The Many Faces of US Politics...

[The Iceman]

Unfortunately much of that article is true

Its all true!

And the internet and proliferation of niche news is only exacerbating the problem. You can get all of your news and opinion today filtered through whatever poticial or social lens you prefer and never be exposed to contradictory or opposing opinions. Jingoism and scientific illiteracy are rampant. I see it even in work colleagues who are otherwise fine intelligent people.

And its no accident that formerly impressive channels such as the Discovery Channel and History channel etc. have embraced this anti-intellectual approach in their offerings, with bilge about ancient aliens, big foot, mermaids, ghost hunters and so on and on.

The irony is you are looking through a lens of humanism, atheism, naturalism. This is the author of the blog:
Our Humanity, Naturally presents issues of life, society, and philosophy from the naturalistic standpoint of Humanism. A progressive philosophy of positive values without dogma and superstition, Humanism is becoming more prevalent among those concerned about anti-intellectual and dysfunctional trends in modern society. Our Humanity, Naturally applies Humanist concepts to a wide array of personal and social issues, demonstrating that there are pragmatic answers to many of the big (and little) challenges of contemporary life.

Your lens is just as guilty as everyone else is for spinning bias. Just because you say we are not biased, everyone else is not intelligent doesn't give it anymore weight than anyone's opinion?

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here Iceman.

That NO opinions are valid because EVERYONE has some biases?

If so, that is clearly not the case. Facts are facts.  If you dismiss them for no valid reason,  your opinion is clearly less worthy. Using a snowball to argue against climate change is clearly an anti-intellectual, dishonest, cynical,  pandering stance.

Where do those facts come from J70 - when presented through a naturalist lens as the author of the blog claims to view the world through? Naturalism stands on the foundation that everything is matter and only matter. That our thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains. The naturalist universe is mindless - yet humans are self aware. The naturalist universe is meaningless, yet we perceive meaning everywhere. The naturalist universe is hopelessly deterministic (we're just slowly moving away from the original big bang, spinning atoms, simply matter), yet we are free.....

Looking at the world through a naturalist lens doesn't seem to carry much weight when the greatest naturalist minds are the first to point out that all of our ideas are nothing but the result of electro-chemical processes in our brains (which is very different from the laws of reason and logic). In the naturalist world - whatever is, is.

We all have bias -whether we admit to it or not. Facts are facts. But in a naturalist world those facts are meaningless. Just saying...

[J70]

Unfortunately much of that article is true

Its all true!

And the internet and proliferation of niche news is only exacerbating the problem. You can get all of your news and opinion today filtered through whatever poticial or social lens you prefer and never be exposed to contradictory or opposing opinions. Jingoism and scientific illiteracy are rampant. I see it even in work colleagues who are otherwise fine intelligent people.

And its no accident that formerly impressive channels such as the Discovery Channel and History channel etc. have embraced this anti-intellectual approach in their offerings, with bilge about ancient aliens, big foot, mermaids, ghost hunters and so on and on.

The irony is you are looking through a lens of humanism, atheism, naturalism. This is the author of the blog:
Our Humanity, Naturally presents issues of life, society, and philosophy from the naturalistic standpoint of Humanism. A progressive philosophy of positive values without dogma and superstition, Humanism is becoming more prevalent among those concerned about anti-intellectual and dysfunctional trends in modern society. Our Humanity, Naturally applies Humanist concepts to a wide array of personal and social issues, demonstrating that there are pragmatic answers to many of the big (and little) challenges of contemporary life.

Your lens is just as guilty as everyone else is for spinning bias. Just because you say we are not biased, everyone else is not intelligent doesn't give it anymore weight than anyone's opinion?

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here Iceman.

That NO opinions are valid because EVERYONE has some biases?

If so, that is clearly not the case. Facts are facts.  If you dismiss them for no valid reason,  your opinion is clearly less worthy. Using a snowball to argue against climate change is clearly an anti-intellectual, dishonest, cynical,  pandering stance.

