From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:46:54 GMT

In article <BvE7wy.B9s@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <BvD5ut.JIw@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <BvB6qr.L42@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>>That sounds like so much marxist/Skinnerian anti-free will claptrap.  I have
>>>>the beliefs I do because I can think and I have looked at the facts and I have
>>>>drawn certain conclusions.

>>> Ahh, the self-made-mam!   Mr. Yoder seems to think that if he were born
>>> with different genes, in a different time, in a different culture, that
>>> he would have reached the same conclusions about the world, or at least
>>> reached them in the same way.   Perhas he would care to provide some 
>>> evidence for this.

>>What I know is that mental contents are not dependent on race or chronology.

>  There's a lot more to the world than race and chronology!

That's what I am saying, but even more.  One's race and chronology has
NOTHING directly to do with one's ideas.  Now, living in a scientific age
gives one access to more and better information than might be available in
a primitive village, but such availability of information certainly has nothing
to do with the question of free will.

>>              My ideas are NOT determined by my culture (if they were,
>>how can you explain my disagreements with that culture?).

>  Because "culture" is not monolithic.   You were not exposed to
>  *precisely* the same ideas in *precisely* the same order or with
>  *precisely* the same emphasis as everyone else. Even two identical
>  twins are not subject to *precisely* the same environment.  And
>  in any case you are not the identical twin of everyone else.

What you are saying here is that people do not look at facts and reason about
what they have seen.  No, more than that, you are saying that people do not
and cannot base their ideas on facts and reason.  The issue that got us 
started on this was that I made some statement and someone discounted it as
being wrong because it was just of cultural conditioning rather than 
reason and observation.  If you can't observe and think, you cannot really
know anything about reality.  If all you can do is parrot the ideas of 
your neighbors, you can never really have anything factual to say, since the
basis of your ideas is not reality.

>  Look, the brain is a biological or biochemical phenomenon.  In
>  that sense it's just wetware.   Why do you insist on ascribing
>  to it these unique properties (or do you think that all biological
>  systems have them?).

But the brain IS a "unique" phenomenon.  There are lots of biological systems
out there, but only the human one can use conceptual abstractions and make
choices based on them.

>>If you think this is the case though, why bother reading USENET?  It obviously
>>cannot have any effect on your genetic and culturally-defined ideas.  Why
>>don't you just leave since you cannot be changed by these ideas?

>  This is idiotic.  Where do I suggest that my environment cannot change
>  me?

That depends on what you mean by environment.  Your environment doesn't
just automatically generate your ideas by osmosis (or at least, it shouldn't).
You need to be an active participant in that process.  The process of looking
at facts, reasoning about them, and reaching conclusions is what you
(or whoever) criticized as being naive.

>>>  At least.   Humans are complex, who knows how they turn out the way
>>>  they do?   But there has been some interesting research which I posted
>>>  here a while back, suggesting that humans' brains are optimized for  
>>>  solving problems in terms of social hierachies, rather than the
>>>  rationality that some people like to think.  

>>What do you mean by "in terms of social hierarchies"?  What I know is that when
>>I look at an issue, I think about it by reasoning.

>  What do you mean by "reasoning"?   

Are you unaware of the idea?  No wonder your postings make such sense. ;-)

Do you seriously not know what reason is?

What do you mean by "thinking in terms of social hierarchies"?  Do you mean
people parrot the ideas of their social superiors?  If so, do you think that
this is necessarily true, or a common mistake which could change?

>> If you "think about" things by appeals to social hierarchies rather than to
>> reason.  If you don't want to look at the facts and don't want to use reason,
>> then why should I bother wasting my time talking to you?

>  Obviously if you REALLY used reaoning you would make an effort to be
>  familiar with current research on this topic and wouldn't say such
>  foolish/uninformed things.  

It is not that I am unaware of such ideas.  I just think they are false.  See,
I have the capability to think for myself and refuse to go along with the
conventional wisdom.

>  There has been a great deal of research
>  in HOW people "reason" about problems.  

I have read some of that and I very much disagree with how they interpret their
results.

>  For a layman's introduction
>  to this topic see the article _A Critique of Pure Reason_ in the July
>  4th issue of The Economist, for instance.   Another good layman's 
>  book is _Society of Mind_.  

I have not read the Economist article (but I did read Kant's abomination by
the same name, and I didn't think much of it either).  As for Society of
Mind, I have reasd it, and I have read Marvin Minsky's posts here in USENET
and I think his philosophical position is hopelessly wrong at a very 
fundamental level.  Gee, isn't he a member of my "social hierarchy"?
How is it that I have come to disagree with him? 

--Brian
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA