category, and each has justifications for cutting off/downplaying consciousness, self and ego. The rest is logical.

By this reading of consciousness the conceptual mind has to take a heavy knock; the senses and empirical facts rule supreme -i.e. eliminating man's abstractive reasoning -, and finally (as Hume expertly identified, and he would know) the end-result will necessarily be a skepticism of knowledge (with emotion raised over reason). Here is your "sin against Reason"! From what I've read too, these New Atheists also show doubt or ambivalence about volition, and if they deny conceptualism (effected by volition) this consistently figures too.

When there is little 'self' or "persisting subject of experience" , they, logically, won't find a morality in rational selfishness, and so one sees from them a strong leaning to self-sacrificial altruism, I believe more extreme than from the prior altruist-Christian model . That too, their ethics, has been my observations of nearly all atheists outside of Objectivism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldarn collective of atheists who rubbish free will ...  New Atheist.  All atheists.  Heard enough.

1 hour ago, anthony said:
On 6/7/2018 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:
On 6/7/2018 at 2:01 PM, anthony said:

If, as I am sure, the New Atheists' ideas of man's nature fall somewhere in those categories, which makes them skeptical about the conscious mind, ego and "self", it explains their altruist arguments in Germani's article.

It is sometimes good practice to moor a general term to a person or persons gathered under the term -- especially when discussing critical particulars of the philosophy espoused by the off-stage unnamed. You might be interested in the Daniel Dennett riposte to Sam Harris, linked below.  And yes, Dennett has been labeled one of the "New Atheists."  I  don't see a hard bright line separating any New Atheists from garden-variety Old Atheists, and I think we should note meaningful disagreements among them.

William, The "collectivized New Atheist", "Old Atheists" and nearly all of my experiences of atheists point in the same direction. Diving down their individual rabbit holes is revealing but not essential when you can read/hear enough to see their basic commonality.

Like I said, you might be interested in the Dennett riposte to Sam Harris.  It's about free will. They disagree, profoundly -- so I would be careful not to wrap them up in a Blob.

Of course, you might not be interested.

Quote

As I'm saying, how does one get more basic than one's view of consciousness w.r.t. physicality? There are very few roads that must follow logically from that fundamental. Very broadly, from philosophical thought, there is either traditional dualism (a moral and identity conflict between body and mind/'Soul'), or there is a type of monism (reductive materialism, mechanism, and "meatiness") - or integration/compatibilism. These four thinkers are strongly in the second category, and each has justifications for cutting off/downplaying consciousness, self and ego.

If we were having a conversation, this is probably the part where I go, "Can you give an example of this 'justification' from their work?"

And perhaps you would say, "I can't be bothered. I'm merely expressing my opinion.."

Quote

By this thinking the conceptual mind has to take a heavy knock; the senses and empirical facts rule supreme -i.e. eliminating man's abstractive reasoning -, and finally (as Hume expertly identified, and he would know) the end-result will necessarily be a skepticism of knowledge (with emotion raised over reason). Here is your "sin against Reason". From what I've read too, these atheists also show doubt or ambivalence about volition, and if they are concrete bound and deny conceptualism (by volition) this would figure.

"You may be interested in the Harris-Dennett exchange."  

Quote

When there is little 'self' or "persisting subject of experience" logically, there can't be a morality in rational selfishness, and so one sees from them a strong leaning to self-sacrificial altruism, I believe more extreme than from the prior altruist-Christian model . That too, their ethics, has been my observations of nearly all atheists outside of Objectivism. 

"Have you read any recent Harris book? Perhaps his book about morality  -- 'The Moral Landscape'?"

Engaging with the work of the Collective Blob in particulars ... would be more profitable for me.  

On the other hand, perhaps we can rubbish one New Atheist at a time ...  here's an interview with Richard Dawkins (purloined from PBS):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a thought from combining the title of this thread, “Is freedom to breed a right?” with Richard Dawkins discussing “self- duplicating molecules” to his saying, “And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.”

