X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:14:43 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:14:43 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 921211191443
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:14:43 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      Science & Religion

[From Rick Marken (921211.1000)]

Oded Maler (921212)
                           ^^ Really?

>Why, for instance, is it important at all to have a theory of
>human behavior?

The right question! Asking it implies that this goal exists to satisfy
some higher order goal. Once you can see the goal "have a theory of
human behavior" FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of the system that
has that higher order goal, then you can see that it is just one of
many different goals that you might have selected to achieve it
-- even if you never actually realize what that higher order goal is.
That's what I mean by arbitrary -- just knowing that there are options.
From the point of view of the system controlling for the theory itself,
the goal "have a theory of human behavior" is not arbitrary; that's all
the system cares about. Same with more personal goals; eg. from
the point of view of the system that has the goal "be a christian"is not
an arbitrary goal-- it MUST be achieved; it is the only "right" thing to do.
You have to go up a level to see that this is just one of many goals that
might have been selected. That still doesn't mean that you can go and
arbitrarily select goals -- just as you cannot arbitrarily select the force
that
is used to produce the perception "lifted suitcase"; it depends on how much
the suitcase weights. "Be a christian" might be the only goal that works in
the context of one's existing hierarchy of goals and currect circumstances
to satisfy the higher order goal. But, if you can "go up a level" you can at
least see that "be a christian" is something you select -- not really
something
that "must be true". As Bill P. says, its a matter of changing the "point of
view" of one's consciousness. Read his chapter about it in "Living Control
Systems II". This "point of view" change can be done (at least, I can do
it -- though not always easily). And its worth the experience -- trust me,
I'm a doctor.

Ed Ford (121210) --

> "To those who believe, no explanation is necessary; to
> those who don't, no explanation is possible."

Apparently, that's true. What I want to understand is why this is
true. I want an explanation of believing itself, whatever the beliefs
themselves might be. By the way, Hitler believed that it was a great
idea to kill every Jew, communist and homosexual -- and, indeed, no
explanation was necessary. Many of the people that Hitler killed believed
 in a God who considered them special and "chosen" -- and, indeed, for
them, no explanation is now possible.

>It depends on whether, for a particular individual, his/her
>religion presents a conflict.

I didn't mean that religion is a problem because it creates
intrapersonal conflict. I'm sure most devout people are quite
unconflicted about their religious beliefs. The problem with
religion (and other high level goals of the same sort that become
fixed -- ethnicities, nationalities, etc) is INTERPERSONAL
CONFLICT. I don't know if you've looked at you paper lately
but mine is FILLED with violent, interpersonal conflicts over
religions (india, balkans, mid-east) nationality (mid east, masadonia,
balkans), ethnicity (somalia), etc. So people are fighting their
brains out to defend perfectly arbitrary goals; I consider this a
problem -- and one that is so unnecessary that it is unbelievable.
And the solution, of course, is for each person to be able to
see that their own ethnic, religious, national, etc goals, though
important to themselves, are perfectly arbitrary; that it's like
arguing over whether cars should be driven on the left or right.
Geeez.

I said

>>When you get up there you will see that chosing a religion,
>>ethnicity, nationality, etc is just as useful (and arbitrary) as
>>chosing a nice book to settle in with on a rainy day; sometimes
>>you want a romance and sometimes only a thriller will do.

Ed says:

>Again, "you will see" refers to what you perceive not what everyone
>will perceive "when you get up there."

I'm seeing of you can go up a level -- not change your religious goals.
Try this. Imagine that you were born Ed Greenberg instead of Ed Ford
into an Orthodox Jewish family in flatbush. You have a loving family and
warm relations with your friends. Really try to imagine it.

Now, do you think you would be sitting here now, convinced that Jesus
Christ is God become Man (leaving aside, for the moment, the question
of whether or not he is).  Since you say:

>My own particular religion is based on fact,
>not fiction.  It is also based on 50 years of thought, study,
>research, and lots of reading.

I have to wonder whether your religious conclusions would have been that same
if
you had done this study and research as Ed Greenberg.

>More importantly, the CSGnet is NOT
>the time nor place to discuss such matters.

I disagree. I sense resistence to disturbance here. But you can just avoid
reading the religious posts. To me, religion is (as I said before) just
something that people do -- like being a control theorist. PCT is trying
to understand ALL of human behavior -- and religion is certainly one
of the most important (and troublesome) things that people do. I think it
should not only NOT be off limits for the net -- it should be something we
in PCT try desperately to understand.

Best

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU