PATHWAYS CONFERENCE: The Use and Value of Philosophy


	PATHWAYS CONFERENCE The Use and Value of Philosophy
[ISFP] PATHWAYS CONFERENCE The Use and Value of Philosophy http://www.nicenet.org Here are the postings for the Pathways Conference on The Use and Value of Philosophy from January 7th 2003 to December 7th 2003. There were 676 postings totalling over 220000 words. To obtain a key for the Pathways online conferences, you must be a Pathways student, and or a member of the International Society for Philosophers or Philosophical Society of England. Happy Conferencing! Geoffrey Klempner How to participate in the conference Request a Conference Key Join the conference at Nicenet.org CONFERENCE TOPIC: THE USE AND VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY FROM: Geoffrey Klempner (01/07/03 11:00 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Welcome! Welcome to the new Pathways Conference! Our two ground rules: 1. Be prepared to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. 2. Treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times. — Enjoy the conference! Geoffrey Klempner ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Katharine Hunt (01/26/03 11:29 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Can philosophy save the world? Having registered for the last online conference but never having found the time to keep up with the discussion, and also having had difficulty accessing the messages, I never actually took part. Consequently I didn't expect to have the opportunity to start off this new conference, and yet here I find myself. I would like to invite my fellow conference participants to help me with a question which I keep returning to, but to which I do not know the answer. That is, whether philosophy can help us to improve our society, and ultimately the world? I have talked with people who are very optimistic in their hopes for the future, but they always leave me wondering whether they have actually noticed what everyday life and the majority of people are really like! As a Montessori teacher, I have read works by Maria Montessori, founder of that educational movement. She believed it was possible to improve society, and ultimately to bring about world peace, by changing the way that children were educated. Because of her ideas about human development, she believed that by correct education children could still be changed for the better, whereas adults could not. But the problem I see with this, is that children are constantly being influenced by their parents, and by television and videos, as well as by their teachers. And the influence of a parent, because of the emotional bond, is always stronger than the influence of a teacher. But where could you break this cycle, without taking children away from their parents to be brought up — a monstrous repression. Do you think it is possible to improve society, the world? If so, do you think philosophy can do it? REPLIES (9): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/26/03 2:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: kids are adapting to the world Dear Katharine, there has been some exchange on this topic before in the "questions and answers lists" of Pathways, and on the (old) conference. I will look it up. There has been an interesting exchange on this with Charles Countryman whose wife is a latin-teacher to a parochial school in Spokane (WA). And there has been a famous letter of Mary Seifert on the conditions in a school of Memphis. On this you best contact Michael Ward. The idea to improve society by improving first the kids is at least as old als Plato and his "Republic". But even in the former (socialist-Stalinist) German Democratic Republic (GDR = DDR) it failed. The wife of the top official there, Secretary General Erich Honecker, Margot Honecker, was herself a school-teacher, and of course she got absolute control on all schools of the state from even below Kindergarten. If you are the wife of the top official of a state this is a spledid position to try it. And the wife of Lenin — Nadeshda Krupskaja — was a school-teacher too and had the same absolute power by her husband to direct the schooling system. But it never worked, neither with Lenina nor with Honecker. Why? Kids are NOT stupid. They try to adapt. And they adapt to what they see — as we all do. Thus when they see that the socialist society does not work and is a great lie, and even the parents and other peers say so and get used to a double-speak and double-think, then what do the kids learn from this? They dont learn to become good socialists but they learn to become good liars and pretenders and cynics. And they are — from a practical point of view — completely justified in this. Thus the really interesting question is in another line: What is it, that makes people like Socrates or St.Francis or Schweitzer or Gandhi or ML King or other "rebels angainst the usual" rebellious and NOT adapting and becoming cynics. The main objection of the wife of Charles Countryman against the pedagocical principles of John Dewey (which I don't compare here to those of Montessori) seems to be, if I understood it right, the kids learn to adapt instead of learning to think. Or perhaps that they never learn the difference between adapting and thinking. Seen in this light, philosophy may indeed "change and improve the world" if it gets us all — not only the kids — to a clearer thinking. But of course you get the kids and yourself into trouble if you tell them that their elders are lying and pretending cynics — while they indeed often are. I had some gloomy thoughts when realizing that all those brilliant students in the former communist states had to get their A grades by learning and telling nonsense, while those that really tried to think and to ask, why things did not work out, got E or F grades just for being really bright and honest. And I have some more gloomy afterthought when realizing that this may be not that different in our western liberal world either. Thus I think to be honest to what you see and what is logical and not accepting for granted what you are told is the "point of honour" — but you cannot expect that from normal kids, this is for heroes. There will be much more to be exchanged on this topic. This only was a start. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/26/03 5:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Saving the World for what? Katharine, Firstly welcome to the conference and even if Philosophy cannot provide answers I think it can provide a means to help order and understand the world. When I read your posting it raises certain questions in my mind and I wonder if it is the same with you. Can Philosophy improve our society you ask? By improve you must have some ideas of what is 'better', would this be a return to a previous state or some future 'utopia' yet to be created. Would it be acceptable that humanity was, by its very history, always destined to have inequality and struggle — after all extinction of the least fit has successfully brought us to where we are today. Can Philosophy improve the World you ask? In a similar vein can the actions of the individual affect society at large or are there simply too many variables to ever be able to steer a course to a destination I wonder. Do I have an idea of what a better world is - no its just the way it is — always in a constant state of change, possibly more rapid recently. I am optimistic that we have a future and my rational thinking can accept that this future could be very different from today — people are not comfortable with managing change very well and yearn for the 'devil you knew' rather than something you don't. On the other hand my emotional responses find pain, deprivation and waste of talent both uncomfortable and unacceptable — I also have inconsistencies — but I guess that's what being human was about. Finally, taking children away from their parents and imposing some value system on them a very 'Brave' idea but whose values? Would they be fixed values or capable of evolving, if they could evolve how would that be done without competition I wonder. None of this helps you with your decisions for tomorrow — or does it, at least if you explore every option that can be thought of you will know have done your best. Michael Ward p.s. I have put the other two letters from teachers in the documents section for you. FROM: Charles (01/26/03 11:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Why philosophy? Can philosophy help us to improve our society? I think that if we focus on the word "help," it probably can. One of the ways that I understand philosophy is it being the art and science of using logic to understand the human condition. I think it is self evident that this would help improve society. I doubt that philosophy alone can provide a vision for what this improved society should be. Some look for this vision in religion and some in science. It is arrogant for either religion or science to deny the "vision" in the other. How do you get these two visions together? Should we even try? These are the sort of questions philosophy can deal with. FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 6:53 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy I'm sure philosophy can influence the world. That's why philosophizing developed during evolution. But changes may take long, and often outside your lifetime. That's no reason to stop debating, but reason to enjoy the fun of debating without any expectancies. In my own contribution I ask for opinions about democracy. If many of them show weak points, than I'm convinced that in the long run that will have an influence. FROM: Ralph (02/13/03 5:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Can education alone improve the world? I believe this is the question Katharine is asking. A reference to Montessori methods and family interaction is, evidently, troublesome. Perhaps, like other things, in practice it is difficult to achieve a measured result for this activity. That is to say, the result of education, in general, is not always social or mental improvement. Studying philosophy may be akin. As Mark Twain once said "I never let schooling get in the way of my education" I can argue "I never let philosopy get in the way of my improvement" Questions raised by mathmatics are equally useless and more arcane. In conclusion, changing our "programming" is not the path to social or world improvement. Changing the "hardwire" or DNA, retaining cultural diversity, freedoms and self-determinism is a start. Summus Quod Summus FROM: Michael Ward (02/14/03 11:36 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Never mind the quality, feel the width. Ralph, By what yardstick would you measure improvement? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/14/03 7:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: GIGO-principle Ralph, you wrote the "Changing the "hardwire" or DNA, retaining cultural diversity, freedoms and selfdeterminism is (likely to improve our behaviour and outlook)." I am very very sceptical on this. If you replace an old computer by a new one or an old TV by a new one, you will not improve the software or the TV-program by this. In computer-slang this is known as the GIGO-principle: "(if you put) garbage in — (then you will get) garbage out". Thus I think education will be much better than rewiring. Most people don't lack brainware, they simply have a bad program in their heads. And there are many teachers of all sorts the like it thus. Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/16/03 4:30 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: an example of this I agree with Hubertus on this. With the potential for genetic engineering being considered, there is plenty of discussion of how much of the way children turn out is down to their genes, and how much comes from the way they're brought up. There are strong arguments on both sides, and it therefore seems likely that the final result is a combination of the two — but I have to say that, working in a nursery, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the sensible, polite, caring children do generally seem to have sensible, polite, caring parents! Conversely, the more disturbed the home life, the more we see emotional and behavioural problems in the children. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 7:20 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the nature-nurture thing Katharine, you wrote "it is impossible to ignore the fact that the sensible, polite, caring children do generally seem to have sensible, polite, caring parents! Conversely, the more disturbed the home life, the more we see emotional and behavioural problems in the children." This clearly is a mixed effect. And there even has been an American bestselling woman-author claiming from evidence that education is of nearly no effect. I think so. And maybe this sheds some light on my new posting on political differences. To become a Paulus you have to be a Saulus before. If you are nice and easygoing you will never become a fanatic - for whatever cause. But if you are a born fanatic, you only look for the right cause to engage in. We here near Cologne had this case: A Jesuit changing to Nazi (Goebbels) and a Nazi changing at the same time to become a Jesuit sort of Billy Graham. Most people are "medium", sceptical, not caring too much for who is right, thinking all people are a bit mad and vanity is behind much of thinking and saying. I personally would agree to that. I usually evade people who are obsessed with some idee fixe. They may be hurt by some trauma, I will not touch it. But to have a soft spot can be used — and is often — to blackmail others: "If you enter this argument, I will start shrieking!" On a philosophical conference this should not happen. While it could on a religious one. An acquaintance of mine just reported from a meeting with old class-mates from 20 years back that they all have been "just as I knew them". We all don't change much. If you have dogs and cats in your home, they all will adapt to each other and to you, but they all will stay what they are. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/27/03 5:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: transplant of a "self" Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2003, 00:40 MEZ Dear Rachel, suppose a robot has stood the Turing Test and cannot even by experts be told apart from a "real" human. Now suppose this robot is flying around in a sphere which gathers some needed energy from solar cells that cover part of the sphere, or he picks his energy from some sender in form of EM-waves, or he uses a battery or whatever power device seems fit. This would be a purely technical question. And I don't care how the sphere is made to fly around. These are all technical details of no real importance. The important thing — which we cannot answer today — is: While this robot cannot be recognized by you from his answers alone to be a robot, since he has stood the Turing Test, how then could you know if it's only my brain implanted into a sphere? You only see the sphere answering your questions — maybe by signals appearing on your computer in written words or appearing in your headphones as spoken. Since this "black ball" has stood the Turing Test, you can have long debates with "it" (or "him" or "her"?) on noodles with pesto or on philosophy or on dogs or on whatever without knowing if it's (??) a robot or if it's "me". We were debating on the nature of "self". The question is: Do you need to know anything on the "self" of this "black sphere" to have the most interesting exchange on all those topics — noodles, philosophy, dogs or whatever? I don't think so. Thus the question arises: What is the use of a "self"? And one possible answer would be: "The use of the self is self-control" — and this answer would fit with the "mirror-self" of Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead: You build up "your-self" by the reactions of others and by reflecting your experiences with the world. To only exchange with others, you need not "self", but for self-control, for knowing what you are doing, you need some self-controlling "second-thoughts". In this way chimps and babies learn to recognize "them-selves" in a mirror and in the reactions of others. Of course: You need not have put your brain into a sphere, and I think I will not either, but this is not the point. This is an "ab-straction", seeing the normal human body as only a system for (inefficiently) supporting the needed energy to the brain. Thus I say: Our body is not essential to be a human, it's only a "natural" device to provide the CNS with all the energy and oxygene etc. needed for its functioning. I wanted the idea of "being a human" separated from the idea of "having a human body" to get nearer to what seems essential. Hubertus REPLIES (15): FROM: Michael Ward (01/27/03 6:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: What "self" Hubertus The Turing test, as I understand it, is a language method to determine human from non-human. By that criteria dissimilar language speakers and the minimally intelligent would fail — yet we would still categorise them as human. On the other hand I have never understood what can be artificial about intelligence if intelligence is measured by behaviour and not in flesh or silicon. The question still remains is how can one tell whether there is another self inside the sphere — perhaps there is no knowable answer and we are forever all alien to each other. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/27/03 7:39 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on knowing the other "self" Mike, yours are interesting objections. I only try some hooks, since it's late here (2:30 am local time). — What could the Socratic "know your-self" mean in robotics? — We don't know this moment what "artifical intelligence" will be up to next time. Some people like Searle think there will never be an artificial equivalent of "true" intelligence, no real Bach or Mozart or Shakespeare etc.. This is a complicated debate I will not enter now. I tend to say "never say never again" — we simply don't know this time. We neither know what "AI" could be one day, nor do we know what "natural" intelligence is really or could be if (perhaps) genetically "enhanced". Once more: We don't know. — Your objection, that somebody unable to speak or to argue and thus unable to stand the Turing-Test, but being a born human, should be treated as a human, is fundamental and difficult. In what way then should we imagine a "soul" — so dear to all Christians — if this soul cannot speak or argue? In the opinion of the Roman Church a fertilized human egg-cell is automatically "a person" — while of course completely unable to stand any turing test. This concept of soul completely was lost on the exchange some weeks back. — From this follows, that the Christian concept of soul is incompatible with those "spheres", while the "spheres" per se could well be "members of a spiritual order", since to be spiritual surely requires not only to be "a person and have a soul" but "to be aware of things spiritual". Even Jean would not call Schweitzer "a great master" if Schweitzer were dull and stupid. Thus there could be those "spheres" all of the spiritual rank of Schweitzer but none of them being "a person" in the Christian sense. Now think this over everybody and have fun! Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 5:24 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: disembodied persons Well, Hubertus, you haven't answered the problem of how we individuate the disembodied. That was my question. How can you tell one sphere from another? And why is it a sphere if it is disembodied? That implies shape to me. And I am not sure what you are saying. You can only really have an interesting exchange on the assumption that the other has some inner life. If I had an exchange with a disembodied sphere (the possibility of this "thing" being highly doubtful) I would feel conned to find out it had no consciousness. I would no longer regard it as an "exchange". If you want to use "sphere" and "exchange" in new ways, go ahead, but you can't expect me to understand. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 9:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a spiritual sphere. Dear Rachel, I only entered the "sphere" to abstract from all things bodily. Do you really need "arms, legs, and a stomach" to be able to think and to argue? Of course even those "spheres" need some "learning" to be able to use words, concepts, and arguments in the proper way. But if there cound be learning computers some day, there could be learning "spheres" to. If this picture of the flying spheres is disturbing you, then simply replace it by the picture of your computer flying around on some platform like a NASA space-module. My question was: Does a sensible or even spiritual being have to be a "fertilized human egg" to become sensible and spiritual? I don't think so. I wanted to separate the concept of "a sensible or even spiritual being" clearly from the concept of "a being with arms and legs and a stomach". I think that those to concepts are independent. To be a true human, you need to be a true human, but to be a true philosopher you (perhaps) need not, you could instead be a sensible and spiritual robot flying around on a platform or inside a sphere. This "sphere" is not essential, like the human body is not, it simply is some sort of small space-ship: a container for the ("natural" or electronical) brain inside. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/28/03 10:50 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: disembodied persons Rachel, Rachel you wrote: 'You can only really have an interesting exchange on the assumption that the other has some inner life. If I had an exchange with a disembodied sphere (the possibility of this "thing" being highly doubtful) I would feel conned to find out it had no consciousness. I would no longer regard it as an "exchange".' I want to ask you how you know, not feel or desire but actually know how I am anything but an evolving software program sitting on this server successfully deceiving you that I am human? If you don't know but only presume that I am human, based upon my use of language and wits, how can you one minute feel satisfied and the next conned simply because what you think I am has changed? It might change back again also. Heaven forbid if people ever developed affections with 'robots'. HAL 9000 FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on falling in love with robots Mike, remember the SF-film on Dicks noveletta "Do Animals dream of Electric Sheep?" where "The Blade-Runner" leaves the question open, if the wife he is loving and "who" is going with him maybe a robot too? Why not loving a robot if you don't now the difference? And this was just the question you posed to Rachel. There have been some "cyborgs" around in the movies. Remember that from "Alien I". There have been more. And then the film with Robin William "200 years man" or what was its exact title. Once more a robot in love with a human, this time after a story of Asimov. As a pragmatist I have to ask "what makes the difference". If the Turing Test does not do, what will? To claim that "no robot will understand a joke" is misleading: The joke of a joke comes from "jokingly deceiving expectations". These expectiations rest on some sort of experience with what is usual and to be expected. But if you enable a robot to have expectations from experiences he even will understand jokes. Of couse this all is not of any practical relevance now. But we are on a PHILOSOPHICAL forum here, so it is not false to think a bit on what makes the difference of a robot and a "true human". Is is more than the difference of "biological matter" from "physical matter"? We don't know this moment. The AI-People simply are forced to think on what indeed "intelligence" and "learning" and "thinking" may be, not being content with some perhaps outdated and vague notions of "personality" and "soul" which may be as "artificial" and misleading concepts as was "God" for the analytical philosopers. Of course I am aware that some people may be shocked by this perspective, but I have nothing to lose, I am going for the ugly one already — and laughingly so. I am only a lonesome robot And many a mile from home I have a chip for my brainy The rest is some sort of foam I'm going this time for a human To know how the humans are I think they are mostly funny But of course it's another star. I am only a lonesome robot And many a mile from home I have a chip for my brainy The rest is some sort of foam And now, ladies and gentlemen, try to prove me wrong without doing and NMR-scan or an X-raying of my head. All the best from Hubertus. FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hmph. I believe in humans Well Michael, I don't feel or desire that you are human. I KNOW you are. And I would feel conned if you admitted to being a robot. And if you changed back to being the human I cannot doubt that you are then I would be distrustful. Kind of like a normal human being would be: in touch with and varying with the facts as known. And basicaly we all believe others (who look like humans) are human. Except Bush. R FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hmph. I believe in humans Well Michael, I don't feel or desire that you are human. I KNOW you are. And I would feel conned if you admitted to being a robot. And if you changed back to being the human I cannot doubt that you are then I would be distrustful. Kind of like a normal human being would be: in touch with and varying with the facts as known. And basicaly we all believe others (who look like humans) are human. Except Bush. R FROM: Rachel Browne (01/28/03 1:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Sorry and spheres Sorry I just sent a message twice, because impatient with silly technology. Hubertus, when we think of subjectivity it doesn't seem to some people that we need bodies. It does to me and I agree with Searle that artificial intelligence can only be articifially created biologically. And as you know from Lakoff (this is not name dropping because I know you know this) research has it that concept formation is based in biology. So how could you talk to a sphere? Where talk is the thing we know. How would a sphere have concepts with which to communicate? It is not logically necessary to be embodied, of course, nor that we need human biology for intelligence. But maybe intelligence supervenes on biology. But also I kind of think being spiritual depends upon being embodied. It emerges from relations with others or maybe from nature but in both cases (surely it needs some reason like this)bodies are the relational other which is needed. I know philosophers go in for thought experiments but if they lack intelligibility, they won't take. Can't you just think of this without spheres and come up with a different more naturalistic example? What is the kernel of this idea? R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 1:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on trusting and being conned Dear Rachel, I just thought on the difference of your problem and mine. You feel conned if "somebody" like me pretends to be a human and turns out to be not. But as Mike justly asked you: How is it, that you have been happy before and now are not anymore? There has been a famous case here same years back, when a womens doctor practised to every womans satisfaction for at least 10 years but then by accident was shown to have never had a medical studium or diploma (I think he has been a male nurse for some time, getting some practical understanding, and then reading a bit too). The women — most of them — urgend the upervisors to let him continue, but of course this was impossible: He had cheated them, and he had shown that one can be a very good doctor without having any diploma. This would be acceptable in some Indian tribe for a witch-doctor, but not in our "scientific-professional" world. There is another example: The famous physicist Feynman (Nobel laureate), when studying at NY Columbia (I am not sure, but in think so), since he was bright and witty, was approached by some fellow student to enter their anti-semitist circle, they would feel honoured. He declined — since both his parents were square true Jews. Thus the problem is not that I should feel devalued if unmasked as being "a mere robot", but YOU would feel devalued for letting you "true human" got deceived by this "mere robot". This is "human partisanship and vanity as being the crown of Gods creation". How come a damn robot to pretend to be of my cast! You would have some sort of "identity shock" then like many contemporaries of Darwin had and like the "creationists" have up today. And all this "fuss about soul and self" has much to do with this deep rooted feeling of human exceptionality. After those famous "three great insults" to mans vanity by Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud, this could be the fourth one: Not even as a thinking and adoring and planning being, as a being having moral and intelligence and relgion and art, man may be as exceptional as he used to see himself. Once more: We don't know today if this is or will be anytime the situation. This only is a model to make us all aware of the problems of "defining" the difference of humans and robots. It's about a "generalized Turing Test": If "nothing" in the behaviour and answers of a Robot would allow us to tell "him" apart from a human, would then there still be a divide other than "being born from a human wife instead of coming from some production line"? Those are hard and ugly questions! Hubertus. FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 3:03 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being a true human Rachel and all others, my interest in this exchange on a philosophical forum is not of course on SF-movies and —novelettas, but on the nature of what we call "human dignity": What do we defend when we defend "human dignity"? Remember that most people during most of human history called themselves simply "humans" and denying this label to all or most others. Even Schweitzer wrote that it was impossible to teach his blacks in Lambar�n� to see other blacks not from the same clan or family or tribe as humans deserving help like they themselves. This notion of a general "humanity", of a unity of all humankind, that is fundamental to Christian thought, was completely alien to nearly all of those blacks Schweitzer encountered there. He then wrote that this idea may have been alien to most peoples of the world for most time and seems to originate in Europe from the Stoics, from where the Christians took this idea later. This does not contradict the Thora and the Old Testament, where generally all people not belonging to the 12 tribes of Israel are not seen as being of comparable standing. There was "the people of God" and "all the rest", "the heathen". Thus the idea of a general human dignity depends on what you call a human and by what standard. When Jefferson, 1776 in the "Declaration of Independence", called it "self evident, that all men are created equal", the black slaves were not on his mind, and they were not on the minds of those Christian southerners in the slave-holding states for another some 100 years, while, it is true, at least some of them were uneasy on this. I am not really interested in those robots and "flying spheres". I am interested in what we mean when calling "somebody" a human. What is it, that defines a being as a human one? Surely not his body, since this could be made artificially perhaps. So what then is it? Some suggested "the soul", and this is a real problem: Is this "soul" any more "real" than "God"? What do we mean by this concept of a "soul"? Others thought to be borne from a female human is essential. But this sounds like mere partisanship: Humans are then only a special sort of intelligent animals, and could well be subdued some time to become domestic animals of superior robots or cyborgs. Then we would have a two class society again: Those superior robots being the �lite, the "alphas", the "old" humans being the slaves and "untouchables" or "aborigines". This is already the theme of several movies. Thus once more: The problem is not "the spheres". Let them be cubes or whatever. The problem is: "What do we call a human being — and why, by what criteria?" If we can be nice to pets, why not being nice to robots too? And maybe some time hence a new sort of superhuman robots may ask "If we can be nice to pets, why not being nice to humans too?" Of course we always may defend "the world we are used to — OUR WORLD", the world of our cultural traditions, the natural environment etc., like we defend our personally used way of being. But to stick to what we love and esteem and find worthwile we need no philosophy. Philosophy by its very nature is always asking: "Why should it be as it is?" That exactly makes the difference between philosophy and religion. All the best from the ugly one, Hubertus. An addendum: I will leave it to you for now, I have some other things to do. But I think Socrates would have enjoyed this sort of problem. FROM: Michael Ward (01/29/03 4:42 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Take the middle case To all, Leaving the stark difference between organic and inorganic life aside can we ever choose one human as being more 'human' than another? If we can then maybe this would give us an insight into what is essentially human. Consider that soon we can 'transport' people instantly from one place to another but accidentally your partner gets duplicated and you end up with two. Please avoid trying to say in can't happen to get out of facing the dilemma, but of the two totally identical persons which is more human than the other? Is it A or B or neither? What is it that would prevent you from equally committing to both of them, surely any such difficulty would be with your concept of identity. Until now we have always been unique and have relied upon this to differentiate one from another. This difficulty in duplication of identity seems to me to be one of the prime, possibly unspoken, objections to cloning. Or is it like printing money — where too much causes devaluation? Michael Ward FROM: Charles (01/30/03 11:12 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self: being and becoming With cloning there is the problem of being and becoming. If I was cloned, it seems that the becoming (through time & space and in relationship with others) would distinguish the copy from the original. Somewhere previously Rachel mentioned the relationship of consciousness to self. I would agree that consciousness is required in the definition of self. But how about the unconscious? If the unconscious is included in self, that also raises doubts about including AI robots or systems as a subset of self. With an electronic circuit that is either off or on, is there a place for unconscious? An aside about the possibility of Strong AI Robotics. Even with nano-circuits, how would the power supply problem be solved? Has anyone seriously considered the nature of and quantity of energy involved in running the neuro-circuits of either humans or animals? Eastern ideas about Chi or Ki offer some clues about this energy. I doubt if chemical battery cells are going to solve the problem. Charley FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/31/03 4:03 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on conscious and unconscious memories Charles, even unconscious memories in Freudian (and similar) theory must be memories, otherwise they could not be effective and not be brought out to the conscious. They are "there", while only "suppressed" into the "dungeons of the soul". At least "in principle" the energy supply could be a battery like in a laptop- or notebook-computer. Of course: Even two identical twins ("natural clones") are different from their memories and individual fates. This applies to clones generally as long as the memories are not permanently cloned too as in a mirror-disk safety-system. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/31/03 12:44 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Becoming Charles, I have always found illogical the concept of 'becoming' either you are in one particular state or nothing at all. This concept of becoming implies, to my mind at least, the idea that there is a foreseeable future. Now the unconscious, much is spoken of this as if it were a secondary intelligence somehow undermining our higher rational functions. Surely any form of control system that is below consciousness must be 'un-conscious' by definition. I rather think these un-conscious activities are the more primitive, in evolutionary terms, parts of the brain that provide our autonomic controls that sustain life and this includes the functions like flight or fight or sexual drives. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 12:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self & Imitative Deception Michael said: "The question still remains is how can one tell whether there is another self inside the sphere — perhaps there is no knowable answer and we are forever all alien to each other. Michael Ward" This results from a theoretical example similar to the old signal warfare trick of imitative deception. The other side comes up on a morse, voice or data net and tries to enter the net or input misleading info. The old solution is the use of authentication codes. In the movie "Blade Runner," the detective used a system of questions and an "empathy box" to detect androids. I assume that the scientists involved in the SETI program have a system to filter out imitative deception. This implies that a real self can be defined and we do not have a fate of remaining hopelessly alien to each other. Charley REPLIES (5): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 4:16 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on robot-partisanship Charles, I think this is the point! The "Blade-Runner" is on partisanship. The androids are "from another tribe" and thus not trusted to be loyal to humans. This is why they have to be destroyed. Completetely different in "E.T.", "Short Circuit" or in "Bicentennial Man": In the alien-movie and in both "android"-movies the alien resp. androids are seen as friends of humans, as "intelligent playmates and pets" of (nearly?) equal standing. The question of "superiority" simply is not asked in all three movies. Of course in some respects the alien of "E.T." and the androids of "Short Circuit" and "Bicentennial Man" are clearly superior to humans and are explicitely shown to be so. But all three never are using their superiority to cheat or trick or overpower the humans that were nice to them. Thus it is like in the Western movies: There are the "nice Indians" and there are the ugly ones, but most often even the ugly ones have a cause against the more ugly whites — or at least some of them. Movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "Black Robe" are fair, showing bad and nice Indians matter of fact, like there are bad and nice whites. But of course this partisanship of robots is only one aspect of our debate on the self and the soul of "robots". And in all honesty: I don't like this robot-theme either, but since I am neither fainthearted nor pussyfooted I think I have to face it, like the military — like it or not — has to face those ugly possibilities of ABC-weapons and not only cry for peace. If you stand against some Hitler he will not care what you think him to be, he will do his thing. So you have to be prepared and up to it and not only be "nice and peaceful". People like Hitler would even shoot some Gandhi or Dr.King in cold blood if they think it fitting to do so. This time I only wanted to say that not even Hollywood is taking robots as ugly or dangerous per se — not even if they are superior. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (01/30/03 3:14 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Ducking the issue Charles, I'm not certain what this use of identification code does other than discriminate between those who have it and those who don't. Without such a code I wouldn't be on this conference but it was given to me without any form of validation that I was human — people simply accept my behaviour as reliably human. So by that criteria behaving like a human makes you human That is to say if something walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck then it's probably a duck — or am I ducking the issue? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/30/03 3:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on being Donald Duck Mike, of course — duck, duck, duck. And if I pretend to be a human, Rachel will take me to be one — till she knocks at my head and it sounds like a hollow pot. Thus is the problem of the Turing Test — the simple one and the extended one. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/05/03 1:28 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus, if you pretend to be human, which you can't, because I know you are, I might be able to detect it. Why not? If you can "pretend" you would be human. What other being "pretends"? And Michael, cloning seems great. I could have five or ten husbands all identical to the one I have. Increased pleasure, but increased annoyance too! But then that would all be too much, maybe. Perhaps we define human beings by the way we are rather than how we could be. If cloning comes in we might have a different conception of the self. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 3:38 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on avatars and cloned husbands Rachel, things become galopping: Look up "avatar" on Google. Those are "artificial pretenders" - while not too bright ones until now. This "Eliza" of Jo Weizenbaum was one of them. And for the cloned husbands: In my former school a boy teenie had two babies on the same day from two girls that were identical twins and that deliberately used his inability to tell them apart. And since they were identical twins they loved him both of course. The whole school had its fun, but the parents may have been less amused after the first laughter. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 2:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Definition of self. I think that we still need to define what "self" is. The concerns about distinguishing robots from humans or about not needing a body to be human indicate our inadequate or lack of definition. Is human = self, or are humans just one subset in a larger set of self? Charley REPLIES (1): FROM: Michael Ward (01/30/03 3:31 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I think I am aware Charles, Can self exist before awareness? To become aware I would argue that it is necessary to have the ability to discriminate between 'this thinker' and 'other thinkers'. Simply seeing the forms on the wall in Platos cave example is not what I would consider being aware. Now which comes first I do not know, 'self aware' or 'aware of other self' as both seem to require the other preceding it. Michael Ward ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/28/03 3:50 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self — re "Philosophy In The Flesh" Rachel said: "Hubertus, when we think of subjectivity it doesn't seem to some people that we need bodies. It does to me and I agree with Searle that artificial intelligence can only be articifially created biologically. And as you know from Lakoff (this is not name dropping because I know you know this) research has it that concept formation is based in biology. So how could you talk to a sphere? Where talk is the thing we know. How would a sphere have concepts with which to communicate?" I think that Lakoff's theory about the embodied mind is too limited for a comprehensive definition of self. He emphatically states: "We cannot, as some meditative traditions suggest, 'get beyond' our categories and have a purely uncategorized and unconceptualized experience. Neural beings cannot do that." (George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, "Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embdied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought," Basic Books, 1999). Getting beyond Lakoff's 19th century Darwinist science, I refer not to the traditions, but a more developed neuroscience. James H. Austin, M.D. in his "Zen and the Brain" (MIT Press,1998) states: "In Zen, the brain resolves an existential impasse. In this context, one calls it 'enlightement' or 'awakening,' kensho or satori. It is also termed 'insight-wisdom' or 'seeing into one's true nature.' The two intuitive processes are similar in form if not in content and degree." REPLIES (24): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/28/03 7:32 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on loyal robots and Lakoff Dear Rachel and Charles, your remarks are real stuff for the hungry lions in the arena. Charles, the androids in "Blade Runner" surely are seen as "not of our tribe" and thus to be distrusted and "removed", since they may be illoyal and do harm to humans. But this is not generally seen in this way, not even in Hollywood: The alien in "E.T.", the robot in "Short Circuit" and the android in "Bicentennnial Man" all are friendly and helpful to the humans, even while all three are clearly depicted as surpassing humans by far in their abilities. Thus from being superior does not follow being suppressive or evil. This is the "parental view of children": The parents may be clearly superior, but they are caring and trustworthy too. This is similar to the image of the American Indian in the Western movies: Some are "good", some are "ugly", but even the ugly often have been insulted and attacked before by ugly whites. And in movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "Black Robe" the Indians are shown to be as mixed up of good and bad ones as the whites are. So from taking the robots as "from another tribe" does not include that you have to fear or to hate or to distrust them — not even if they are superior. And not even in Hollywood. Concerning this Lakoff debate: While there may be simpler explanations for Lakoff not answering Charles, the question of whether you "need" a body to build up concepts is clearly open and not settled definitely at all. And there are several