I know someone in the state of Delaware who had a retarded relative. The relative had the intelligence of a two to three year old and never learned to speak. But they could communicate by grunting and pointing. The normal practice in Delaware is to take out the female reproductive organs so that the retarded person never has a menstrual cycle or successful, sexual urges to reproduce or at least, have sex. I am not sure if the same is done for males, but it may be. In an evolutionary sense, Delaware is making sure the retarded do not breed and add to the gene pool.

Dawkins is certain we have free will, as do I, and I look forward to the improvement of humanity. Yet I am no fan of “eugenics” or other political forms of elitism like Nazi’s, supremacists, or Progressives. Progressives are the most insidious group because they “mostly achieve” their level in the human hierarchy through relatively free and voluntary means: through money, inheritance, or getting voted in or appointed to a high position in society.

Cliques of Progressive elites exist like the Hollywood crowd, the Harvard crowd, the country club set, the drive by media, and others . . .  And of course there exists a Republican elite, but I think it is of a lesser degree, and with a lesser amount of venom for the rest of humanity. Just look and listen to Robert Di Nero and his ilk. Watch comic and late night TV and compare their treatments of Obama and President Trump. The Progressives are in contempt of Americans and our Constitution. Progressives are the group that would love a monarchy if they could be the court advisors, forever and ever.

Peter                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William: "We can override biology with free will"  - is that Dawkins' best argument for volition?!

"Doubt or ambivalence about volition" - I did say of the NA's.

Can we direct our consciousnesses towards reality and into creating abstractions of reality - THAT is the question.

But let us not go off on a nit-picking tangent. I claim there is a commonality among atheists - "determined", logically - by their mechanist/materialist view of the brain ("meat", biology, DNA, genes, evolution, species, and by society, religion, etc.).

A very good writer-biologist like Dawkins can only explain from his frame of reference, so he does not do well connecting DNA with the mind.

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dawkins from William's post above:

So Dawkins thinks free will is one thing and biology another.

Hmmmm...

Whodda thunk he believes in ghosts?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

 

Should we improve the gene pool? Of course. We do it all the time though selection of mates and immigration to freer, safer, and more prosperous nations. (aside: One of the problems with Kim Jun Un is that I am sure he wants to live a better life, but he also wants to remain in power.)

If we have the means to improve the gene pool through scientific means, to what extent is it moral to do so? Superheroes are seen as wonderful human beings. What is the first step towards becoming superheroes? Is that step “nearly” inevitable?

I will give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt. 

Peter      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Peter said:

The normal practice in Delaware is to take out the female reproductive organs so that the retarded person never has a menstrual cycle or successful, sexual urges to reproduce or at least, have sex.

Delaware still has laws that require "retarded"  ('feeble-minded' or underprivileged) folks to be sterilized (tubal ligation) or have their uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes removed (hysterectomy)**?  I somehow doubt it, but you may be right (in Canada, such eugenics laws and practices were long-since declared unconstitutional and/or depraved ... because, mostly, the statutes were widely abused -- including involuntary sterilization of 'non-retarded' women of aboriginal descent).  Scandal.

Shall I wait until you show that your claim is based in fact, or should I go digging?

-- what happens nowadays, from what I understand generally, is that only a legal guardian can petition to have their child of limited intellect sterilized. In Canada, I mean.

_______________

** today, I think the imposition of "chemical castration" is to limit libido/ hobble the sexual impulses of sex criminals, sometimes as a condition of parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, anthony said:

I claim there is a commonality among atheists - "determined", logically - by their mechanist/materialist view of the brain ("meat", biology, DNA, genes, evolution, species, society, religion, etc.).

I am atheist. I am guessing that you feel you described my views with your "commonalities" ...

Are you atheist, Tony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My evidence is first hand accounts. The person to whom I referred was in an institution called Stockley, which is pronounced "Stokely," in Delaware. The guardian of the younger retarded person was consulted. None of the inmates of the institution had periods. The person was around 65 when she died.

I also knew someone who worked at Stockley. If one of the institutionalized people was violent or having a tantrum, they would as gently as possible lower the person onto a rug and then they would roll them into the rug to "bind them."

None of the inmates were given advanced medical care, like pace makers for the heart. 

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Peter said:

If we have the means to improve the gene pool through scientific means, to what extent is it moral to do so?

