home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!COURIER4.AERO.ORG!MARKEN
- X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
- Posted-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:14:43 -0800
- X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:14:43 -0800 action Relayed
- P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 921211191443
- Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
- Message-ID: <0002C948.MAI*Marken@courier4.aero.org>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:14:43 -0800
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
- Subject: Science & Religion
- Lines: 112
-
- [From Rick Marken (921211.1000)]
-
- Oded Maler (921212)
- ^^ Really?
-
- >Why, for instance, is it important at all to have a theory of
- >human behavior?
-
- The right question! Asking it implies that this goal exists to satisfy
- some higher order goal. Once you can see the goal "have a theory of
- human behavior" FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of the system that
- has that higher order goal, then you can see that it is just one of
- many different goals that you might have selected to achieve it
- -- even if you never actually realize what that higher order goal is.
- That's what I mean by arbitrary -- just knowing that there are options.
- From the point of view of the system controlling for the theory itself,
- the goal "have a theory of human behavior" is not arbitrary; that's all
- the system cares about. Same with more personal goals; eg. from
- the point of view of the system that has the goal "be a christian"is not
- an arbitrary goal-- it MUST be achieved; it is the only "right" thing to do.
- You have to go up a level to see that this is just one of many goals that
- might have been selected. That still doesn't mean that you can go and
- arbitrarily select goals -- just as you cannot arbitrarily select the force
- that
- is used to produce the perception "lifted suitcase"; it depends on how much
- the suitcase weights. "Be a christian" might be the only goal that works in
- the context of one's existing hierarchy of goals and currect circumstances
- to satisfy the higher order goal. But, if you can "go up a level" you can at
- least see that "be a christian" is something you select -- not really
- something
- that "must be true". As Bill P. says, its a matter of changing the "point of
- view" of one's consciousness. Read his chapter about it in "Living Control
- Systems II". This "point of view" change can be done (at least, I can do
- it -- though not always easily). And its worth the experience -- trust me,
- I'm a doctor.
-
- Ed Ford (121210) --
-
- > "To those who believe, no explanation is necessary; to
- > those who don't, no explanation is possible."
-
- Apparently, that's true. What I want to understand is why this is
- true. I want an explanation of believing itself, whatever the beliefs
- themselves might be. By the way, Hitler believed that it was a great
- idea to kill every Jew, communist and homosexual -- and, indeed, no
- explanation was necessary. Many of the people that Hitler killed believed
- in a God who considered them special and "chosen" -- and, indeed, for
- them, no explanation is now possible.
-
- >It depends on whether, for a particular individual, his/her
- >religion presents a conflict.
-
- I didn't mean that religion is a problem because it creates
- intrapersonal conflict. I'm sure most devout people are quite
- unconflicted about their religious beliefs. The problem with
- religion (and other high level goals of the same sort that become
- fixed -- ethnicities, nationalities, etc) is INTERPERSONAL
- CONFLICT. I don't know if you've looked at you paper lately
- but mine is FILLED with violent, interpersonal conflicts over
- religions (india, balkans, mid-east) nationality (mid east, masadonia,
- balkans), ethnicity (somalia), etc. So people are fighting their
- brains out to defend perfectly arbitrary goals; I consider this a
- problem -- and one that is so unnecessary that it is unbelievable.
- And the solution, of course, is for each person to be able to
- see that their own ethnic, religious, national, etc goals, though
- important to themselves, are perfectly arbitrary; that it's like
- arguing over whether cars should be driven on the left or right.
- Geeez.
-
- I said
-
- >>When you get up there you will see that chosing a religion,
- >>ethnicity, nationality, etc is just as useful (and arbitrary) as
- >>chosing a nice book to settle in with on a rainy day; sometimes
- >>you want a romance and sometimes only a thriller will do.
-
- Ed says:
-
- >Again, "you will see" refers to what you perceive not what everyone
- >will perceive "when you get up there."
-
- I'm seeing of you can go up a level -- not change your religious goals.
- Try this. Imagine that you were born Ed Greenberg instead of Ed Ford
- into an Orthodox Jewish family in flatbush. You have a loving family and
- warm relations with your friends. Really try to imagine it.
-
- Now, do you think you would be sitting here now, convinced that Jesus
- Christ is God become Man (leaving aside, for the moment, the question
- of whether or not he is). Since you say:
-
- >My own particular religion is based on fact,
- >not fiction. It is also based on 50 years of thought, study,
- >research, and lots of reading.
-
- I have to wonder whether your religious conclusions would have been that same
- if
- you had done this study and research as Ed Greenberg.
-
- >More importantly, the CSGnet is NOT
- >the time nor place to discuss such matters.
-
- I disagree. I sense resistence to disturbance here. But you can just avoid
- reading the religious posts. To me, religion is (as I said before) just
- something that people do -- like being a control theorist. PCT is trying
- to understand ALL of human behavior -- and religion is certainly one
- of the most important (and troublesome) things that people do. I think it
- should not only NOT be off limits for the net -- it should be something we
- in PCT try desperately to understand.
-
- Best
-
- Rick
-