Causal Reductionism

It's been almost 6 months, but I return.

I am looking for others who are willing to help me develop the writings of this "religion." Remember, I call it a religion because most of what is discussed here, especially the idea of Naturalism, are philosophical and nature and cannot be proven. Thus they have to be taken on faith.

On to the show:

Causal Reductionism

This one is so big to Boskeism that I don't know how I haven't touched upon this before.

Causal Reductionism is trying to pin one cause with being the reason something happened, though there are most likely other reasons.

An example of such a thing would be

Boskey's shirts don't fit anymore because they've all shrunk.

This of course disregards any expansion that Boskey has encountered in his upper body that would have contributed to such a thing.

I can't begin to describe just how lazy I think this is. Very rarely, if ever, is there a sole reason that something happened. So many variables just in the present contribute to either make or allow something to happen that to try to point to just one of them is almost always a futile task. Plus, to get to the point of believing in a sole cause, you have to invariably ignore everything that happened in order to get to that point. How many variables in the past could be changed in order to create a situation where whatever happened didn't?

Boskey's shirts don't fit anymore because they've all shrunk.

They shrank because Boskey put them in the dryer? He put them in the dryer because he taught himself to do laundry? He taught himself to do laundry because the laundry was magically cleaned for him?

They don't fit because his upper body expanded. Did it expand because he was eating too much? Because he was exercising his upper body? His body is programmed to put excess weight in his upper body?

You can always go deeper. Sometimes, for the sake of expediency and explanation, it might be easier to go with the cause that is responsible for over 90% of the action, but in order to truly understand, one must go deeper, almost down to the stimulus fed into a synthesizing body where multiple stimuli over time have been stored and then act and react based on the synthesis. That body can be anything that takes in and responds to stimuli. If you don't get down to those stimuli, understanding the true cause and how to predict repetition and nonrepetition will be difficult.

Ad hominem

Many of the posts going forward will be shorter, as I describe the various false means of arguing that you will often find politicians and Fox news use, and of course the exceptions associated with them.

Today we discuss the argument tactic ad hominem, which is among the top sins for a proponent of Boskeism. What is ad hominem? Ad hominem is when, rather than attacking the merits of a position, you attack the person.

Diane thinks Boskeism is a fraud.
Diane's opinion doesn't matter because she played "smear the queer*" when she was a child.

Anytime you go after the credibility of someone, rather than the argument itself, it's ad hominem.

Now, there are exceptions to this. Since everyone has an opinion, it is often a useful heuristic to evaluate the source of the information or argument. I'm not an astrophysicist, so if I start talking about string theory, then it is probably in your best interest to take what I say as anecdotal at best, and uninformed at worst, but in all cases, nothing that you would base a conclusion on.

Also, beware the contrapositive of this (which I'm sure has it's own name, but that escapes me at the moment). That would be like this.

Miss Healthypants is from Wisconsin
Therefore, Miss Healthypants understands the nuances of fine cheese.

Miss Healthypants could very well be a cheese connoisseur, but it would only be tangentally because of being from Wisconsin.

In sum, ad hominem should be avoided in any argument. You can use it to determine whether a source is credible in your own right, but it is not something to throw back at someone when debating.

Hypocrisy -- The ultimate sin

We've gone over the Canons of Boskeism

• Naturalism -- We are just another organism on this planet, and free will is at best suspect
• Agnostic -- The existence of one or many deities or superpowers is irrelevant
• Social Animals -- Humans are pack animals and our instincts are derived from being such
• Science -- Evidence is king
• Interpretation -- Correlation is not the same thing as causality
• Questioning -- Don't be afraid to explore to get to the heart of the matter
• Theorize -- Come up with your own ideas as to why and test.
• Occam's Razor -- The simplest explanation supported with the least postulates and most evidence is probably true
• Relativity in Context -- Nothing is ever repeated, no two people experience the same thing
• Relativity in Morality -- Right and wrong are always relative.

These are the guiding lights of Boskeism. However, what are the things that can pull you from the path?

Most of the sins are fallacious arguments, and eventually we will discuss most of them here. There is one sin (and I'm open to other labels for the "unboskeic" behaviors) that stands above all others. That is a sin of judgment. Namely, judging character based upon your own morality.

It is impossible to get away from judging people, events, ideas, etc. We're hardwired to do it, and the more we do it, the less we have to think about it before we actually do it. You can determine someone is a jerk because the label "jerk" denotes a person who acts in a certain way. What is not appropriate though is to say someone is a "good" or "bad" person (more the negative than the positive) because their actions do not stand up to your moral values. That person is not claiming your way is the right way. Rather, what is more important is whether that person is acting in the way THEY say is the right way. If a person believes everyone should go to church, but that person does not go to church, then it is appropriate to judge that person with a mark in the "bad" column.

Keep in mind though, Relativity in Morality. It is possible that someone is being hypocritical under duress.

****

I am still considering putting up 5-10 minute "sermons" here on the blog.

Questions from the Great Diane

Diane, who is kind enough to read this blog (or these writings, if you want to be archaic), submitted some questions following the 9th Canon (Relativity in Context). I would have answered them in the Comments section where she submitted them, but I can't see the question from the comment box.