Peter,

This is far different than what Dawkins said.

Free will is biology. Or is there free will without biology?

Apparently, according to Dawkins, it is something to beat biology with in a weird contest.

That's like saying you can finally outrace the automobile with a Ford Mustang.

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Untangling the skein.

40 minutes ago, william.scherk said:
1 hour ago, Peter said:

The normal practice in Delaware is to take out the female reproductive organs

Delaware still has laws that require "retarded"  ('feeble-minded' or underprivileged) folks to be sterilized (tubal ligation) or have their uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes removed (hysterectomy)**?

Quite a question ...

23 minutes ago, Peter said:

My evidence is first hand accounts.    

I am sure that you do know someone who knows someone who was sterilized in an institution. Perhaps you slightly misspoke when you said the "normal practice" IS.  Thus my query about "still."

Edited by william.scherk
"Still" ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My confidential informant said the normal and universal practice in The First State was sterilization. So, Canadians think they are better people because their retarded population can add to the gene pool, when they can't take care of their own children? Can you prove Canadian institutions don't use dart and stun guns, sleeping and birth control pills, on their institutionalized citizens?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

My confidential informant said the normal and universal practice in The First State was sterilization.

Yes, and I believe you.  I think you made a slight mistake in choice of "is" versus "was."  At bottom, a few facts about Delaware's experience with sterilization.

Quote

So, Canadians think they are better people because their retarded population can add to the gene pool

"So, Delaware folks think they are better people because the state no longer sterilizes anyone?"

North American as a whole was gang-on the eugenics train.  North America as a whole abandoned the practice. When I wrote of 'scandal,' I also described abuses.  You may have skimmed over that part.  I certainly can't and don't claim that the Canadian experience with forced sterilization is much different from the USA.  It happened, it was  unconstitutional and depraved at times, and it now does not happen.

Quote

Can you prove Canadian institutions don't use dart and stun guns, sleeping and birth control pills, on their institutionalized citizens?    

This is a non-starter, and weird to boot. If you want to make a claim about "institutions" then you will be expected to show evidence.  That's the way it works. Asking someone to disprove a vague contention ... is not the way rational inquiry works.  Luckily you haven't made a claim.

But here is an interesting statistical observation. The rates of incarceration in America and Canada diverge.  

Now can you prove that this is not so?  Should you disprove my contention? No, I'd say you should be able to demand the evidence for my claim ... and not have to lift a finger of inquiry until I do so.

Crude, emotional, punitive and jingoistic nationalism -- and personalizing disagreement -- is from my point of view kind of a dead end for reasonable discussion, so forgive me if I don't take the bait.

___________________

From an historical site that looks at American sterilization facts and timelines.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the stats William. I have no wish to look up anything more up to date, but "for medical reasons" and rational care, I am quite sure institutionalized females are still sterilized in every civilized nation. Think about the difficulties otherwise. Periods. Rapes. Pregnancy. The sterilization may be chemical nowadays. About 10 years ago?? I went to a variety show at Salisbury University in Maryland and a busload of retarded adults were brought in to see the show and sat right in front of me. Some of the males and females held hands. One guy in front of me continuously touched one side of his nose, then the other, pressing inward each time, grinning the whole time. I described the behavior to a psych major and there is actually a name for the condition, but I forget what. None of them spoke, but did grunt or yell noises at times.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I am atheist. I am guessing that you feel you described my views with your "commonalities" ...

Are you atheist, Tony?

What an odd question, after what you have read from me. Do I not fit the usual "atheist" profile? If so, I can take credit for never accepting (in mankind or myself)  physical, biological "meaty" stuff in explanation of the mind, which is evidently and self-evidently integrated with the body/brain. As for you seeing commonality in what I described, only you can be the judge of that. I wasn't thinking initially of you, but mainly from my reading of secular philosophers, and from talking with atheists I've known face to face - enough to detect the constant of their materialism (btw, they largely moved to Left politics). Yes, I was an atheist quite early, almost drifted into, as I slowly realized I hadn't any place for a "God" in the universe nor my mind. It was an easy breakup, as I recall. No hard feelings on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now