Where do those facts come from J70 - when presented through a naturalist lens as the author of the blog claims to view the world through? Naturalism stands on the foundation that everything is matter and only matter. That our thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains. The naturalist universe is mindless - yet humans are self aware. The naturalist universe is meaningless, yet we perceive meaning everywhere. The naturalist universe is hopelessly deterministic (we're just slowly moving away from the original big bang, spinning atoms, simply matter), yet we are free.....

Looking at the world through a naturalist lens doesn't seem to carry much weight when the greatest naturalist minds are the first to point out that all of our ideas are nothing but the result of electro-chemical processes in our brains (which is very different from the laws of reason and logic). In the naturalist world - whatever is, is.

We all have bias -whether we admit to it or not. Facts are facts. But in a naturalist world those facts are meaningless. Just saying...

I'm a firm naturalist,  and I find tremendous beauty, wonder, fulfillment and meaning in life and nature. Just because I don't believe there is a magical, supernatural being behind it all doesn't detract from anything. The beauty and majesty is inherent. Do you seriously look at a beautiful mountain vista or the ocean and think the pleasure you perceive is only there because the god you believe in supposedly created it? Similarly, what disadvantage am I at because we don't yet fully understand the mind, whereas you believe, presumably,  that there is a soul or whatever instilled there to make it work and give it "meaning"?

Nevertheless,  it still stands that the naturalistic approach i.e. science, is unparalleled for understanding nature i.e. stuff we can actually sense and that is tangible. We'd be in a world of shit if science was erased from history and existence. Religion and belief in gods.... not so much.

[The Iceman]

Unfortunately much of that article is true

Its all true!

And the internet and proliferation of niche news is only exacerbating the problem. You can get all of your news and opinion today filtered through whatever poticial or social lens you prefer and never be exposed to contradictory or opposing opinions. Jingoism and scientific illiteracy are rampant. I see it even in work colleagues who are otherwise fine intelligent people.

And its no accident that formerly impressive channels such as the Discovery Channel and History channel etc. have embraced this anti-intellectual approach in their offerings, with bilge about ancient aliens, big foot, mermaids, ghost hunters and so on and on.

The irony is you are looking through a lens of humanism, atheism, naturalism. This is the author of the blog:
Our Humanity, Naturally presents issues of life, society, and philosophy from the naturalistic standpoint of Humanism. A progressive philosophy of positive values without dogma and superstition, Humanism is becoming more prevalent among those concerned about anti-intellectual and dysfunctional trends in modern society. Our Humanity, Naturally applies Humanist concepts to a wide array of personal and social issues, demonstrating that there are pragmatic answers to many of the big (and little) challenges of contemporary life.

Your lens is just as guilty as everyone else is for spinning bias. Just because you say we are not biased, everyone else is not intelligent doesn't give it anymore weight than anyone's opinion?

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here Iceman.

That NO opinions are valid because EVERYONE has some biases?

If so, that is clearly not the case. Facts are facts.  If you dismiss them for no valid reason,  your opinion is clearly less worthy. Using a snowball to argue against climate change is clearly an anti-intellectual, dishonest, cynical,  pandering stance.

Where do those facts come from J70 - when presented through a naturalist lens as the author of the blog claims to view the world through? Naturalism stands on the foundation that everything is matter and only matter. That our thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains. The naturalist universe is mindless - yet humans are self aware. The naturalist universe is meaningless, yet we perceive meaning everywhere. The naturalist universe is hopelessly deterministic (we're just slowly moving away from the original big bang, spinning atoms, simply matter), yet we are free.....

Looking at the world through a naturalist lens doesn't seem to carry much weight when the greatest naturalist minds are the first to point out that all of our ideas are nothing but the result of electro-chemical processes in our brains (which is very different from the laws of reason and logic). In the naturalist world - whatever is, is.

We all have bias -whether we admit to it or not. Facts are facts. But in a naturalist world those facts are meaningless. Just saying...

