The following represents a collection of notes and ramblings that coalesced over a period of about 5 days. I have attempted to preserve the original notes in their entirety. As such the ideas may often seem to be jumbled, this is due to the fact that not all of these ideas came to me all at the same time. Sometimes I came up with some entirely new concept half way through another, and sometimes I came back to re-visit an old concept some time later. Some of these ideas and statements may require revision. Feedback is appreciated.
Principle of Human Arrogance (PHA): all human behavior and ideas can be explained as an example of human confidence in their own superiority.
Human beings as superior to other living
beings Belief that human survival characteristics
are “better” than those of other species; i.e. intelligence, reason,
adaptability Belief that the human ability to change the
environment for good or bad is proof of our superiority Belief in our ability to correctly predict
anything. I.e. prediction of our influence in the evolution of other species Belief that we can understand the "mind"
of any “superior” being or the underlying principles of nature PHA does not necessarily state that all of
these assumptions are always wrong, only that the beliefs are based on our own
concept of human superiority. More Examples - Belief that undoing or
reducing the damage we do to the world is “good”. If humans were “good” there
would be no damage to undo. It seems that this principle extends even to
our interspecies dealings: belief that we can understand ourselves or our own
minds. (Sociology & Psychology) Belief that any one being is “superior to” or
“better than” any other. This applies within the species as well” This means that I am not superior to anyone else,
only that I possess different skills/ abilities and different abilities to use
what I possess. Humans deemed better than others only receive
such distinction in a purely human context, this quality does not exist in the
absence of other humans. If no other person is aware of you having
done a good deed, then the good of the deed exists only in the context to which
you apply this quality of “good” PHA and our assignment of the quality of
“good” to our actions allows us to feel better about ourselves. Therefore, any person believing to do a good
deed is entirely self motivated. Sub-hypothesis: All humans are inherently
selfish and self-centered. No action is taken on behalf of others except that
which is intrinsically self motivated on the part of the action taker.
Principle of Human selfishness (PHS) Principle of Perspective (POP) An action viewed as good by one person need
not be viewed as good by any other. Case in point: someone gives spare change to
a homeless man, this action is viewed by another person (other than the
homeless man). This other person believes that the homeless man is a bad person
(the reason for this is unimportant); therefore, giving this homeless man spare
change is a “bad” action. The giver perceives a “good” action. The observer
perceives a bad action. Yet both have observed the same action Other animals are not motivated (so far as we
know) by a need to feel good about themselves. PHA example: application of our value system
to beings other than ourselves, be them other humans, other animals or imagined
beings. Belief that our value system was imbued in us
by a “superior being” Belief that “superior being(s)” have chosen
to direct and/or influence our lives. Since it is wrong to believe that we are
superior to other beings, is it wrong to ever believe that any “superior”
beings exist”? Humans always put the superior beings in the
context of themselves: i.e. created in gods” image, universe given to man,
superior being(s) states that humans are a/the superior race on earth. Ex: Belief that we have the “right” to
destroy other beings for our own good (Referring to animals) Why would a superior being care about us” We
(perceiving ourselves as superior beings) don”t care about “lesser” forms of
life except in relation to ourselves and, at times, our need to feel good about
ourselves. Assumption: all humans are created equal. By who's standards? Certainly not by those of
every human. How come nobody believes the assumption that all humans are
created equal” Answer: PHA Assumption: All beings are equal Humans are incapable of believing this; we
impose our own hierarchy, sometimes ending with us, sometimes ending with
superior being(s) aware of our existence. (Refers to microscopic life) Why is this awareness important? 500 years
ago we had no awareness of amoebas; we were so “superior” to amoebas that we
were not even aware of their existence. Why would a being “superior” to us as
we are to an amoeba have any reason to be aware of our existence or to care
about our existence” Answer: PHA/PHS On Biblical Prophets: Assume we find a way to
communicate with amoebas. Some human convinces these amoebas that he is god. He
then tells them to produce penicillin because it is a divine task. The
amoebae's comply. Primary Statement: So far as we know, beings
other than humans do not ascribe the characteristics of good or bad to their
actions Are humans inherently good or bad” Since good
or bad do not exist independently of human perception the answer to this
question would depend on all humans believing that they are good or bad. Since not all humans agree on whether they
are inherently good or bad, humans are neither inherently good nor bad It is PHA to believe one way or the other
without the consent of all other humans Paradox: Humans believe that they are either
inherently good or bad. This is a fallacy, yet if all humans believe one or the
other than it is not a fallacy. Any individual who believes that humans are
inherently good or bad is wrong and subject to PHA. Yet if ALL humans believe
one or the other exclusively, then that belief is justified. However, it is not
even justified believing that humans COULD be inherently good or bad since not
all humans believe this; i.e. A human existing who believes that humans are
Neither inherently good nor bad would destroy the POSSIBILITY of humans being
inherently good or bad. It is PHA/PHS to believe that one is correct
taking either view without the consent of all other humans. On morality: morality is a product of PHA.