And thank you to Diane for submitting the questions! I welcome her and anyone else to answer her questions or discuss my answers.

why is truth so difficult to find on just about any given topic,,, (me stating my opinion truth is difficult to find)especially the topic of religion that holds itself to be so holy and sacred, even if I can fully understand different view points, no one will ever be 100% right or 100% wrong... I also agree Zen could be the next level... why is reaching Zen so difficult (my opinion)?

The ultimate truth is so difficult to find because as humans, we don’t have the ability to completely reframe a moment in time exactly as it was. With each passing moment, the ability to get the ultimate truth about that moment passes. How someone looks back on that moment 10 seconds after it happens is different than what actually happened at that moment. I’m sitting here writing this with “Get up” playing on the radio and listening to two ladies through my door. These have a bearing on how I perceive what is happening around me, and how I am even thinking about this question. The difference might be imperceptible to me, but imperceptible differences add up.

As for the ultimate truth regarding religion, what are the answers you seek? Which of the religions is “true and correct”? What is the proper form of worship? Is it appropriate to say “I believe in God, but I don’t like organized relgion”?

Do you think an entire human population will ever reach Zen?

I’d like to say “yes, eventually the entire population will reach Zen” but I don’t believe that. When your main priority needs to be feeding yourself and what you trade in is hope, you don’t have time nor the inclination to find another way, and I understand that.

Also, why is our purpose in life not revealed to us or better yet what is the purpose of our life... veils, veils, and more veils... however, it might not be a veil at all if one believes there is no purpose... see,,, all a vicious cycle (my opinion)...

I might lose you with this one (not as in the ability to follow what I say, but rather you as a reader) but I don’t believe there is a purpose to life. That’s what I mean by the fact that people trade in hope. We are taught from the time we are young that value is tied to purpose, and that there is no value in and of itself. Those who do not work are thought of as less than those who do. Work ethic is better than lazy. That’s OK, as that is how we have decided to value materials and each other as a society in whole. However, at the core, we are still animals, so that would make the only purpose of any of us would be to breed, but that’s nature’s purpose for humans, not the purpose of life. The individual I don’t think has a purpose, which is what makes us free to be the inquisitive people that we can be.

Have you read anything by Deepak Chopra?

I have read some of Deepak’s writings on the Huffington Post. Deepak and I don’t see eye-to-eye, as Deepak firmly believes in the spiritual side of existence. I find the spiritual side of existence to be another manifestation of hope and faith. Now, this is a great thing for a great many people, and I wouldn’t dare to say that someone shouldn’t believe in this way. However, I do say that these ideas can keep someone from seeing beyond the box that this can create. The idea that God has a meaning for everything can be extremely limiting when looking at the world, because it’s a postulate that is based not on labeling, but rather on the characteristics given to that God.

Lastly, how do you think subatomic particles, or even smaller particles than that, play a role, if any, in all this?

I don’t know too much about subatomic particles, but making the assumption that they exist, then they too have an effect.

Canon #10: Relativity in Morality

I'd like to start this with the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, along with a little commentary

1. Thou shalt have no gods before me (but I can put other things above your teachings)
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (though we do love our pictures of Jesus)
3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain (except when proclaiming what God thinks)
4. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy (unless extra money can be made on such day)
5. Honor thy father and mother (unless they were abusive)
6. Thou shalt not kill (unless you kill in self-defense or in the name of God or country)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (which really just means marry them all, polygamy was not frowned upon when this was written)
8. Thou shalt not steal (unless what you are stealing is ideas, or what a government would call "intelligence")
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness (unless it will save lives)
10. Thou shalt not covet (except when it comes to comparing pay packets or creature comforts)

These are supposed to be THE TEN RULES that, according to some judges and all Jewish and Christian ministry, we are to use to guide our lives. Yet even these, which are viewed as absolutes, are in each case, relative. Heck, our current president gleefully killed more people in the name of government than any other Texas governor, while in that position. By choosing to not commute, he passively chose to kill them, no way around it.

There are no such things as absolute morals. Moral relativity is not a realist perspective, up there with "the teens are gonna have sex anyway, so let's prepare them." It is a required perspective. Moral absolutes are only required of other people, never ourselves. Think about it. No matter what it is you do, you have a reason for why the moral doesn't apply in this instance, or some nuance makes it such that the spirit is broken but perhaps not the letter. I'm no different.

But what does moral relativity really mean? It is very close to relativity in context, only with the application of judgments. We look at suicide bombers as if they are the most heinous people on the planet, because it is beyond our scope to think of anything as being worth blowing yourself up for. We have the most powerful military on the planet, and for the most part, Americans are successfully distracted enough by daily life as to not be concerned with whether the government should be rebelled against. Further, we Americans are much more comfortable with the unabomber/Timothy McVeigh manner of causing trouble by being miles away. We value our own lives above all, but not everyone does. The "terrorists", as we like to call them, value the mission over their own lives. They are truly no different than soldiers in the 17th and 18th century, who would just line up and fire at each other. However, we don't like what they do because they blow up "civilians". I can't disagree, but really, is it any worse than dropping a bomb from 35,000 feet? Or even better, dropping a bomb via remote control drone plane? Moral absolutes would say that the suicide bomber is worse, because the moral absolutist has found his euphemism... "collateral damage". We had a mission, and those people who died, those civilians, they were collateral damage. But it was strategic!!! No different! It's using what you got in a conflict.