I'm a firm naturalist,  and I find tremendous beauty, wonder, fulfillment and meaning in life and nature. Just because I don't believe there is a magical, supernatural being behind it all doesn't detract from anything. The beauty and majesty is inherent. Do you seriously look at a beautiful mountain vista or the ocean and think the pleasure you perceive is only there because the god you believe in supposedly created it? Similarly, what disadvantage am I at because we don't yet fully understand the mind, whereas you believe, presumably,  that there is a soul or whatever instilled there to make it work and give it "meaning"?

Nevertheless,  it still stands that the naturalistic approach i.e. science, is unparalleled for understanding nature i.e. stuff we can actually sense and that is tangible. We'd be in a world of shit if science was erased from history and existence. Religion and belief in gods.... not so much.

Maybe you can answer some of my questions or address my comments?

[omaghjoe]

But actually isn't it all only a creation of our mind? The latest physics says there is no matter only energy. Nothing is solid, nothing has shape, nothing has colour, its all just a bundle of atoms. Our senses sense the energy and helps our mind conceptualise it. The concept that our mind creates of this energy is the world as we understand it. 

[The Iceman]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

[J70]

Unfortunately much of that article is true

Its all true!

And the internet and proliferation of niche news is only exacerbating the problem. You can get all of your news and opinion today filtered through whatever poticial or social lens you prefer and never be exposed to contradictory or opposing opinions. Jingoism and scientific illiteracy are rampant. I see it even in work colleagues who are otherwise fine intelligent people.

And its no accident that formerly impressive channels such as the Discovery Channel and History channel etc. have embraced this anti-intellectual approach in their offerings, with bilge about ancient aliens, big foot, mermaids, ghost hunters and so on and on.

The irony is you are looking through a lens of humanism, atheism, naturalism. This is the author of the blog:
Our Humanity, Naturally presents issues of life, society, and philosophy from the naturalistic standpoint of Humanism. A progressive philosophy of positive values without dogma and superstition, Humanism is becoming more prevalent among those concerned about anti-intellectual and dysfunctional trends in modern society. Our Humanity, Naturally applies Humanist concepts to a wide array of personal and social issues, demonstrating that there are pragmatic answers to many of the big (and little) challenges of contemporary life.

Your lens is just as guilty as everyone else is for spinning bias. Just because you say we are not biased, everyone else is not intelligent doesn't give it anymore weight than anyone's opinion?

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here Iceman.

That NO opinions are valid because EVERYONE has some biases?

If so, that is clearly not the case. Facts are facts.  If you dismiss them for no valid reason,  your opinion is clearly less worthy. Using a snowball to argue against climate change is clearly an anti-intellectual, dishonest, cynical,  pandering stance.

Where do those facts come from J70 - when presented through a naturalist lens as the author of the blog claims to view the world through? Naturalism stands on the foundation that everything is matter and only matter. That our thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains. The naturalist universe is mindless - yet humans are self aware. The naturalist universe is meaningless, yet we perceive meaning everywhere. The naturalist universe is hopelessly deterministic (we're just slowly moving away from the original big bang, spinning atoms, simply matter), yet we are free.....

Looking at the world through a naturalist lens doesn't seem to carry much weight when the greatest naturalist minds are the first to point out that all of our ideas are nothing but the result of electro-chemical processes in our brains (which is very different from the laws of reason and logic). In the naturalist world - whatever is, is.

We all have bias -whether we admit to it or not. Facts are facts. But in a naturalist world those facts are meaningless. Just saying...

I'm a firm naturalist,  and I find tremendous beauty, wonder, fulfillment and meaning in life and nature. Just because I don't believe there is a magical, supernatural being behind it all doesn't detract from anything. The beauty and majesty is inherent. Do you seriously look at a beautiful mountain vista or the ocean and think the pleasure you perceive is only there because the god you believe in supposedly created it? Similarly, what disadvantage am I at because we don't yet fully understand the mind, whereas you believe, presumably,  that there is a soul or whatever instilled there to make it work and give it "meaning"?

Nevertheless,  it still stands that the naturalistic approach i.e. science, is unparalleled for understanding nature i.e. stuff we can actually sense and that is tangible. We'd be in a world of shit if science was erased from history and existence. Religion and belief in gods.... not so much.

