DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
With regards to marriage, pornography and prostitution these lose there current form if property relations where abolished. Prostitution can only exist in an exchange economy, and so could not exist in a socialist society. Similarly marriage would not take the form of a property relation, though perhaps some people would still like to commit to each other in public ceremonies. Pornography would not exist as a commodity but I can’t see why people would not still produce erotic art.All that said it is not for us to decide in advance how people should live. If socialism is ever achieved it will be up to the people then how they live it.For the present I try not to be too judgmental of other people, after all capitalism is a system in which no one is in control and we are all for the most part products of our environment (though probably not everyone will agree with me)Promiscuity? Well I’m well in favour of that!
robbo203 wrote:Unfortunately I have no audio facility on my decrepit computer so there was no point in me watching the video.
That’s a shame because I think it’s really rather good.
Quote:I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent. For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.This point is explained further in the footnote. Has anyone ever held and photographed an intent or a feeling? We might be able to view a brain scan of someone intending or feeling something but this tells us nothing of what the actual experience is like.
Quote:and this Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves.So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand, there no evidence for consciousness and on the other that there are “signs” of consciousness. Figure that one out if you will….The only evidence for consciousness is consciousness itself but as consciousness is something that can only be experienced privately it seems hard to know how science can objectively observe it.
Quote:There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. So what is Harris trying to say here? If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of this consciousness? There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2) that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3) that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that. But rejects the ego as a fiction.You’re right he is committed to options 1 or 2 or maybe some other ones you haven’t thought of. His answer is probably “we don’t know” which at this moment in time would be the correct one.If you cannot admit the problems with emergence as an explanation of consciousness then that’s your problem not mine.There’s some good stuff of Harris’s site you should give it a read to get the full gist of his argument before prematurely accusing him of being inconsistent.
Quote:No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else. A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the formerWell I just checked and there’s nothing in the standard definition of a deterministic system which says that effects do not go on to be causes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy)The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.
Fabian wrote:DJP wrote:I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?Yes, I’ve read it, and I do agree with use of parliament, but maybe not with, as I understood your position was, a rejection of preparation for a violent aspect of revolution.
One of the reasons we say that the working class must gain control of the state is so that the armed forces cannot be used against us. Since the transition to socialism can only be bought forth by a majority revolution the only violence would be that of the minority trying to defend its former position. We are not a pacifist party but on the same accord it would be foolish to encourage a violent conflict with the state before a revolutionary majority has been reached. “Peaceably if we may, Forcibly if we must”
Quote:I think that a socialist (as you define it) / anarcho-communist party should be active in parliament and work to dismantle the state from there, also secondly- socialists/ communists should be active in organising unions and workplace direct action, and also as much as the revolution approaches proportionally work on a preparation for violent conflict with the master class that, IMO, will initiate physical conflict to try and remain in power, of course, fourth (or first) activity of would be spreading class consciousness; so, I’m for a revolutionary organisation working on all fronts.Again we do not appose socialists acting within unions upon sound lines. But the setting up of socialist unions before a socialist majority has arisen is rejected as a futile tactic.If you’d like to discuss these issues on the forum please feel free to start as many topics as you’d like.
robbo203 wrote:The attempt to dismiss free will, human intentionality and human creativity as mere idealism is utterly misplaced and is itself a form of hyper-idealism. It reduces us to the status of tiny cogs in a vast machine whose purpose is impenetrable to our mortal mindsWell that might be what you think but I disagree. I have dismissed the notion of free will, in fact now more strongly since I started this thread but I am not denying human intentionality, creativity, love, hate etc. Neither have I accused anyone of idealism (which may also turn out to be incompatible with free will). Sorry to keep quoting Sam Harris, but I’m supposed to be finishing off my diploma in capitalist economics right now
Quote:Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life—or an unhappy one, for that matter.I haven’t been noticeably harmed, and I believe I have benefited, from knowing that the next thought that unfurls in my mind will arise and become effective (or not) due to conditions that I cannot know and did not bring into being. The negative effects that people worry about—a lack of motivation, a plunge into nihilism—are simply not evident in my life. And the positive effects have been obvious. Seeing through the illusion of free will has lessened my feelings of hatred for bad people. I’m still capable of feeling hatred, of course, but when I think about the actual causes of a person’s behavior, the feeling falls away. It is a relief to put down this burden, and I think nothing would be lost if we all put it down together. On the contrary, much would be gained. We could forget about retribution and concentrate entirely on mitigating harm. (And if punishing people proved important for either deterrence or rehabilitation, we could make prison as unpleasant as required.)Understanding the true causes of human behavior does not leave any room for the traditional notion of free will. But this shouldn’t depress us, or tempt us to go off our diets. Diligence and wisdom still yield better results than sloth and stupidity. And, in psychologically healthy adults, understanding the illusoriness of free will should make divisive feelings such as pride and hatred a little less compelling. While it’s conceivable that someone, somewhere, might be made worse off by dispensing with the illusion of free will, I think that on balance, it could only produce a more compassionate, equitable, and sane society.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-willFabian wrote:Let’s take me as an example, philosophically / religiously I’m a deist pythagorean / neoplatonist, so I think souls exist, and find metaphysical materialism / determinism a sort of performative contradiction. I guess that a non-materialism view of history to some degree follows from that, so that would be an obstacle for me from joining the party, right? Politically / economicaly, I’m an anarcho-communist, which, as I far see from glancing at world socialism, is pretty similar.I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?Do you live near to where any branches meet? If you are interested in the party I think a first step would be to get down there and discuss with some members.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:You can sometimes find ebooks on ‘share’ sites. I will send you a copy if I come across it.Thanks, but I found a paperback copy for about a pound.
robbo203 wrote:Nobody -leastways, not me – is saying mind states are free from the influence of physical laws. The bio- chemistry of the brain can obviously have mental and behavioural effects. For example, the rate at which serotonin and acetylcholine is released through biochemical activity in the brain can affect one’s mental state and give rise to mood disorders such as depression which, in turn, can be regulated by medication. But, even so, the mind is more than the brain upon which it depends. The mind can effect the brain , can exert “downward causation” on the brain as I tried to show earlierI don’t think anyone is denying this “downward causation” either. All I’m denying is that there can be causes that are not caused by something or somethings else.
John Horgan wrote:Harris keeps insisting that because all our choices have prior causes, they are not free; they are determined. Of course all our choices are caused. No free-will proponent I know claims otherwise. The question is how are they caused? Harris seems to think that all causes are ultimately physical, and that to hold otherwise puts you in the company of believers in ghosts, souls, gods and other supernatural nonsense.Until yesterday I don’t think I had heard of Sam Harris. But the briefest look at his website shows that the final sentence of this is pure strawman. See this for example: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
John Horgan wrote:But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world.”Again myself, or Sam Harris, do not deny that ideas have an influence in the world. The question is do minds somehow magically escape the world of causation? There is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest they do not. And if they do I have not seen an explanation of how they do this, but maybe I’ve missed something.Did you watch that video Robin?I’m not convinced that ’emergence’ is an adequate theory of how consciousness came into being anyhow, but I admit I need to look into the issue more.
Sam Harris wrote:Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t’ give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. “Nothing,” after all, is precisely that which cannot give rise to “anything,” let alone “everything.” Many physicists realise this, of course. Fred Hoyle, who coined “big bang” as a term of derogation, is famous for opposing this creation myth on philosophical grounds, because such an event seems to require a “preexisting space and time.” In a similar vein, Stephen Hawking has said that the notion that the universe had a beginning is incoherent, because something can begin only with reference to time, and here we are talking about the beginning of space-time itself. He pictures space-time as a four-dimensional closed manifold, without beginning or end—much like the surface of a sphere.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousnessrobbo203 wrote:It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleogical model of society and history.No-ones suggesting a “theological model of society”. Teleological explanations explain things in the sense that things happen “in order to” do something. Deterministic explanations explain things in the sense that everything happens “because of” everything else. Clearly not the same thing. I am not a Marxist by the way!
Fabian wrote:Does the party have and accept as members people that reject metaphysical materialism?I guess the answer is ‘yes’ but it depends what you offer in its place.
old uncle fred wrote:Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm%5Bemphasis mine]STOP THINKING OF DOLPHINS RIGHT NOW!We do not choose what comes into our consciousness, and neither are we aware of, or choose, the myriad of factors that contribute into us making a choice. What other things did you think about when you read this sentence? Did you choose them?Am I responsible for my actions? On the deepest level, no. I didn’t create the circumstances that gave rise to my being. On a practical level, yes. People are social animals and as social animals it is advantageous to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. Men make their own history but under conditions not of their choosing, but it is also under conditions not of their choosing that men are made.Mind states are not reductable to brain states, I agree. But I’m not sure how “Mind must then be seen as having a degree of autonomy in its own right” necessarily follows. The non-reductive things are things like intentionality “aboutness” and phenomenological experiences i.e. the ‘what it is like’-ness of a mental state. It seems difficult as to how you’d capture these in a physical description of the brain. Non-reductivness does not mean that mind states are free from the influence of physical laws.I refer you again to Dilbert:http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1993-05-30/
Here’s the argument in comic form:http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1993-05-30/
What’s your opinion on that link you posted OGW?It’s just a knee jerk emotional responce with no substance. I haven’t read Harris’s book but the points he makes in the video are not answered here. Read the comments.We have to follow the facts and base our conclusions upon them. Not find what we’d like to be true then find justifications for it.
I keep getting an uncontrollable urge to jump in front of oncoming cyclists and lie on the floor. I can’t help it, I was born with the soul of a cycle-path.
Sam Harris seems to be hitting all the nails on the head in this video, going to give his book a try:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
To me all this talk of non-reducibility and emergence seems to be side stepping the issue. Is it possible to have ‘free will’ as traditionally conceived without contravening the laws of physics? The answer still seems to me to be a firm NO.To me to talk of ‘free will’ only makes sense in the context of absence of coercion i.e. “I did it of my own free will” i.e. I wasn’t forced to do something. But even in this sense the meaning is fuzzy.This short blog post is interesting:http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/did-freedom-evolve/
Er, don’t we already have a downloadable e-zine? It’s called the Socialist Standard!I think with web based publishing it’s best to get away from monthly or weekly publishing schedules. Wouldn’t the aim be to eventually be an alternative to something like say the BBC news website? Daily posting is best if it can be maintained.Logistics wise it is a lot easier if the venture where to be incorporated into the main website.