If I am hungry and starving, is it OK to steal a loaf of bread? Moral absolutists will say no. The moral relativist says no, but I can see why it's happening.

Finally, someone who realizes the truth of moral relativity realizes that there is no good and evil. Do people we deem as "evil" really think like Skeletor in the He-Man cartoons, saying things like "this is a victory for the forces of evil!" HELL NO! Even Hitler, considered by most people to be one of the, if not the most evil people to walk the planet, did not believe he was evil. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for the German people and for the world. Hitler was wrong, in my opinion and the opinion of most, but the idea that he was evil is based on our beliefs. If evil is based on beliefs, how can it be anything but morally relative? If evil is relative, then how can you be sure that any of the absolutes you believe in for human behavior are actually absolute?

Moral relativism in this context is not about altering your own beliefs about how humans should act. It's about realizing that maybe what works for you doesn't work for everyone else, and that in spite of what we've been taught, the only true moral absolute should be the freedom to leave a situation that doesn't comply with your personal morals, and that everything else really is relative.

Canon #9: Relativity in Context

Suppose you and I are having a conversation at a restaurant, sitting across from one another. We are experiencing completely different contexts.

Why? Well, I say something with an intended meaning. That intended meaning is irrelevant to how you perceive what I say. I say "aww, you know I love ya" in a friendly, joking tone. You perceive it as "uh oh, he said he loved me. Was he joking? Is he trying to hide his true feelings with the joking attitude? He's been buying me drinks. Is he trying to get me drunk?" or maybe a hot guy walked behind me when I said it, and you completely missed what I said, and therefore, you hear the tone and just giggle back.

There we were, sitting 3 feet from one another, facing each other, and we just had completely different experiences. How could this be?

This is why "relativity in context" is a canon. No two people experience the same situation in the same way, making this very close to the butterfly effect of chaos theory. Two people, even identical twins, growing up in the same environment will experience most of the same things, but all it takes is one difference to skew the perceptions of everything going forward.

Why does this matter though, Boskey? It matters because you have to get every perspective that was associated with a scenario if you are to determine what happened. It isn't enough to talk to one person, and might not be enough to talk to two. If you talk to one person about what happened, then you need to realize that you are going on that person's perception only, and that it is totally skewed. This precludes you from deriving an accurate theory as to what happened and what the effect is on those involved. Of course, if your purpose is comraderie or compassion, then you don't need anything else. If your purpose is diagnosing the situation, then this can't be enough.

The final part of this deals with what many people consider to be "right and wrong." Not the moral right and wrong, that's #10, but rather contextual right and wrong. How many times have you heard someone say "he was wrong to do that." Well, I'm here to tell you, it's rarely that cut and dried. A husband beats his wife. This is usually a no-brainer, but is it? Sure, a husband that hits his wife because he's having a bad day isn't going to gather much sympathy. However, what if the wife is attacking him? What if she is throwing stuff at him that is dangerous, like cutting boards? That's not as cut and dried. What if she cracked him over the head with a frying pan? Then you get into the whys of it all, which are never cut and dried. Again, remember Boskeism is about understanding. Asking questions like "why did he hit her?" is not a bad thing. Saying he did it because he saw mom do it is not a bad thing. It does not absolve him of accountability, but understanding what happened is very important. How can you prevent bad behavior if you don't understand how it came about? Just saying that it is a bad thing and he's evil does not solve anything, and actually makes the problem worse. Allowing yourself to live with these types of absolute context to a situation only leads to a closed mind.

Canon #8: Occam's Razor

From wikipedia:

Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to
the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The
principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few
assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the
observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often
expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of
succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly
translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

I firmly believe that this is an important part of putting information together into knowledge and eventually wisdom. Therefore, this is to be used when coming up with a proper theory or idea. It is a governing principle, in that it guides thinking back to what is sensible while being succinct. As Einstein said: "An explanation should be as simple as possible, but no more simple."

My belief in Occam's Razor is so deep that it almost defies explanation. Complicated ideas are fine, but if they can be replaced by an equally accurate simple idea (given of course, the postulates) then the simpler idea is the one everytime.

Of course, there are limits. "God did it", "Bad Karma for the Chinese", "God hates New Orleans", these all take the biggest assumption... that nothing could have been inadvertently done to change it. Deity-people will say that's the point, since this was the path, then it's God. Maybe they're right, but it flies in the face of logical thought, and violates the 2nd Canon. So while it is the simplest explanation, that massive assumption is in itself so encompassing and unproveable that using it goes against at the very least, Boskeism, and at most logical thought.

Boskeism is about thinking and understanding. Occam's Razor fits perfectly into it.