Update: It looks as if I read too much into Robert Lanza's book. I had read it from the standpoint of Bob Clapp's philosophy, in that each individuals' consciousness is necessary to bring things into existence. Now, this does not mean that our consciousness physically brings things into existence, it is only observable because of our consciousness.
I first heard about this book, Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Key to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, in a science magazine and the next day mentioned it to Bob who had already heard about it. He was very excited that there seemed to be scientific proof of his philosophical position. After buying the book I read it, but at that time I did not fully grasp Lanza's view that the world would not physically exist without a mind, or that with your thoughts things can be made to happen. This new age crap went entirely over my head because I misinterpreted what Lanza was actually arguing due to my preconceptions about what the book was about.
After reading Victor J. Stenger's excellent book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, wherein he tackles these new age claims that attempt to distort science in order to make their new age nonsense sound legitimate, I realized what Lanza was actually talking about. I feel foolish for advocating this book but, like Bob, I was excited that science seemed to be on to something interesting but Stenger's book clearly explains why Biocentrism is nonsense.
With that being said, you can forget everything I said below about this book and these supposedly “scientific” findings. However, philosophically, Bob's first principle still stands firm.
Anarchism comes from the root word (in Greek) anarchos, which means “without rulers." Anarchism can be divided along either socialistic or individualistic lines. Socialist anarchism rejects private property and believes it to be the root of social inequalities, while individual anarchism highly values the individual, private property, ownership, and personal autonomy.
I hold to the individualist branch of anarchism so this is what I will be arguing for. As I've argued in the past, I believe it to be most ethical to allow each individual to create voluntary contracts with other human beings in order to keep a majority from oppressing or creating unfair conditions for the minority.
Anything other than a completely voluntary social contract between each individual ultimately results in tyranny at some level. Many atheists would be familiar with the situation where theists use their numbers to suppress potentially life-saving benefits from stem-cell research and the suppression of rights of homosexuals in those states that banned gay marriage.
I don't think any freethinker would tolerate such bigotry and ignorance and yet they uphold the system that allows the theists to do it in the first place. Why?
Several months ago I was having a discussion in the comments section with another atheist about government and we both acknowledged our very different starting points. He viewed everything through the lens of the society as a whole, while I was viewing things from the perspective of the individual.
Much like the chasm that will likely never be filled between theists and atheists, statists and anarchists will probably never see eye to eye on this philosophical question, but like the theists' refusal to see the overwhelming evidence that there is likely no supernatural realm, statists may very well continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Prime reigns supreme.
Like the evidence against the supernatural, the evidence that the individual human being is all there is, is overwhelming.
With each individuals' consciousness they perceive the world and other people around them, as do others. Without each individuals' consciousness, nothing would exist, including other people. This is the first proof.
Second, as demonstrated in Robert Lanza and Bob Berman's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Key to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, it's been scientifically proven through quantum mechanics experiments that particles are linked to an individuals' presence and that without a conscious observer these particles exist in an "undetermined state of probability waves" and only until a conscious agent perceives them do they collapse out of "superposition" and come into existence. Basically, what this means is that no particles truly exist in the universe without consciousness to bring them forth. I would highly recommend the book so you can get a more detailed explanation for this scientific evidence.
Another argument I shall put forth is that it is true that individuals come together to form groups and large societies, however, what is that society composed of? Individuals! And as I already explained above, it is unethical for any individual to coerce or harm another, which is exactly what government and democracy allows individuals to do to other individuals. I will continue to argue that the social contract is the most ethical form of interaction between individuals because it avoids the two forms of tyranny that run rampant within today's world: coercion and force.
Until this is realized millions of innocent individuals shall be enslaved and forced against their own will to abide by the laws of others; some of which infringe upon the rights of every individual who make up a particular minority.
Once this fact is realized, that the individual human being is all there is, how can one claim that a society even truly exists? It wouldn't if not for each individual and each individuals' consciousness.
The social structure is backwards. Everyone views everything from a top-down approach, which is how theisms and statisms operate. But reality dictates a bottom-up approach that takes every individual into account, so as to protect their individual freedoms.
Tracing the steps backwards, by looking at morality at the individual level, we all know and can understand that we would never want to be harmed or violated in some way, and so we can rightfully project that towards others, who are most likely very much like ourselves. We can then come to a reasonable conclusion that they would not want to be harmed either, so we respect that just as we would want to be respected.
