Search

The school of CAMIDRCS

(coalition against mysticism in defence of reason commonsense and science)

Month

February 2017

maximizing-happiness

Advertisements

deus-a-rem

How is a hypothesis established in the first place? How do we distinguish between the present and the future, demonstrations and predictions? How can we tell apart facts from fiction?

I believe that distinguishing between predictions and demonstrations places most people in dilemma. Any claim or proposition may connote or denote either the present or the future in the time line. So, any claim if is it supposed to be a fact must be demonstrable in the present; because, you and I live in the present not in the future. I think our judgment must be based on current evidence not any pipe line dreams whatever that claim might be whether it is material or immaterial. But remember  that  immateriality is always destined to fail the test before we even begin the test because it just does not only contradict with the present― it does not even exist in the present in order to contradict with the present; so that we can classify it as bogus or fact. Thus, we can just dismiss all immaterial claims as puerile altogether and analyze other material claims and predictions.

 

We must always analyze the present in order to seek any truth to any stated claim that supports the likelihood of the manifestation of it in the future. For example, we have a claim of the Singularity —a super intelligence which will manifest at the end of evolution. Now, based on current evidence it is absolutely plausible that it is a highly likely scenario that it will― because as I said elsewhere if you line up the computers in the 1950’s and today’s computers in 2017 then you will observe objectively in the present that they are getting more powerful, less bulky and most importantly autonomous . This is where it gets trickier maybe even scary and silences the critics who state that machines will never be conscious like human beings; because that is where they are seemingly heading. The Singularity does not exist today therefore we must call it a highly likely hypothesis because current evidence on the ground supports the claim. But we can never be certain because we do not live in the future.

 

When we come to other claims like “afterlife” and analyze in order to label it as a highly likely hypothesis or a bunk; we first need to analyze current evidence on the ground which may support this claim. Now, if we open any grave to see any sign of “afterlife” we will only discover a decomposing human being without a sign of the so called “afterlife”. Thus, it can never even be considered for a hypothesis because the present does not support the future.   When we proceed forward to analyze other claims like the coming of Jesus or the resurrection of the dead as in Christian and Islamic mythologies; we will find that the man called Jesus Pandira  himself is already buried somewhere in Palestine. Thus, current evidence does not support his return because he is already dead and did not ‘fly’ to  God senior with a space suit or something as thought by Christian mythologists.

 

Most claims are based on the future i.e. on predictions but nobody in the world can be certain about the future unless otherwise the future presents itself in the present. Therefore, I think the best way to analyze the future isto scrutinize the present for signs and evidence about the future. If current evidence supports the future then there is a high likelihood of the claim being a fact. If it does not then it is bogus. I think most people are fobbed and confused because they do not understand how to distinguish between predictions and demonstrations; the present and the future. But my method of discerning whether the future claims are veracious or deceptive might help people in distinguishing facts from fiction; reality from reverie.

 

So predicting the future based on the present might be called sensible because it is like seeing the tail of an organism in the present but you assume that this organism must have a head in the future. Therefore, you state that: “I presume that what I am seeing is not just a tail but a whole organism.” But you can never be certain until you observe it as a whole in the future. Thus, certainty does not really work for the future; certainty can only be right for the present. It does not matter what type of claim it might be.  In order for anything to be even considered for hypothesis it must have a tailor in other words possess present supporting evidence right now today.  If it does not then it is not even a hypothesis like the existence of a supernatural god for example because currently in the present time scientists have demonstrated that the material world cannot be extinguished or switched off; if so then it will kill the idea of a forth coming supernatural god who supposedly created the cosmos; because something without an end can never have a beginning. Thus, even in the future the supernatural god is not coming at all. Therefore, supernaturalism is not a hypothesis but a futile dream.  There are other several claims similarly with “supernaturalism” which do not have a tail in order to assume a head. Thus, this is what I mean by analyzing the present in order to predict the future only as a hypothesis and I hope I was very clear to the reader.

 

Furthermore, we have already established how to create a hypothesis; we have seen that a hypothesis is an argument which analogically as I have said possesses a tail which will help us into assuming a head. Or in literal terms which has the support of current evidence.  As was the case with the hypothetical singularity but as already stated above supernaturalism does not have the support of current evidence in the present; thus, it will be discarded out the window. I think this is the safest and wisest way of analyzing our world and reality in order to protect mankind from erroneous and nocuous patterns of thinking which might lead to suffering and extinction.

 

In short, in order for a claim to be a hypothesis it must have the support of current evidence and nobody in history will ever have the power to know the future because everybody lives in the present.  Because you must remember that the basis of knowledge in epistemology is rationalism based on reason and empiricism based on experience not intuition. If you say “I have a feeling that the future is going to be like this and like that” then you are committing a fallacy because “feelings” are not a source of knowledge.

 

Finally, on the other hand predictions can be divided into two: empty predictions and viable predictions empty predictions are predictions that do not have a tail and are in conflict with the present; thus, can never exist in the future. Viable predictions are the opposite of empty predictions that do have a tail and are highly likely to a manifest in the future but still can never be known for sure until they do. Most problems occur from predicting the future and the best way to discern efficacy is to analyze the present in order to verify the future as a hypothesis. In short,there must be evidence today and right now in the present which is in alignment with the futuristic claim which does not contradict with the present or reality.

PDF avilable

The denial of immortality

Do you really believe that immortality is impossible with appropriate technology? Take your time and think about it. Now, probably your answer after your moment of cogitation will be a no. If so why in the world wouldn’t you be an advocate for immortality?Isn’t immortality life’s end goal and promise? Because life without eternity is meaningless.I challenge anyone to tell me to my face that immortality is impossible. I am pretty sure I wouldn’t find anyone who is certain enough to tell me it can’t be done. Death is a natural process therefore; it must have a natural solution. If you are a realist then the next logical consequence or step in your ideological vantage point that you ought to take is immortality. Death is the most unfortunate event in human life. The emotional distress it causes to families in history is ineffable. It really breaks my heart.

 

Changing the attitude of an obscurant, nihilistic and death obsessed society to bringing about the end of death is an endeavor which requires extreme determination and philanthropy.The human race has been poisoned by various erroneous doctrines throughout history; the mind of men has been hijacked and made to be nescient of nature.Instead of understanding their nature, maintaining its wellbeing and enhancing it; the human race is seen to flounder in empty promises which cannot and do not provide permanent solution and happiness. Humanity is seen to indulge in a self-deception by consoling himself that he is a “chosen animal” in mysticism and part of the whole whether he likes it or not is socialism and a selfish animal in capitalism―when in fact if he manipulated his nature he wouldn’t have a need for socialism, mysticism or capitalism.

 

Implementing socialism, capitalism and mysticism is not the ultimate solution for humanity and its problems because the solution lies in practically altering human nature for the better. The reason for example that the issues of human rights are neglected in communist states like China is due to the very fact of human bestiality and his negative traits that he inherited like rage, nihilism, turpitude as well as selfishness from his animal ancestors which is becoming problematic in a modern world. Now who is to blame for his evil design and what must be the solution? Can socialism, capitalism and mysticism edit human nature? Are all these three doctrines antidotes for a disordered design?  Is there any country including the Scandinavians like Sweden and others which are seen as role models of utopia by the so called “scientific socialists” as material mystics and their cult―a paradise where everything is perfect? If so can “scientific socialism” alter the human genome, eradicate selfishness,and make man a happy public animal? They say that man cannot live in isolation; therefore, he must be forced to join the public. He must be “collectivized” in order to create a utopia. But we are compelled to state that: man cannot live in a public square and share everything as a “collective” including razors and wives. Can man live in a public square sharing everything to the so called“collective”? Is that healthy? Extreme Isolation as in individualistic capitalism on the other hand turns people paranoid and suicidal. Capitalism destroys the environment to the extent of threatening human existence that is supposedly was meant to help. Thus, both socialism and capitalism are defunct doctrines which must leave the throne to transhumanism.

 

Death is not a destiny but slowly is becoming a choice thanks to the advancement of technology and human intellect.  All idealists including supernaturalists and mystics are life extensionist but they don’t even know it; they oppose something that they already support. Consider their policies for example if suicide and abortion are “sins” as they like to call it or immoral in an attempt to preserve life then how in the world could life extension be immoral? The life extension movement is also trying to achieve the same goal of life preservation.

 

The culture of the present 21stcentury man has been hijacked as I said elsewhere by ancient peasant’s folklore revered into “holy doctrines” that can never be questioned let alone rescinded. This is due to the fact that mystical theories have enjoyed thousands of years of propaganda and promotion despite their mythical nature. It is hard for current philosophies and new visions for humanity like transhumanism to actually take root in the society and get wider acceptance. Even if this is the case transhumanism in just a couple of decades has gained millions of supporters and followers starting from teenagers to mature adults. This progress will continue as time moves forward.

 

When we get into the pragmatic details of the idea of immortality; we come to realize that there are several routes —the biological life extension or the electro-mechanical amalgamation. Biology has definitely a higher role to play until the electro-mechanical technology takes off in a significant stride. But, unfortunately biology is not sustainable for the long run mechanics is much better. Preserving and maintaining electronics is much easier than complicated and fragile biology. The idea of preserving biological organisms for example in cryonics has only been successful only for single cells like eggs, sperm cells and DNA samples. All cryonics organizations in the world are still in experimental stages.  No full mammalian i.e.human has been frozen and resurrected i.e. thawed back to life.  Even if this is the case― I think what cryonics institutions are trying to accomplish is the greatest gift to humanity if it becomes successful. Nobody will lose their loved ones to ailments and accidents. People will be happier and less gloomy.

 

In short, what could possibly be wrong with this idea of maximizing human happiness by accepting the possibility of immortality?What is wrong with liberating man from the unfortunate event of death?  What could be wrong with research into life extension and the joy that it bestows on families? Isn’t bliss the end that we seek by various means? No one in the world could definitely say that cryonics or other methods of preserving an entire organism will never work; because as long the concept stays material and sticks to exclusively on pure reason then, it is absolutely possible; we must encourage Cryobiologists and other researchers to make this endeavor a reality. It does not matter how long it takes; a decade, century or millennia. Because considering the argument that some ailments like HIV still even after almost more than 50 years of research do not have a cure— but that didn’t deter scientist from sedulity and industriousness  to find a cure for the disease. The same also goes to cryonics,and other methods of acquiring immortality; it does not matter how long it takes —the investigation and research must go on to make immortality a reality. Supernaturalists in particular and idealists in general are in a state of the denial of immortality; they are in a state of delirium and arrogance; we hope they recuperate from their misanthropy, obscurancy and the morbid desire of death.

footer

PDF available

polemics

 

A WordPress.com Website.

Up ↑