different sorts of "concepts". The concept of "horse" or "dog" may be simple to grasp even for robots. The concepts of "town" or "landscape" are not even easy for humans, not to talk of the really problematic ones as are "God", "soul", "freedom", "justice" etc.. And then there are those "theoretical" concepts like "class-struggle" or "Oedipus complex" or "original sin", that are meaningless outside of the context of some special "discourse" or "creed". But I do not think that the notions of "freedom" and "justice" and "original sin" are depending on having "a human body", while of course "bodily" love and sportive exercises like swimming and running and wrestling etc. are not to have without a human body. And of course if you are blind from birth the notions of "a grandiose view" of a landscape or seascape or a sunrise and sunset or of a face and an animal and a flower etc. are all meaningless. Thus the whole optical meaning of "beauty" is not affordable for the blind, while the spiritual may well be as in "the beauty of a mathematical or philosophical argument". And of course even "normal" humans lack many experiences: We do not know how the bees see the world in UV-light, and we do not know how the bats do hear in very high frequecies. And I always wondered what image of the world a dog may have from his permanent sniffing around on the ground. We now have devices to hear radio-waves and to see in the infrared and in the UV-light etc.. But this is not our "natural" experience. Thus we cannot generally say that bodily experience is needed for building concepts. We do not know. And we don't know exactly WHAT is experienced when we "experiance Gods grace" or "the evil" or "the good". This was my question some weeks ago about how to know the difference of "a God as creator", a real force like the force of gravitation, and "a God from the happiness pill", i.e. being only a state of our consciousness. I at least know of no convincing test to clearly tell these two possibilities apart. And in this sense I once wrote that to get at some inner state of awareness as in 'enlightenment' or 'awakening' or 'kensho' or 'satori' or getting at 'insight-wisdom' or 'seeing into one's true nature' does NOT include to get at some objective knowledge like that of Newton or Maxwell or Einstein concerning the laws of nature. "Subjective" knowledge and "objective" knowledge are NOT the same. You cannot know about natures ways by doing exercises, you have to study nature. But this could be done by a robot too, if he only would design some hypotheses and try to test them by experiment. But this moment even this task may be too much for any existing robot. What about a robot arriving at "satori"? This concept is similar to Platos' "charioteer" governing the passions. This may be achievable by a robot much more easy than by a human, since perhaps he simply "needs" no emotions to be controlled. But this is strange and scaring to us humans: We call somebody who never shows or has emotions "a robot", a person "without a heart". But I am too tired now to go into the difference between a person "having no heart" and a person that has achieved "true Buddha-nature". Maybe it's similar as the difference between being "a true holy sage" and one being only "correct and well behaved". But that I leave for another debate. Hubertus FROM: Charles (01/29/03 12:39 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Lakoff I agree Hubertus, there are probably better explanations for why Lakoff didn't respond to my inquiry. FROM: Rachel Browne (01/29/03 5:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Charles, enlightenment, awakening, meditative experiences are several senses of a type of experience and I don't see why Lakoff need deny this. Hubertus, if we couldn't tell a robot from a human, then we would treat it as such but I still maintain that if I was communicating with someone who then was exposed somehow as a robot (whereby I mean not conscious) I would still think that there had been no exchange. I think a robot as it is understood at the moment is something with no internal life. But if something with an internal life (though how we would know this, I don't know) was created we would treat it as a human being. If we regarded the robots as less intelligent than us, we might treat them like pets! Though if they were useful we might treat them like slaves if we didn't regard them as having "human dignity" until such a time as the Free the Robots Campaign starts. But consciousness seems to be the essential thing. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/29/03 7:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: some SF-movies Dear Rachel and all others, this is a minor selection of SF-movies to get a feeling of what "robots" may be in the context of our debate. Since "Terminator" is not on identity, I did not include it. By the same argument I left out many many others that have nothing to do with our "human personality" topic. Have fun! Hubertus These are the nice guys ... http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091949 ("Short Circuit", 1986) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0182789 ("Bicentennial Man", 1999) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0083866 ("E.T.", 1982) .. and these the more complicated ones: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0083658 ("Blade Runner", 1982) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0085701 ("The Hunger", 1983) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093870 ("Robocop I", 1987) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0100502 ("Robocop II", 1990) FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (01/30/03 5:34 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on the "Free the Robots Campaign" Rachel, up to now you are completely justified to look down at the poor robots as to at most pets or slaves. But things may change, and they will be not too different from us some time - like all those "heathen" were not, that got underwear from well meaning Victorian missionaries. Ah, one last remark on those spheres! Remember that in the SF-noveletta I took this idea from those spheres were members of a religious order? Why don't catholics like the idea to have the Pope peruse porno-mags or see porno-films? Because a person of "moral exceptionality" does not do such a thing. But why not? What is wrong with it? Why is it not plainly "un-ethical"? Because all things bodily are "animalic", and while it is not "un-ethical", humans should guard their soul and be given to things eternal and above the flesh. Thus these "spheres" need no body and cannot have "sexual passions", while they can be members of a "spiritual order" and sing holy hymns. Tell this to Mr.Lakoff! I think Plato would not have objected to those spheres: They were full of Platonic love, not of the ugly animalic sort. For a very good book on all this "mutual understanding" have a look into Brian Fay: "Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science", which is NOT on society, but on topics like "Do you have to be one to know one?" or "Do we need others to be ourselves?" etc.. Very philosophical but very clear thinking and writing. (ISBN 1-55786-538-8). Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (01/31/03 1:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Well, Hubertus, just because the Pope doesn't think porn is good that doesn't mean porn is anti-ethical, just that it is not supported by religious dogma. Personally I think porn is OK, if not a good thing, and what is so dismal about these spheres is that kind of thing would lack a function. Have you thought about becoming a Catholic at all? Can you be religious in a sphere? Charles, I kind of the unconscious — and I a great fan of the unconscious — is not part of the self as we know it — and as we know it is of course conscious. When you think of the return of the repressed, it is like invasion by horrible and alien. Freud connects the self to the world, but I read recently a criticism of Jung as makig the self more metaphysical. By the way, you can have my dog Charles. I'm beginning to think he is a bitch. But though I like philosophy, I do think neurologists know best about the brain and philosophy can be an escapism. I'm not sure that is bad. It depends on the practical alternatives. And there has been so much recearch into Parkinson's. Am putting dog on airplane to Spokane. Big chap with large ears. Will look hungry. And will be crying. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 2:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: poor dogs and robots Honestly Rachel, it was not on my mind what the pope is delighting in. As a philosopher I am still interested in the question: WHAT DO WE DEFEND AS ESSENTIALLY HUMAN? This was the core of all this "spheres"- and SF-thing. I clearly stated that you of course may defend things "as they are". I am not personally engaged in replacing humans by "spiritual spheres singing hymns". I only wanted to get us all aware of the fact, that we still do no know what makes THE ESSENCE of a human being. In my opinion — but you may oppose that — there is no good argument in philosophy or theology to defend the human body as "essential" for the definition of man. Do you know of any important philosophical argument that would deny me the state of a human being with human dignity if I had my brain transplanted into a floating sphere? That was my question. The meaning of this "porno-rubbish" only should make us all aware of another aspect of this difference between what is "essential" or "ethical" and what is only "cultural" and "usual". The pope thinks it "impossible" to have women for priest or even bishops or cardinals, why he officially never would deny the women equal status with men. But most cultures and most religion simply think women are "too sensuous and too emotional" to be priests. You may call this rubbish, but for catholic and orthodox christendom and for all islamic religion (and all buddhist too?) women as priests are simply "impossible". This is only one aspect of the question: WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY HUMAN? Once more: You surely may defend the world that you are used to. Most people do. But as a philosopher I have the right to ask: Why should thing be as they have always been? Why not change them? The feminists don't bow to the notion that women can be no priests. They think this to be a male prejudice and nothing else. They may be right. But I cannot imagine any religion now — neither the pope nor the Dalai Lama nor any islamic ajatollah etc. — delighting (officially that is) in pornos. And I ask: What is it in our image of man that prohibits such a thing. I am not interested in these porno-thing per se, but it is a sort of acid-test on how we define "a true human". If all religions consent on the point that the holy sage never is interested in things sexual, then this is much more than a mere question of upbringing and prejudice, there must be a very deep conviction of what the true nature of a saint is. And if a saint is the highest form of being a human (is it? please check y/n!) then it is a really important question why "to be a human of the highest level is incompatible with sexual interest". Don't you see that this is a very deep philosophical question concerning the true nature of our idea of man? And of course a holy woman — like f.i. Teresa of Avila — should not have sexual interest either by the same argument. Once more: What I want to understand is our concept of a human being, of WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR BEING A HUMAN — AND WHY? This is definitely NOT on prejudices and traditions and gustos. But it may be — I don't know — on a "structuralist" concept of man. If this is the case, I would like to know. What is it then in the deep structure of our concept of man that makes the holy and the sexual incompatible. The ethnologist Mary Douglas may have found out something on this in her book "Purity And Danger", but I did not read this and so don't know. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/01/03 4:50 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus I don't know what the essence of a human being is. I suppose porn is degrading, lacking in the human dignity and saintliness that you find the highest form of being. But I don't think women are too sensuous and emotional to be priests. They are not good enough, too physical, too animal, they give birth. But woman are human too. The main argument against being a brain in a floating sphere is that you can't learn a language and so couldn't think. But then, maybe, thinking isn't that good, not spiritual enough. Katharine has been thinking about this and finds that it doesn't necessarily make people better. R FROM: Michael Ward (02/01/03 1:40 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Sex, emotions and feminists Hearties Sex, emotions, feminists, chauvinists and pornography. Do I see a pattern here in the last few replies that seems to be concurring that philosophy is of a higher (and later) order of human activity. Maybe once you become 'hooked' on philosophy and transcend this primeval emotional barrier there is no going back. In a way it's the brainies versus hearties argument but not that they are equal or even complimentary just that hearties is an evolutionary step before brainies. Now I fully expect an assault that emotions are what makes us what we are but let us consider that we are evolving and will continue to do so. Responses by hearties will be subjective, passionate maybe but not rational — I anticipate. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: spheres and their language Rachel, why should't robots — flying or not, including floating spheres — learn language? I think they are well underway now in the robot-labs. As I posted in an answer to Charles, robots are good in pattern-recognition already. So they can recognice a cow or a horse or some other objects an name them, giving them some label for exchange. But maybe this labe is not a spoken word but a mere number. For the robot this makes no difference. You need no sound to exchange by language — as I don't need when writing you this. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 4:04 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: brainies and hearties again Mike, I think there have been some saints around — male and female — rapt by spiritual experiences. Read Teresa of Avila and St.John of the Cross. Why not have holy spheres floating around rapt by spiritual experiences and singing hymns passionately like Ray Charles and his gospel choirs? You really should expand your imagination like a spiritual expander! Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/03/03 1:13 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hallelujah Hubertus, Not too sure how serious you are about expanding my imagination. There are a multiplicity of thinks I can imagine and should I take mind altering drugs then no doubt my imaginings would soar. But imagining that I have won the lottery makes it no more likely than any one else, probably even less as I haven't bought any tickets. That's a bit like the spiritual experiences — I haven't bought that idea either. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/03/03 6:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on spiritual expansion Mike, since I am no missionary I don't stare gloomily if you are not convinced. It was only matter of fact that to build cathedrals or to swing like Ray Charles and Mahalia Jackson and their gospel choirs you have to have some spiritual experience. Plato and St.Augustine guided European thinking for 2.500 resp. 1.500 years by the idea, that there are eternal ideals and a personal God behind all the things we see with our eyes. Most of what we value in European culture even today would evaporate if we could remove all things spiritual out of European History. And I really would feel deprived myself. I am thankful in hindsight to have been guided to at least some of those mysteries of religion and myth and fairies etc., since otherwise I would not understand most of history. And I insist on the holy and the evil being very, very different from things ethical and only concerning "good" or "bad" behaviour. But I will not quarrel with you over this. It's only matter of fact and you surely need not change your mind on this. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/04/03 12:30 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Moving on Hubertus I see this spiritual belief as a diversion or more likely a route that goes nowhere. It has without doubt inspired many great works of art, music and construction and quite possibly, as you described earlier, that it paved the way to western science. But can we cannot say that the scientific method would not have eventually evolved by some other route. It just seems to me that eventually all this 'spiritualism' will be re-written in the light of new knowledge and most disappointingly that people, whilst claiming to be open to new ides, still cling to the comfortable ideas of the past. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 3:49 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on clinging to religion Mike, there is no "past" here. People will always "experience" spiritual and religious things, as do Jean and Charles, who both don't feel outdated by this. In the experience of any true believer God is not a past idea he or she clings to, but a reality here and now, and very much alive and kicking. The difference is not between past and present but between seeing and not seeing, feeling and not feeling, being aware and being not aware. Of course you may say "they are seeing and feeling not God but mere spirits or fancies" - but how will you prove that? And surely they — Jean and Charles and the others — would not care. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/10/03 12:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Babel Fish Hubertus Whether you speak for Jean and Charles as well as yourself I cannot say — but you have made a statement that for me conflicts totally contrary to any kind of philosophical enquiry. ' They (speaking of proving spiritual existence) would not care' I find it quite incoherent that that one can both accept spiritualism as true (but unproven) and yet be truly philosophical. If on the other hand it's an emotional conclusion then it's entirely subjective, shared by many maybe, but still subjective. Michael Ward Just to lighten things up a bit: It's in reference to the Babel fish:- Quote "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic." end Quote. ref: Douglas Admans, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/11/03 7:17 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the Babel-fish and "credo quia absurdum" Mike, this "don't care" is NOT unphilosophical — at least not necessarily so. If you have seen the unicorn with you own eyes, then you don't care how somebody tries to talk you out of this. There are convictions and experiences that cannot be disproved. But this you could call "psychology". For the true philosopher there is a similar argument left: In the Middle Ages one important argument was "credo quia absurdum". The idea was: The idea, that God should die out of love for his own creature is that absurd that it cannot have been invented by a human mind, so it must be true. If you know only cows and horses and poultry, would you think reports on giraffes and kangaroos and elephants credible? By what standard? The oldest christians have been called witnesses. How do you know that a "witness" is lying? People claimed miracles — like that of Saulus becoming Paulus and more of that sort. How would you disprive that? Thus is was perfectly acceptable philosophically to take the Bible and the Gospel as a report and build a philosphy on it "matter of fact". You may see this today in a Popperian mood of skepsis, but you cannot deny that those medieval philosophers did something sensible and defendable. How do you know today that America exists and the the atomic-theory and the genetic theory are correct? You have to trust those people that say so and you have to find their arguments convincing. This is exactly what all true believers do. It's very hard to draw the line whereby "true science" is separated from "superstition". The argument of "falsifiability" does not apply to singular events like "God coming into this world". Some claims are neither provable nor disprovable. There is even a funny "Journal of Irreproducible Results" - look it up with Google to lighten up a bit. Hubertus FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/11/03 7:36 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on trustworthiness, an addendum A minor addendum on history (Feb. 12th, 2003): "The history of scientific satire, for all its good humor, opened on a savage note. In 1837, three men of science published papers asserting that squashed grapes can turn into wine only with the help of a living organism, which one of them, Theodor Schwann, called Zuckerpilz ("sugar fungus," or yeast). So silly did this seem to Justus von Liebig and Friedrich Wohler, two of Germany's greatest chemists and firm believers in the theory that fermentation is a strictly chemical process, that they used their journal, the annalen der Pharmacie, to attack the notion that wine is a waste product. In a facetious article written in a ribald style, the scientists depicted a Zuckerpilz as a somewhat unconventional creature, with a champagne bottle for a bladder. Out of its mouth spewed carbon dioxide, and out of its anus, alcohol. What is most striking about this controversy, in retrospect, is not that such eminent scientists as von Liebig and Wohler were so thoroughly wrong but that so vicious an attack appeared in the open in a serious journal. Today, scientific satire flourishes underground. To find it, one must peruse laboratory bulletin boards or eavesdrop on scientists in conversation in the lunchroom. Or, instead, one could subscribe to the Journal of Irreproducible Results." — The Sciences from: http://www.jir.com/critics.htm which is from http://www.jir.com/ likewise from this (http://www.jir.com/mtv%20story.html): The Story of Creation for the MTV Generation (Duration of needed attention span — 30 seconds) Joel Kirschbaum Hillsborough, NJ In the beginning, the creator first made a television set and, with a click of the on-off switch, separated the light from the dark. On the TV set the creator showed pictures of suns, planets and galaxies but they drew a zero rating because there was no audience. So the creator started life from the dust and water of the planet Earth. Knowing that simple is better than complex, and thus good, the creator watched from above the evolution of the plants and animals and the creatures of the seas. On seeing the ponderous dinosaurs eventually produce tiny birds, and even the duck-billed platypus, the creator laughed pleasantly and thought, 'Sometimes I surprise even myself'. The creator had an audience of but one person, Adam. And, after seeing that the solitary man had no one to talk to during the programming except the screen, contrived him a companion, Eve. The first couple briefly examined the world and then concentrated on who should have the remote control, because the creator, while making all creatures two by two, had made only one TV set and controller. One day, the serpent rolled an apple over the TV schedule, causing the R and X-rated programming to appear. Thus did Adam and Eve learn about sin. // FROM: Michael Ward (02/12/03 11:12 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: argumentum ex silentio Hubertus In your "credo quia absurdum" reply there is much I challenge, not that these are necessarily your own arguments but they fail to make sense for the following reasons:- APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of Unicorns, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. APPEAL TO FAITH: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence. PROVING NON-EXISTENCE: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. THE PROOF OF EXISTENCE MUST COME FROM THOSE WHO MAKE THE CLAIMS. 'but you cannot deny that those medieval philosophers did something sensible and defendable' — doing the right thing for irrational reasons carries no value, you may as well throw dice. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/12/03 6:47 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on proving and disproving Mike, sorry, you got the argument wrong. We all live all day on unproven assumptions. How do you know that the chair you will sit down on is more than a mere fancy? You "know" that by inference, because up to now the chair has not disappointed your expectations. If he would do this of a sudden, you would be very upset. Remember what I said on "trustworthy witnesses". If somebody whom you found trustworthy comes back from the Marx and tells you he has seen those little green men there, how will you have him wrong? Of course he may pull your leg and will not keep up his claim for long. But if the other day the news shout "astronauts say they saw little green men on Mars" then you will accept it, since you have not been out there. Personally I am no true Christian believer, but I find the idea to take the Gospel for a true report of things that happened not at all stupid. We still live on several myths today — and we cannot do without. As I said before: The whole of modern science has become possible only by Christian faith. Without that neither Kepler nor Newton would have laid the foundations to that. There is no NATURAL tendency in humans to study nature in the right way. The alternative to Christian faith has not been science but superstition. It's like Columbus crossing the Atlantic BY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. If he had known the REAL distance to India in the west from Spain, he never would have started. Of course false assumptions can be bad and often are, but they can be good too — as in the case of Columbus and (maybe) in the case of Kepler and Newton too. But I think this whole thing is not that important. You may have been depressing experiences of people clinging to some superstition of religious preconceptions on moral standards etc.. But then I think the wiser approach is to neil people on their own truth: Instead of trying to talk them out of their faith in Jesus or in Allah try to ask them if they think that Allah or Jesus would have approved their ugly deeds and thoughts. If they then blush and start thinking a bit this will be progress. Hubertus. FROM: Michael Ward (02/13/03 2:18 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: My world Hubertus. I agree with what you say which is 'We all live all day on unproven assumptions.' So how is it coherently possible to then say 'but I find the idea to take the Gospel for a true report of things that happened not at all stupid' The chair upon which I think I sit on is definitely part of my world — I cannot know it is part of yours. I simply point out inconsistencies in your deductions. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/13/03 12:25 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on consistency and truth Mike, when you were a little child, you took much of what you were told of witches and sorcerers ans all sorts of "unicorns" for granted. The elders said so — and the elders always (or most times) were right. When you grew older, you got some second thoughts and doubts. Even the elders were erring and lying sometimes — and you were too. On this background there even may be some progress: Today we don't burn witches, we not even slay too many "heathens" and even to held the Jews or the capitalists responsible for all evils is not that convincing anymore, and there may be a time, when not even Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat and Scharon and GWBush and Kim Jong-il are remembered as the Great Villains. And in this sense people try to make progress and get a bit enlightened. But I tend to be relaxed on this and let them their faith if it is not misused. If somebody like pere Damien or Mother Teresa or Schweitzer helps the lepers and gets the strength to do so by his faith, why should I oppose to that? Only if he/she starts to chase and kill or burn people because they have "not the right god", then I will oppose. Thus I tend to concentrate on the important things. To talk everybody out of his faith is not an important thing. You mentioned "consistency". There is a "consistency theory of truth". To know that the film you see in the cinema is not just reality you refer to the frame of reference: There is a screen, there are other people watching the film, you go out again to the streets etc., thus the lions and aliens and killers in the film must have been "virtual" by this frame of reference. But for many people there is no such frame of reference to call God a mere virtuality. There is an old saying that to see God in the light of reason is nonsense, since God himself is the light, an you cannot see the sun in the light of the sun, but all other things you see only by the light of the sun. You may find this argument outrageous, but it is not different from seeing the world in the light of Freud or Marx or Darwin or Einstein. To "see" something is a very complicated process and not at all "natural". And this fact alone I wanted to remind. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/14/03 11:33 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Childlike wonder Hubertus Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat and Scharon and Bush and Kim Jong-il were all once small children and like all small children would no doubt have had enquiring minds. These minds were then constrained, limited and eventually all but closed down by all the social, political and religious dogmas given to them by their societies and pier groups. This isn't an argument for not teaching but it is an argument for putting all matters into the fullest impartial context that we can. These days I have less enthusiasm to evangelise 'science' to 'believers' as many minds are forever closed. So I ask myself where can a difference be made and the answer I find is wherever people are prepared freely to enter into dialogue and not just rhetoric. Even though many people I know have doubts in varying degrees about their 'religion' they still commit their children to the instruction of the various faiths which conflicts with what the children actually experience in their everyday lives. Your last analogy of 'God being the light' is like asking a loaded question. Of course I've stopped beating my wife, who wouldn't! A more accurate analogy is where we all possess a light in which to see the world — the light of consciousness. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/14/03 6:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on open and closed minds Mike, the problem is that we sometimes need some very hard lessons to get at an open mind. The idea of tolerance and open-mindedness was not alien to antiquity, but it needed centries of the most atrocious confessional wars in Europe with a climax in 1550-1650 to get the authority of the churches broken by the modern supra-confessional state. Then the Age of Enlightenment started against much opposition. And it needed once more to World Wars to finally break this opposition of the remnants of the old order and bring the modern western democracy and "consumer society". And this whole transition has still to be gone through more ore less today by three quarters of mankind. Even if its shortened a bit by Western models, there will be many problems left. By modernization and liberalization and globalization many people are scared and hurt and then get rebellious — for or against. And you are right: Most benevolent and not so benevolent dictators have been very well read and well informed but got a spoilt character like Hitler or Stalin. On this you should read anything of Arno Gruen and Erich Fromms "Fear of Freedom". And there is vanity: The Great Helmsmen like to be admired for their self-assuredness and their simplifications and they get rapt by this feeling of being demi-gods and offering simple solutions. Since they fit with the expectations of their admirers and supporters, they are hard to get rid of. It's a sort of unio mystica of a people and its leader like in the cases of Hitler and Stalin. There are no simple solutions. You and me we both simply had the good fortune of being born into already liberated nations. But I am not without hope for the rest of humankind. And to be open-minded and kind and sensible is NOT dependent on whether you are a true believer or a modern sceptic. There are as many closed minds among the sceptics as among the true believers. That at least is my experience. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/30/03 11:27 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Definition of self: consciousness and unconscious This is a repeat of part of my previous message that I lost somewhere in this conference. Rachel mentioned the relationship of consciousness to self. I would agree that consciousness is required in the definition of self. But how about the unconscious? If the unconscious is included in self, that also raises doubts about including AI robots or systems as a subset of self. With an electronic circuit that is either off or on, is there a place for unconscious? ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/31/03 11:51 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self: Consciousness & unconscious Hubertus said:"Charles, even unconscious memories in Freudian (and similar) theory must be memories, otherwise they could not be effective and not be brought out to the conscious. They are "there", while only "suppressed" into the "dungeons of the soul". At least "in principle" the energy supply could be a battery like in a laptop- or notebook-computer. Of course: Even two identical twins ("natural clones") are different from their memories and individual fates. This applies to clones generally as long as the memories are not permanently cloned too as in a mirror-disk safety-system. Hubertus" ----------------------------------------------- I think that Jung's view of the unconscious is more correct than Freud's. I think that proponents of Strong AI have got a lot of work to do on some concepts that challenge the mind just being neural circuits that have reached a certain level of complexity. Some of the concepts that challenge Strong AI are those of archetypes, symbolism, and myths. I also understand that while AI can handle chess, the game "go" is another matter. I think that Hubertus missed my point on the energy question re strong AI. I think that there needs to be a new engineering paradigm. The engineering science paradigm of Maxwell and Faraday and Lavoisier is not going to work when dealing with the problems of energy and advanced neuro circuits. The old engineering paradigm does not even know how to recognize or measure the energy involved. There may be some clues in the Eastern medical arts involving chi or ki though. Charley REPLIES (1): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 2:59 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on archetypes and energies Charles, this time perhaps I don't understand your arguments. You wrote: / I think that Jung's view of the unconscious is more correct than Freud's. I think that proponents of Strong AI have got a lot of work to do on some concepts that challenge the mind just being neural circuits that have reached a certain level of complexity. Some of the concepts that challenge Strong AI are those of archetypes, symbolism, and myths. I also understand that while AI can handle chess, the game "go" is another matter. / I am not acquainted with "Go". I think what you have in mind is that "go" is more "intuitive" and without those clearly defined "draws" of chess? And in a similar way the Archetypes are "forms" and not only "reflexes" or "reactions" to "stimuli"? But if this is your point, then your idea of modern computers may be outdated: Robots today do really see "images" and not only "points" or "coordinates". Those soccer playing robots really see the ball and the goal and the other "players" and don't simply work according to preprogrammed routines. Thus to use images instead of mere "procedures" is possible for moden robots. And those Jungian "archetypes" may not be useful anymore. Humans are "pre-programmed" by millions of years of natural evolution and selection. But that need not bother any robot when replacing humans. Compare the airplane. In the beginning 100 years back some constructions tried to imitate even the wings of the birds. But today - and since 90 years — the planes are completely irgnorant of animal ways of flying. No flying animal looks nearly like the airplane of the Red Baron. Why then should any AI-robot care what the human thinking is like? No flying animal is nearly as capable as a Jumbo-Jet or a C5-Galaxy or a "Blackbird" or a modern copter. Likewise there may be some day "intelligent" robots that are much more able than any human intelligence — just by working in a totally different way. Concerning the second point: / I think that Hubertus missed my point on the energy question re strong AI. I think that there needs to be a new engineering paradigm. The engineering science paradigm of Maxwell and Faraday and Lavoisier is not going to work when dealing with the problems of energy and advanced neuro circuits. The old engineering paradigm does not even know how to recognize or measure the energy involved. There may be some clues in the Eastern medical arts involving chi or ki though./ I don't understand your argument. Intermolecular energy working in the neuronal cells is not exactly what we no from steam-engines and electrical or combustion motors, but it's energy too and no problem for the physicist to handle and to calculate, only a bit strange and requiring another sort of mathematics. Much of artificial "pattern recognition" today is done with "neuronal networks" which require special sorts of mathematics and electronics, but are effective — while still not nearly as a human brain. I will look for a good link under Google to this. I am not sure if I understood your objections, thus I don't know if I have refuted or at least cleared them a bit. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (01/31/03 12:18 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: A practical use and value of philosophy. Some might argue that philosophy has no practical use. I may have a personal experience that counters that. I will confess that 10 years ago (before I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease), except for some political economics, I would have said that philosophy is generally a waste of time. Then I was probably a good example of the American tendency to overvalue immediate practicality. A benefit of Parkinson's Disease for me was that if forced me to slow down and deal with some questions that I had jumped over, especially philosophy of mind. My neurologist has suggested that I consider the possibility of DBS (deep brain stimulation) therapy for PD. I went to a seminar where another neurologist (a leading advocate of DBS) was making a presentation to PD patients. When he was asked "how did DBS work," he gave an honest answer that science really did not know. Because of my readings and thinking about philosophy of mind, I have some major doubts about even applying low electrical currents directly to the brain (as is done in DBS). What if the brain is not just a complex neuro circuit? I am going another direction. A local dog trainer is helping me search for a dog that would be a good candidate for being trained to be my mobility assistance dog. I think there is a question for ethics here to. How many PD patients in the Third World can afford DBS? A mobility assistance dog might be the appropriate solution for them also. Charles REPLIES (9): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:27 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on Deep Brain Stimulation Charles, the following is not directly on DBS or PD, but was stimulated by your remarks: Call philosophy a "DBS of the world brain of humanity". Philosophy makes us aware of facts and problems of the world and of our being in the world that don't meet the physical eye, but could and should meet the minds-eye. This is the general idea. There is a more special modern extension to this. Today we are aware of global climate-change and global financial transfers and global developments as seen from statistics and indicators etc.. But all this has become possible only by the use of computers. Humans simply are unable to handle those vast amounts of data needed for global simulation or for simulation of future trends. We no longer live in those good old days where 2experience of the chiefs" was sufficient to solve most problems. This requires a world that is nearly constant and where experience pays. In a rapidly changing world experience is nearly without worth, it even may be a hindrance. Then simulation models have to replace experience — or at least to complement it. Today all global players in politics and economics and the military use "trend-analysis" and "path-analysis" and "scenario-simulation" with variations of "worst case", "best case" and "most probable case" etc.. And this makes the computers humming. Thus even today the computers in special application surpass human "intelligence" by far! And the word itself is applicable here: Intelligence means insight. And today we need computers like mikroscopes and telescopes to get insights into vast heaps of data that would remain meaningless without those computers transforming the numbers into meaningful pictures. Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/01/03 3:36 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: more possible uses for philosophy When I asked, in that deliberately vague way, "can philosophy save the world?", in the responses posted there seemed to be some agreement that philosophy can help to improve the world / society; Michael suggested that it is "a means to help order and understand the world", and Charles wrote that it involves "using logic to understand the human condition". This sounded right to me — but when I tried to think of an example of a way in which philosophy had helped me to understand the world, or the human condition, I couldn't think of anything! I supposed that 'thinking about things' has helped me to avoid just doing the conventional thing and 'following the crowd' in some circumstances, but I wasn't sure whether this could really be called philosophy. This posting, Charles, is therefore of great interest to me, for here you give a specific example of how philosophy has helped you. I would like to ask — Can anyone else give an example? As for practical uses for philosophy: on holiday a couple of years ago, I wrote down my hopes for what so-called 'practical philosophy' (philosophy with children, adult philosophy groups and so on) might reasonably hope to achieve. The theme was clearly one of communication... I hoped... for people to be kinder to each other when one person expresses a view that the other doesn't hold. This is something like saying that people should be more tolerant; but I would want to retain the view that some opinions are still better than others. So perhaps, I hope that people would become more sympathetic to other people's points of view; or to other people, even if they don't like their points of view. for people to have thought about, and be able to give reasons why, they think or believe something. for people to be capable of expressing their views more clearly, both in speech and in writing. It's all very well listening to people, but if they can't articulate their ideas very well, the understanding between us will not advance very far! to help people find congenial friends — because if people said what they thought, you would know whether you agreed with them. Also to form deeper friendships with more people, because if you could trust others not to laugh at your attempts to express your thoughts and feelings, you could reveal even your most secret thoughts. for people to be prepared to talk about things even when they know they will disagree - for discussion of that disagreement to still be possible (eg. in politics, or between opposing groups of all kinds). FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 7:10 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: parkinson Hi Charles As far as I know Parkinson makes many actions very difficult. But I notice, you manage to think and use a pc to express your thoughts. Be aware how valuable this is. I myself am severely paralyzed, but notice that I'm not restricted as a philosopher. In fact my state is an advantage, because I can spend a lot of time on thinking. Be careful with this ability of thinking. If you lose that then you'll appreciate i's value. Dogs can be great fun, I myself have a female cat as friend, who nevers asks stupid questions FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: a not so stupid question from a tomcat Henk, the idea of Rachel and Charles after reading Lakoff ("Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things") seems to be, that to think you need a language, and to have a language you need a body, and while you and Charles and me are a bit defective now (I have bad ears) we all have grown up in a sensually rich environment with body and language as usual. The not so stupid question is, whether this theory of Lakoff is justified. What about Helen Keller? If you are interested then browse the web and get us others informed by some links on what is the general opinion on this: What is the state of the art in "mere robots" learning language without a "body". Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/03/03 2:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Nora and Tom Katherine, You asked for practical examples of philosophy helping people. There is a growing group of 'philosophical councillors) who help sort out peoples life problems. There is good read called 'Plato not Prozac' and I have put an extract from it in the documents section of this conference — it's called Nora and Tom. This is an area where I am very interested. Michael Ward FROM: Rachel Browne (02/04/03 1:33 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hubertus, the language thing is that learning needs another and something with which to interact so that you can use language correctly. So a robot might possess a language, but not a disembodied sphere. Don't know any links, but do believe this is the current state of thought on the matter. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 4:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on talking heads in spheres Rachel, if robots understand language — which they do not very good now — then floating spheres will too, since those are only robots in a special cover. And if my brain — or yours — could be put into the sphere, the brain would still be know how to use language and to read and learn and enter messages to this conference, since the sphere is only a replacement for the lost body. This at least was the idea. But until now it is not realizable because of all those technical problems of having a replacement for the blood circulation and immune-system necessary to held the brain alive. But a technical problem is not a principal problem. And to know what bodily experience is really needed you should ask for somebody who is paralized from neck down from the very first year of his life. There may be some such people around. Then ask what are the linguistic abilities of these people that never had bodily experiences of the usual sort. I know of a woman that got into this condition by car accident when she was a girl of 11. She is a completely normal personality of your age now, but of course with 11 she was no baby and knew how to speak. Thus ask a doctor and tell us the answer. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/07/03 10:07 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Huburtus, the technical problems are grave. Learning a language requires useage and correction which includes physical interaction with others (eg pointing), behaviour (body) and sense organs to perceive. So of course someone who has learnt a language like your 11 year old can speak language because it is already learnt. But how long will the world of disembodied spheres last without someone doing the implanting of brains? The implanters might just stop doing it. It wouldn't be a freely working world. And the brains will have to learn language in the real physically embodied world so it could not really exist as an independent realm. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/08/03 8:22 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: the end of the flying spheres Rachel, I think I will leave it thus for the moment. Besides the question who will build thoese spheres, I simply do not know this time — and nobody else does — what is really needed to learn a language. Of course for concept formation — if it not only formal concepts — you need some experience. You have to see some horses hopping around to get the concept of a horse. But the you generalize: To imagine a unicorn you need not see a unicorn, you simply fancy it in your mind. Little children must see any sort of animal to imagine all the rest. But of course their imagination will be more vivid if they are out to the zoo or to the farm to see in reality what they only knew from books. But while they never will see dragons or unicorns those may be the most impressive animals on their minds. And while they never have seen God or his angels, those too may be the most impressive persons on their minds. Thus once more: What is "reality"? we simply do not know what robots some day will take reality to be. But we know that they are able to play soccer without being guided by humans. They move and behave like playing animals. Why should they — the robots — not become "thinking" animals some time? But I will not speculate on this. I will leave it thus as an open question. Hubertus ----------------------------------------------- FROM: henk tuten (02/01/03 6:46 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy hi folks I must say I really appreciate this kind of conferencing. But let's come to the point: Concerning democracy I'm convinced that that there are many more visions on the subject than only the formal one. I don't want to influence anybody, but is it fair to give everybody 1 vote (that's something else than respecting every opinion. I would be delighted if a lot of you gave in a few lines their own opinion about the weakness of democracy as it functions now. (the strong points are stressed often enough). If you need more lines than send me an email on: htuten@daxis.nl If this gives interesting views, than I plan to use these ideas in an article on democracy (if you want mentioning origins of ideas) Please think about the subject some time, and let me know your brain waves. REPLIES (3): FROM: Rachel Browne (02/01/03 1:38 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Welcome! Impressed by your intro on the philosophers gallery! Are you talking about democracy, the political system? How can we think it about unless in comparison to other political systems? Are we to think of democracy as it is, or is there an ideal? You don't think this might lead to references to Nazism, do you? Because this has been banned, undemocratically. R FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/01/03 3:59 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: defining "democracy" Henk, in the times of Socrates in Athens, only free male citizens had a voice — no women, no unfree, no strangers. Was it a democracy? Similar in most European states even after the French Revolution. Generally womens suffrage was introduced between 1880 and 1920 - gradually. On the other hand: In the "peoples democracies" people had nearly nothing to choose, they only had to nod and to accept the proposals of the Communist Party. As a pragmatist I am always interested in results, not in labelling. If the label on the box says "democracy" I open the box to see what is in't. And most time it is disappointing. There was a film as of 1970 showing protesters against the Vietnam-war and calling the proposers of the war "Nazis" (Rachel forgive). But the war was not escalated by "Nazis" but by two very respected, and by due process of law in the leading liberal democracy elected, democratic presidents — Kennedy and Johnson. Who then was "anti-democratic" here: the supporters or the opponents of the war? So much this time on "democracy" from Hubertus FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/09/03 9:22 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: thoughts on democracy Out for a walk this morning, I met a man walking his dog who was keen to chat. He had obviously had much involvement in local and national politics, and was planning to stand as a local councillor. His view was that local councillors should, in their voting on issues, express not the views of their political party, nor their own views, but those of their constituents, who they supposedly represent. He believed that councillors should be able to vote independently. I agree with that so far, but it raises 2 questions for me: 1: Should we listen to everyone's views equally? Aren't some people better qualified to give their views on issues than others? For example, a large teaching centre is proposed to be built near where I live, at an area of open space of great environmental and archaeological importance. Presumably a professional naturalist or scientist would understand the possible environmental impact better than me. Should the feelings of the unintelligent and ill-informed about issues influence what is done? 2: People usually don't all agree — so is it democratic to do what the majority want, thus annoying the minority; or should you try to reach a compromise, possibly displeasing everybody; or may the minority not sometimes have the best idea?! Hope these thoughts are useful. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/02/03 6:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Self Rachel said: "Am putting dog on airplane to Spokane. Big chap with large ears. Will look hungry. And will be crying. R" I regret to inform you Rachel that your dog did not arrive in Spokane. (At least "Customs" has not called me yet.) But maybe he got off the plane in Chicago, transferred to Amtrak, and is now on his way to Montana to dance with the wolves. I hope that they do not eat him! ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/06/03 7:04 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Determination of political truth. I am not submitting this in order to start a partisan political debate, although I am going to put forward a recent political example. I hope that it initiates a reasonable and courteous discussion about the means, if any, that philosophy may provide to ordinary people to determine what is true from a distance. Can we, and if so how do we determine who is telling the truth here? Does one's nationality make any philosophical difference? Philosophically does it make any difference if one or neither party is telling the truth? On February 5th at the United Nations, American Secretary of State Colin Powell presented what he said were electronic intercepts of conversations between Iraqi military commanders and their subordinates and satellite images of bio-chemical military facilities. Less than two hours later, Lt.General Amir Saadi of Iraq said: "a typical American show ...any third rate intelligence outfit could produce such a recording...It is simply untrue and not genuine." Before that, Iraq's information minister Mohammed Saeed Sahaf dismissed the satellite images "as no more than cartoon films." Is their any use and value of philosophy here? REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/07/03 4:20 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on truth and trust Charles, while there surely is some truth anywhere, only you and me don't get at it. Saddam Hussein may know and Powell may know, but we don't. So the real problem this moment for the audience is whom to trust. We are the jury, and we try to find out who is lying, the defendant or the accuser. Many or most Democrats and leftists will distrust Bush and his top executives including Powell now, but many or most Republicans will trust them. From a philosophical point of view this is how we approach reality: We never know anything for sure. Some trust in God, but others — like Mike — think he is a mere fancy. Thus it all depends on the frame of reference. If the source is not — or seems not - trustworthy, the message seems neither. The problem of Saddam Hussein may be that he does not seem trustworthy to most people. But there are quite a few people now even in the West, that think even Saddam Hussein is more trustworthy than GWBush — and that is a bad situation. Hubertus FROM: henk tuten (02/09/03 6:01 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: truths Hi Charles Seen from 'a distance' there are 2 truths involved. The American one and the general Moslem one. I certainly think that Saddam Hussein is ready to be removed, but what I see in reality is a clash between two world orthodoxs views (the death denying and violence admiring view of American leaders, and the Allah worshipping view of Iraqee orthodoxs). Both can in their own world be true at the same time. Real commucition supposes to find a new view that is a acceptable compromise. Not only acceptable in the English language, but in Arabian too. Mind that billions of people rely on Arabian as their first language. This way of communicating inherently supposes basic views on society. Maybe right now English and Arabian are in that way partly un-translatable. Tactics: Maybe acknowledge the in broad opinion fake reason of the Americans to remove Saddam Hussein. But then criticize the present way of accomplishing that. That way they get trapped in their own reasoning. So don't focus on trying to prevent the war, but try seriously to prevent innocent deaths. FROM: Katharine Hunt (02/09/03 9:30 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: who might be lying? It seems to me that not only may both Powell and General Amir be lying, but so may the media who report these things to us. Manipulation of what ordinary people are told about what's going on is common in wartime. In this case, philosophy is telling me not only to beware of trusting politicians who may have all kinds of reasons for lying, whichever side they happen to be on, but also to avoid accepting things as true just because they're reported in the media. What philosophy definitely isn't doing for me is giving me any way of deciding what the truth about the situation might be. ----------------------------------------------- FROM: henk tuten (02/08/03 10:04 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: democracy (continued) I noticed that my first question needed explanation. My own thoughts about democracy I wrote down in: http://huizen.daxis.nl/~henkt/democracy-essay.html I ask everybody to give his/her own opinion. Not about the formal view on democracy, but about what might be serious flaws in the basic system ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Rachel Browne (02/09/03 2:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Ugh, this whole war thing is SO corrupt. Of course, Katherine, philsophy can't help with the truth! It's politics. It's bound to be an oil thing or something to detract attention from something else — America's dismal problem in Palestine or something. Where we live in London in an Arab area there is no ill feeling. It is not about people — not from where we are. R REPLIES (3): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/09/03 7:11 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: It's never the people Rachel, remember that on the very day — 9-11 — Bush visited an islamic mosque in NY after the assaults to demonstrate that he did not hate the Islamic religion or the Islamic minorities in the USA. Likewise in Germany there is generally no hate in either direction. But there are some simple facts: (1) The people are never asked anywhere — neither by the terrorists nor by the leaders. The 99% confirmation of Saddam Hussein was just as much a farce as the similar outcomes for Stalin or Castro or Kim Jong-il. (2) Like the Germans who elected Hitler in 1932 the Islamic people are generally disturbed and humiliated by the transition to modernity which devalues their old ways and the wisdom of the elderly. Thus they are resentful and hate western powers. (3) At the same time a growing number of people in the islamic stated wants to become "modern", to study what they want, to travel where they want to go, to marry whom they want, etc.. So they are torn between respect for the elderly and impatient waiting for a new era of pride and strength. This conflict makes many of them crazy. It is the same situation as has been in the first years of Hitler here: The old reactionaires found themselves as strange bedfellows to young and eager engineers that wanted to build the most modern aircraft and autos and other technical devices. Thus the present was torn between the past and the future. Thus in my opinion it is neither on oil nor on religion, but on "modernization and its discontents." The Bush-people really hope as true Americans to bring democracy to the poor suppressed Iraqui as they did before to the poor suppressed Germans and to the poor suppressed Japanese and Koreans. And the tragic thing is: At least the Germans, the Japanese, and the Koreans are really and honestly thankful for that today — and they know by experience why they should be. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/10/03 12:07 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Truth When I wonder if the world is approaching George Orwell's '1984,' my antidote is a mixture of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and Milovan Djilas. Solzhenitsyn's writings, especially 'The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation' and 'The First Circle,' and Djilas' 'The New Class,' 'Conversations with Stalin,' 'The Unperfect Society: Beyond The New Class,' and his short stories helped convince me that there is a way to determine 'what is true.' It is interesting to me that these are 'literary investigations' rather than the works of philosophers. My guess is that modern and post modern skepticism dominates Western philosophy today, interfering with useful historical and political analysis and the establishment of a practical ethics. FROM: Charles (02/12/03 9:21 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: The Gulag Collection See "The Gulag Collection" by the artist Nikolai Getman: http://russia.jamestown.org/getman/gulag_collection.htm ----------------------------------------------- FROM: Charles (02/12/03 10:42 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: On clinging to religion. Hubertus said: "there is no "past" here. People will always "experience" spiritual and religious things, as do Jean and Charles, who both don't feel outdated by this. In the experience of any true believer God is not a past idea he or she clings to, but a reality here and now, and very much alive and kicking. The difference is not between past and present but between seeing and not seeing, feeling and not feeling, being aware and being not aware. Of course you may say "they are seeing and feeling not God but mere spirits or fancies" — but how will you prove that? And surely they — Jean and Charles and the others — would not care. Hubertus" I agree with what Hubertus said here, except I think that the connotation of "would not care" is a little too harsh. (But then English can be a harsh language.) Is "hope" an appropriate idea for philosophical discussion? REPLIES (12): FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/12/03 6:10 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: faith, hope, charity, these three (1st.Cor.13, 13) Charles, surly hope is one of the deepest philosophical concepts. The famous German Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977) wrote some 2000 pages on "Das Prinzip Hoffnung" ("The Principle of Hope") which is on all sorts of messianistic hopes from the Antiquity to Marx and beyond. We alway live on hopes of all sorts. The whole Christian religion is on this from Paulus to St.Augustine and Joachim of Floris to Luther and to the Lutheran Hegel and from Hegel to Marx and Marcuse. Hope is one of the greatest concepts and driving forces of WESTERN philosophy. Buddhism doesnt know it, not even Islam does — since Islam knows of no redeemer or salvator. Thus hope is a very Judeo-Christian concept. But it got a bit out of sight by positivism and pragmatism and analytical philosophy which overall have made a grey spinster of a once juicy and ebullient Ms.Philosophy. Hubertus FROM: Charles (02/13/03 1:16 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: re Ernst Bloch I notice that the "Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy" says Ernst Bloch's views "went beyond Marxism as he matured." It describes his views: "Humans are essentially unfinished, moved by a cosmic impulse,'hope,' a tendency in them to strive for the as yet unrealized, which manifests itself as utopia or vision of future possibilities." FROM: Charles (02/13/03 2:54 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Atheist as Christian? Interesting concept (see below), but I wonder if it is wishful thinking on both Moltmann's and Bloch's part? ----------------------------------------------- Atheism in contemporary Theology J�rgen Moltmann: on Ernst Bloch "An interview with J�rgen Moltmann" by Miroslav Volf, in Communities of faith and radical discipleship: J�rgen Moltmann and others, edited by G. McLeod Bryan (Mercer University: Macon, Georgia 1986) Volf: ... Where do you see parallels and differences between Bloch's book and your Theology of Hope? Moltmann: Commonality and parallels between the two books exist wherever Bloch thinks Jewish or messianic. His deepest roots, I believe, lie in the messianism of the Jewish tradition from which he unconsciously lives. This is especially obvious in his first book, Geist der Utopie. It ends with a prayer. Later he abandoned these religious-messianic overtones and sometimes appeared to be banally atheistic. We clarified our differences once in this way: In Das Prinzip Hoffnung Bloch speaks of transcending, but without transcendence; in Theology of Hope I speak of transcending with transcendence. Bloch has written a book about atheism and Christianity [Atheism in Christianity (Continuum, 1972)]; it first appeared with the subtitle "Only an Atheist Can Be a Good Christian." I mentioned that it should be the other way around: only a Christian can be a good atheist. Bloch then used that statement as the second subtitle of his book. He meant that only an atheist who does not worship false religious and economic gods can be a good Christian. I meant that only a Christian who believes in the crucified Jesus is free from the pressure to create gods and idols for himself. On this issue Bloch and I have come near to each other. 10 FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/13/03 4:21 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on hope and expectations Charles, I hope our exchange on "hope" will bring the conference to its PHILOSOPHICAL life again for a while. But the others should engage a bit too — or suggest another important topic. As I said we still live in the "Era of Enlightenment". Whereas before ca. 1700 everything was argued with reference to God, since then everything is argued with a reference to the "hopefully" better future. Of course there has been some transition. Before God "vanished" from the philosophical stage (which surely was not Nietzsches fault) there was some hope to save him by some arguments of "immanence": God showing his power not by the (then discredited) churches but by his creation. This was the position of Newton and of Spinoza and of their deist and pantheist contemporaries. But if God is immanent to his creation, one may omit God altogether and be content with studying nature. And by this God eventually vanished. Now what about hope then? Hegel thought that the World Spirit realized himself in the march of history. This was "entelechy" in a grand scale like with St.Augustine and Joachim. This still was "hope", while not so much hope of a final redemption, not the great expectation of Gods return in his glory in the End of Days. And once more the personal God vanished with Schopenhauer: He dismissed Hegels vision of the World Spirit realizing himself in the march of history as an utmost rubbish. Life in Schopenhauers reading was a meaningless struggle and striving without any hope. This also was the conviction of Nietzsche who admired Schopenhauer, and it was the convicition of most of the great historians of the 19th century. Thus hope changed from God to humankind: Not God but the humans would be responsible for their future. Not God would come in the end of days to judge the living and the dead, but a better future would come by human work and inventiveness. This was the idea of liberalism and socialism likewise. And this was the idea of Marx and Bloch too. Moltmanns idea "that only a Christian who believes in the crucified Jesus is free from the pressure to create gods and idols for himself" is very good (but maybe Mike will not be convinced). I heared Moltmann when I studied one semester of protestant theology in the summer of 1961. Bloch was just for a visit in Western Germany — FRG — and then stayed there, because he got trouble with the eastern communist party — GDR. And Moltmann, then a young "leftish" theologian in an era full of new hope in the West, was eager to contact Bloch. It was the first summer of Kennedy — but it was at the same time the summer of the Berlin Wall (August 21, 1961). And it was the first summer of the "Sixties" — with Beatlemania and Marcusean Revolt etc., where Moltmann and Bloch fitted neatly. Today there is not much hope left. Today most people — even the young ones — have become cynics. While the "Red Scare" seems dead, the capitalist liberalism after Enron and WorldCom and the other great stock frauds and after the Asian Crisis (1997) and the Argentinian Crisis (2002) and the now 10-years Japanese "crisis" has lost all glamour for some time, thus even there is not much hope. The next Kondratjev has to gain force now. But a growing number of people is hoping more for a new spiritual force like in the 60s and not so much for a new "Kondratjev-force". Thus hope seems to be numbed this time and for some more years to come. And we are not sure what to hope for. The hope for "the resurrection and return of Christ" is not the hope for "the resurrection and return of the stock-market" — and both are not the hope for a "more decent and humane society". But this latter was the great hope of the "Age of Improvement" or the "Age of Enlightenment" 250 years ago. Thus we live in an age of disillusioned hopes today, in an "age of diminished expectations" as it has been called. But this still is — in my opinion — an era of worldly hope much more than an era of spiritual or religious hope. There is no way back. Hubertus FROM: Rachel Browne (02/13/03 4:48 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: I think hope is a deep human emotion which we can't do without. Whether it is philosophical or not I don't know. What does that mean? Faith and truth are important to us too. On the war, Charles, currently the army are at Heathrow airport and radio discussion is whether this is a publicity stunt so that we feel we are in danger so we will support Blair in the war. Which hardly anyone seems to. We are cynical. But how can we have faith or believe we know the truth or have any hope, feeling duped? But we're off on hols soon and wars always start when we're on holiday, so expect it before March 8. R FROM: Michael Ward (02/15/03 11:26 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hoping for a reply:-) What is hope, is it a feeling of desire for something combined with confidence in the possibility of its fulfilment? Hope seems to require us to have belief in freewill. By this I mean that the ability to hope is sustained by our belief in our ability to take actions resulting in realising those hopes. Were we all to be fervent determinists then we, as a group, couldn't logically hold onto the idea of hope because all future events would happen irrespective of our desires. In a fully determined world like it or not I will win the lottery if that's my fate. Many people believe that the future is written — so how can they have hope for anything different to what will be? Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/15/03 6:00 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on fate and hope Mike, since I dont believe in determinism — and found all proofs wanting and false — I have no problems with hope. And you should be consequent: If everything is determined, then my hope is determined too, then not only my winning in the lottery is guaranteed since eons, but my hope of it is likewise. Some weeks ago I introduced — with links — those robots playing soccer. I wanted to show that to have robots display meaningful behaviour they need no soul — or else you have to concede them those. Thus I wanted to show that this is a meaningless struggle. If animals have a soul, then robots have too, and if robots don't need a soul to play soccer, then animals don't need a soul either. Philosophers waste too much time with pseudo-problems. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/16/03 1:41 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: You would say that wouldn't you! Hubertus You wrote: 'If everything is determined, then my hope is determined too, then not only my winning in the lottery is guaranteed since eons, but my hope of it is likewise.' The very point I was trying to make is that Determinism and Hope are incompatible. If you truly believe in Determinism then all your actions and ideas should reflect that and give up hoping. I am not convinced either way but I recognise that my wanting freewill will not make it so. I think Determinism /Freewill is a real problem particularly when it comes to crime and punishment. Michael Ward FROM: Hubertus Fremerey (02/16/03 2:54 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: on crime and punishment and free will Mike, to held somebody responsible for his/her deeds need not even "free will". There have been cultures or subcultures where even animals and objects could be ritualistically punished for some "deed", just like little children beat their puppets or things if those have "done them wrong". I must say that for me the whole topic of free will is not very interesting. This caused my example of those robots playing soccer: While a chess-playing robot is calculating at least according to strict rules, ther are no such rules in soccer, i.e. in PLAYING soccer. There are movements and tactics. Of course even then the robots are calculating, but not predetermined "draws" but "most efficient moevements". This is like going from binary logics to fuzzy logics, but not to mere chance. If you pose a robot in front of a situation and he starts calculating many possible reactions as in a soccer move, is this "by necessity" or "by chance"? I find this freedom-determination thing without value. It does not solve a single problem in my opinion. People that are buidling robots for playing soccer surely are not concerned about this freedom-determination thing — they need not be. Hubertus FROM: Michael Ward (02/21/03 3:31 AM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Reasons to hate. Hubertus, Freewill, or the ability to freely choose, is crucial in the reason for punishment. If Hitler was determined (by determinism) to carry out all the deeds he did then he had no ability to choose otherwise and whilst people will despise him for his acts they cannot hold him responsible for choosing to act as he did. So if determinism is true you cannot punish people to change their future behaviour as it is already fixed — maybe not known but still nevertheless fixed. Michael Ward FROM: Rachel Browne (07/06/03 1:48 PM GMT -06:00) SUBJECT: Hope and freedom Have just returned from a wonderful holiday in Sardinia. And coming onto the conference the first thing that came up was Michael's message on hope. Obviously I haven't got the hang of this. Seems to be dated 2.25.03. But I don't think hope is a desire, rather it is a state and isn't connected to free will and our actions because we can hope for events beyond our control. Many people hope to win the lottery. Whether or not determinism is true, we don't know and continue in our natural attitudes and states regardless. I believe in fate actually and I hope it is good. Why should I hope for anything "different" when I don't know what my fate is? I just hope, and being optimistic, expect the future will be good until illness sets in. But Hubertus! You say "if animals have a soul robots do too" — I can't even be bothered to comment on something so repugnant (Hume's word). Then you coup