Because of this, any action that violates or harms any individual is by default wrong and can be considered evil.
I will now cover one of the most likely arguments that will come my way. That of the so called “necessary evil.”
Is government a “necessary evil?” I would say no, it's not. I've given many examples of how a society can be organized in various ways to function without government. If we human beings can come together as individuals, and realize each of us as such, we could create a living situation that was fair to everyone.
So, let me ask again. Why do you tolerate government? The very thing that stifles and harms Prime?
First, props on the atheism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you need to let go of this pseudo-religious belief you've replaced Christianity with.
In actual fact, "Prime" does not exist. Consciousness is something our brains make up, on the fly, after the fact. Nobody is actually conscious; we just remember it that way.
Second, particles are not affected by consciousness. Just. No. Quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness. Pretty much every phenomena that you can name occurs at the macro level; outside of the hearts of dead stars or cyclotron tubes, QM might as well not even exist.
Third, as for the idea that society is merely a collection of individuals: your brain is merely a collection of neurons. But it would be absurd to assert that your brain doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.
Fourth, I confess I haven't seen your examples of how to run a society without government, but I already know they won't work. I know this because your fundamental understanding of the nature of individuality and its relationship to society is deeply flawed. Just one example: look up the "gorillia in the basketball game" experiment. Half of the subjects don't see a a man in a gorilla suit walk through a basketball game because the players act like it's not there. This is because our very perceptions are socially influenced. And it's worse: the bodies of real gorillas are hormonally influenced by social cues (young males put off puberty by up to 8 years!). If you think human beings are immune to these kinds of biosocial effects, you're just wrong.
Finally, an important part of contract law are remedies. That is, what you get to do when the other person fails the contract. This is part of the law because people noticed that contracts get broken a lot. Your social contract theory seems to have forgotten that contracts will be broken, and that sometimes only force can provide a remedy. Particularly when you are dealing with the 2-10% of the population that has impaired (or missing) sympathetic responses. And game theory itself will tell you that if the gain of cheating is higher than the price of being caught, people will cheat. It's not even a moral flaw: it is simply a statement about mathematics, biology, and the real world.
Other than those few issues, I totally agree with you.
Wait a second. You have comment moderation turned on? How... very... ironic.
ReplyDeleteMCPlanck,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, however the irony is all on you since none of your objections even come close to pointing out any flaws in what I’ve written (with the exception of the typo).
Anarchism is not a pseudo-religious belief. It is not based on faith; there are workable methods to create a society without a government and there are examples of this taking place.
You’re correct that the particles don’t respond to a persons’ consciousness; they seem to do whatever the experimenter believes they will do. I goofed there so thanks for pointing that out. My point was simply that the universe seems to be linked to each individual and that without an individual to bring the particles out of "superposition" there very well could be no universe, which would constitute a scientific basis for my friend’s philosophy.
Though, in a way, they are linked to consciousness since without a conscious person these particles would not exist, according to the authors. They need not only a person but a conscious one, so in a way I wasn’t truly wrong, but I think the way I edited the wording better explains the theory proposed by the authors of Biocentrism.
I never said groups or things don’t exist, only pointing out the fact that even groups are made of individuals and therefore one cannot sacrifice the individuals for the whole (the group). Each person, even if in a group, needs to be taken account of and given a voice. That’s all I meant there.
Here is even more irony for you. I’ve written a post in the past where I point out the religious nature of government and how atheists are hypocrites. Well, you’ve just given me one more example. You clearly have much faith that anarchism is wrong without even looking at the evidence for it, just as many theists reject any and all evidence against their religion without looking closely at it.
My point about individuals and society is that things need to change. You’re simply making use of the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is one way in nature, or wired by nature, doesn’t mean we have to follow nature’s example. We can use our evolved brains to change society. It’s not in our nature to be monogamous to our partners but we do it any way. Your examples do nothing to counter the fact that we can override our natures and change society to one that is more fair for all individuals.
As for my views on the social contract, I’ve discussed possible consequences for a broken contract elsewhere; another example of your “faith” that I’m wrong and you failed to properly research my views. The links are right there on the side bar, though I think some of them may need updating since my views have changed a bit since then.
Thanks for pointing out the poor wording in my post, but please research my views more fully if you wish to critique them.