Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA25113 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:59:29 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C4C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Question Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:58:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<Can you determine the state of a persons mind without disturbing
its
> state?
>
> Dont the very process of trying to determine the state of mind (making up
> you mind as people say!) actually leads to a state far removed from the
> real state.
>
> The Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is probably more applicable to mind
> than even subatomic particles. I believe than it is possible for people
> (most people agree) to have two simultaneous but contradictoty thoughts
> although most people would find it uncomfortable with that. Like quantum
> superposition and Schrodinger cat. This I think is the secret of minds
> superiority over digital computers. Just as quantum computers can make
> problems difficult for digital computers appear simple.
> One should make up ones mind only where it is necessary. >
>
Can't really comment on the above, but the bit below is too
tempting.
<I think I can take the qustion of `Do you believe in God ?` as a
test
> case.
>
> Although many of us would have made up our mind on the matter, the fact
> that there are always two sides on this says this is not all that simple
> for some one seriously asking this question.>
>
There are more than two ways to answer this question, and I'm not
sure why this would test the above statements about QM and contradictory
thoughts. I must admit I've always wondered how people with any kind of
scientific training can juggle that with belief in god as the two things are
entirely anti-thetical, but perhaps that's what you meant.
<My point is whether it wouldnt be better to let such things hang so
that
> we can think both possiblities and get the benefit of wider thinking and
> behave according to what is more appropriate at any given time. >
>
On this point I disagree. Why let your child be sacrificed to the
mountain gods if you don't believe (as happened in Inca society where very
young kids were tied up, possibly poisoned, certainly left at the top of
mountains to die of exposure)? If beliefs demand such extreme behaviours
they need to be rigourously examined and contradictons need to be resolved.
The problem is that religions obfuscate contradictions between the
requirements of doctrine and (at the very least) adaptive behaviours (e.g.
religions sometimes demand things like infanticide, suicide, celibacy, self
harm, fasting etc.) or try to turn contradictions or paradoxes into proof of
beliefs' 'truth' (e.g catechisms). What they do not do is allow
interrogation to the point of challenging doctrine (which after all is
divine).
<Those who are concerned about human behaviour and choice making
(like
> psephologists for example)must definitely take this seriously.
>
> I for example talk like a right winger with leftists and a left wingerwith
> rightists depending on our relative position.
>
> I am a staunch supporter of free market and democracy but has voted left
> in all the elections!
>
> Yes we all chose the lesser evil. In such situations , wouldnt holding to
> the last help you make a better decision. (I agree not always)>
>
I've mentioned my views on this kind of 'choice' elsewhere on this
list recently. Certainly my awareness of psephology (as someone who has
studied election campaigns from a media psephology point of view- i.e.
media's representation of and role in elections) would suggest that anything
but atomistic personal choice is involved (although I don't subscribe to the
view that the media play a deterministic role- save perhaps in extraordinary
circumstances such as the US election recently). Although "better the devil
you know" seems to be a declared reason for a lot of voting decisions, few
people seem to be able to articulate further why it is they vote, as you
say, against their core political beliefs. The lesser evil argument is a
bit of an ex post facto rationalisation rather than a real reason.
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 11:01:32 GMT