Projection of moral belief and expectation onto others is a result of PHA/PHS.
Moral character of an action is determined by the participants and observers. Eliminate our ascription of good or bad to an
action and you eliminate our need for a moral interpretation of that action. Logic depends entirely on our perception (or
our supposed ability to perceive) of it. There is no such thing as a
deductive/logical proof. They are as bound to human perception &
interpretation as inductive proofs We alone create the “infallibility” of math
& logic. What arrogant and preposterous assumptions they truly are!! Once indoctrinated to it there is no
abstracting from the “predetermined” perception of those who first establish
our perceptions” we are trapped in an infinite cycle. Humans cannot break the
limits of their perception, neither can newborn humans escape the imposed
perceptions of those who raise them; whose perception in turn comes from the
society they inhabit and the perceptions of those who raised them ad
infinitum? Where does it all begin” Do animals exist or are they created by our
perception” PHA says that they do not have to exist independent of us since
they are all “inferior” to us. We create them out of our need for superiority.
**In case you missed it, this paragraph was meant as a joke, hehe** What is sqrt(-1)” Answer: I What is I” It has
no meaning apart from sqrt(-1). But what is 1” It has no meaning independent of
our perception. Math is not the “language of the universe”; rather it is a way
to express our superiority. If we have no way to break this “cycle of
perception” then we have no reason to be disturbed by its existence. Rather,
accept it and move on within the framework of our human perception. There”s no way to know any absolute,
independent of our perception. We cannot comprehend anything outside the
realm of our perception until it is incorporated into it. Science: Does the model fit what is being
modeled, or does what is being modeled fit the model? Both occur. The first model must fit what is
being modeled, subsequent modelings fit the model until some modeling does not
fit the model, and then the model is changed to fit what is being modeled. **In
retrospect this topic will require a great deal of explanation and expansion** Why would an extra-terrestrial be more likely
to recognize 1+1=2 then "see Dick run"? Why would anyone else develop the concept of
square roots? We only developed them so we could use them. If some other
intelligence never had use for square roots they would never be developed. *****Thus ends the original collection of
notes and ramblings. If you
disagree with anything I have written please let me know. Simple accusations of "you
are
wrong about (such and such)" will be ignored. If I am wrong about something
tell me why. These ideas will (if I ever get around to it) be expanded and
revised, simplified and clarified. And I hope I don”t have to do all of that
alone. If part of this made sense to you and you believe you can add something
to it, I welcome your input. It parts made absolutely no sense to you after you
have made a genuine attempt to make sense out of them then you may ignore them
or ask me to clarify. If you ignore them that is your choice, if you help me
that is your choice. If you got anything out of my rambling it may be
this: no one could have any good reason to tell you that you are wrong, as they
are merely acting out of their own self interest ;) cheers*****