Maybe you can answer some of my questions or address my comments?

I thought I had.

[omaghjoe]

Iceman he would probably relate it to the computational theory of mind. Although various thought experiments can cast doubt on this and also.

In the world of metaphysics you are talking about monism v pluralism. Neither have been proved and likely never will.

The ultimate problem of monism is where actually is the mind, the ultimate problem of pluralism is also this, plus how is it attached to the body.

Cuconnacht put me onto this whacky stuff on your favourite thread.

Your also branching off onto another field of philosophy which is what is provable? Some things have to be taken as a given for anything to be fact otherwise nothing is provable. However the latest physics throws doubt on pretty much everything as we know it, so much so that anything and everything becomes possible.

Actually when you think about it the latest physics is kinda like Eastern philosophy..

[omaghjoe]

BTW Muppet you never answered half my points, not that I really cared that much.

But you can forget it, the way Iceman and J70 are going is much more interesting, a debate with no answer or solution, thats my kinda stuff!

[The Iceman]

BTW Muppet you never answered half my points, not that I really cared that much.

But you can forget it, the way Iceman and J70 are going is much more interesting, a debate with no answer or solution, thats my kinda stuff!

Thats my initial reasoning for calling out J70. Claiming fact and truth by looking at the world through a lens which itself admits there is no fact or truth.

I love all of this too OmaghJoe, expanding the "mind" discussing the physiology of things, the psychology behind our very beings and of course the theology. But in the case of my point with J70 God has nothing to do with my point. I just don't think the naturalist viewpoint has any more weight than any other...

[J70]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

How did we get from anti-intellectualism in the US and its harmful effects to whether truth and meaning are even possible?

But, you're asking if, given my belief, as a naturalist, that the mind arose through an actual physical process such as natural selection, how can we know that any conclusions we draw on anything have any relevance to the real world?

I am far from a philosopher, but you have given me something to mull on, although I would initially posit that that question applies no matter what your belief is on the workings and creation/evolution of the mind.

[J70]

BTW Muppet you never answered half my points, not that I really cared that much.

But you can forget it, the way Iceman and J70 are going is much more interesting, a debate with no answer or solution, thats my kinda stuff!

Thats my initial reasoning for calling out J70. Claiming fact and truth by looking at the world through a lens which itself admits there is no fact or truth.

I love all of this too OmaghJoe, expanding the "mind" discussing the physiology of things, the psychology behind our very beings and of course the theology. But in the case of my point with J70 God has nothing to do with my point. I just don't think the naturalist viewpoint has any more weight than any other...

But assuming that we are all on a level playing field and that we do have some capability of perceiving "truth" and "facts", then how do you dismiss the accomplishments of science as no more valid than any other? We clearly live a physical existence (or is that up for dispute too in philosophical circles?), we can manipulate the world and be manipulated by it. If some California right wing politician claims that drought and earthquakes are in fact God smiting the people over gay marriage and abortion, is her pronouncement equally valid to the scientist who points out that they are merely natural phenomena and there is no correlation whatsoever between a location's political leanings and the natural disasters it suffers?

[omaghjoe]

J70

Its not that our physical existence is up for debate, its more that how we understand it from our senses and conceptualise it with our mind is irrelevant to the physical reality.

Then again if our physical existence is just energy is it really physical?

But in saying that you have to take some of what we conceptualise as real, see what happen if you dont breath for example. So in that way we have to assume some things are a given, to deny well proven science (in terms of our perceived reality) would be idiotic.

However some nutter politician probably could argue those things using that outlook are valid but then he would also have to accept that the earthquake isnt really happening at all. Although physics says that all atoms are related to beach other and in equilibrium so shifts in energy of one atom could affect energy of another and the knockon affect could cause us to perceive something like an earthquake happening.

Its mad shit but who really feckin knows? However it highlights how most branches of science are individualistic in their approach and not holistic. Most branches of science only deal with things down a molecular level at best, only a few dip their toes into atomic theory and none go into quantum physics aside from those that deal with it directly and quantum physics doesn't even really know how what the relationship of atoms is to one another (i think on that last point, check it out if your really interested). So most branches of science limit themselves quite alot in this non holistic way, physical biology is a great example of this, sometimes ignoring how other parts of the body affect the rest in particular the mind/brain.

Anyway in 10years time physics could be saying all of this is irrelevant...we can't build our lives and society around something that is so fluid, we have to take somethings as a given.

[J70]

I used to wonder when I was a kid if the world I sensed looked and felt identical to that the person sitting beside me sensed. Does green always appear the same, or do we all have a particular and unique set of properties by which we perceive reality? In other words what I might see as the colour green might be the same as what you see as blue,  but given that we are all taught that grass is green, we might be perceiving different colours but giving them the same name. If that makes sense....

But ultimately,  it, to me anyway, was just a pointless, academic philosophical exercise that can lead nowhere. Because if no one can see through anyone else's eyes, then why waste much time with it.

Occam's razor is a very good and successful starting point.

[whitey]

I used to wonder when I was a kid if the world I sensed looked and felt identical to that the person sitting beside me sensed. Does green always appear the same, or do we all have a particular and unique set of properties by which we perceive reality? In other words what I might see as the colour green might be the same as what you see as blue,  but given that we are all taught that grass is green, we might be perceiving different colours but giving them the same name. If that makes sense....

But ultimately,  it, to me anyway, was just a pointless, academic philosophical exercise that can lead nowhere. Because if no one can see through anyone else's eyes, then why waste much time with it.

Occam's razor is a very good and successful starting point.

Hmm...this has taken a very interesting direction.

I guess one question we should ask is where do we get the information that forms the basis of our opinions?

Lets say for example you think Fox News is biased (which it is btw) do you equally view the information from CNN or the NY Times as 100% unbiased?

Or, are you willing to ignore/deny the CNN/NY Times bias because, it validates or confirms a preset opinion or world view you have .

[J70]

I used to wonder when I was a kid if the world I sensed looked and felt identical to that the person sitting beside me sensed. Does green always appear the same, or do we all have a particular and unique set of properties by which we perceive reality? In other words what I might see as the colour green might be the same as what you see as blue,  but given that we are all taught that grass is green, we might be perceiving different colours but giving them the same name. If that makes sense....

But ultimately,  it, to me anyway, was just a pointless, academic philosophical exercise that can lead nowhere. Because if no one can see through anyone else's eyes, then why waste much time with it.

Occam's razor is a very good and successful starting point.

Hmm...this has taken a very interesting direction.

I guess one question we should ask is where do we get the information that forms the basis of our opinions?

Lets say for example you think Fox News is biased (which it is btw) do you equally view the information from CNN or the NY Times as 100% unbiased?

Or, are you willing to ignore/deny the CNN/NY Times bias because, it validates or confirms a preset opinion or world view you have .

Whitey, there is nothing wrong with some bias. Everyone has an opinion and a background and personal circumstances which informs their worldview. Where Fox errs is in the distortion and lack of even handedness. Everything except Shep Smith is conservative opinion,  but they present it, for the most part, as news. I dont understand how people don't tire of the endless, repetitive drumbeat of Obama this, liberals that, war on christians and white men, and on and on. It's like the 2 minutes of hate from Orwell. Want to do a piece on climate change? Lets get Roy Spencer... again! Want to talk about cops killing black men? Lets get Mark Furman or that right wing black sheriff from Milwaukee. And they made themselves look ridiculous this week with the Charleston murders, but they don't care. Have to keep the old white resentful bastards watching!

CNN, I do not watch. Boring and sensationalist.
I like a guy on MSNBC on the weekend mornings, Steve Korniacki. It's calm rational detailed discussion,  no shouting or grandstanding.  The conservatives get to say their piece, same as liberals. But that is about it for cable news for me, except for the odd flick over to Fox to see how they are presenting the big story of the moment.

NY Times is great for hard news. I read some of the editorial stuff, but not usually. Editorially, they are leftish, just like WSJ leans right. Equivalent of Fox News they are not.