From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The Weak Anthropic Priniciple (was Re: Next?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:56:00 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1993Jan22.082605.18903@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Now this I find interesting, and it may even belong in this newsgroup.
Like you, I'm not certain that this thread still belongs here or not...
since it seems to be dieing out, because I think we agree with each other
really, let's leave it here for the moment.
(Apologies to readers who disagree with us).

>Previously I spoke of zombielike nature of 20th century man, and
>I think that one of the prime causes of that is that we are constantly
>being bombarded with context-free factoids.
But they're not *so* context-free, as you point out in your own posting.

>Instead, all we can do is to choose either to believe them or not, and
>usually we do that unconsciously based on which authority the pronouncements
>supposedly originated from, or on their emotional appeal.  So for example,
>if Dupont can pay a bunch of scientists to say that the hole in the
>ozone layer is harmless, I might tend to believe that because it's what I
>would like to believe, and because everybody knows that scientists
>wouldn't lie, or couldn't have ideological blinders on.
And... you could have added... if the tobacco importers pay a bunch of
scientists to show that smoking isn't so harmful to health, and if
butter manufacturers pay for a study into how polyunsaturated fats aren't
of any relevence either, etc, etc, etc.

> I figure that
>we all have our heads so full of these factoids, many of them contradictory,
>that our capacity for thought (consciousness?) is greatly diminished.
I disagree.
The statements "Ozone holes aren't harming life on earth",
"Tobacco smoking doesn't give you lung cancer", "Butter doesn't harden your
arteries" are said in the implicit context that "It has become widely believed
that ozone holes are harming life on earth, that tobacco smoke gives you lung
cancer, that butter causes hardened arteries".  As you say, every listener is
aware of contradictory nature of the evidence, and that something funny is
going on somewhere that needs further investigation before anything can be taken
as being conclusive, and fact.  I don't think that this point is missed
by many in the populations of our two countries.

>So I try not to let them sneak in without a real close examination,
>and it is this process of standing on guard against propaganda that
>I associate with consciousness.
>Now you're telling me that this is a risky path?  Why?
No I'm not.  Not this.
What worried me more was that you seemed to be claiming that mankind
had no 'special place' in the universe.  That, ignoring religious
thinking *and* scientific thinking, you were saying that you were setting off
on your own to fathom the truth of the universe.  I think you'd agree
(I hope you'd agree) that taken to extreme, one thinker alone is prone
to making all sorts of errors, with no-one around to correct him.
You also seem to agree that blind faith in a group-held belief is also
prone to error.  The happy medium is the safest approach (humble independent
thinking mixed with skeptical group belief).

>One of the things that gives me nightmares is the thought of western
>civilization humming along for over 1000 years without anybody ever
>questioning the veracity of a certain collection of dogma.  Nobody ever
>questioned it because everybody else believed it.
I don't share your nightmare.
I don't think that investigative scientists are like that.
Like journalists, they purposely seek out the long held 'truths' for
investigation, *because* it would give them such a kick (==fame==money)
if they could make it crack.

>My apologies if this is an irrelevant rant.
Me too.

This newsgroup seems to have been blown of course.  (Partly be me, I admit)

Perhaps, someone ought to think of something controversial or stimulating
to say about consciousness... to distract us from continuing to debate
science vs other modes of thinking :-)
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all