Are we rational or irrational?

[larkin31]

I will claim that dogs cannot make moral choices as they no rational way to determine right from wrong. Any apparent moral choice is rooted in the morality of its trainer.

You’re probably right, but moral choice was not the point of the discussion.

 

[lemondiesel]

Any apparent moral choice is rooted in the morality of its trainer.

How is that any different from today’s society? I’m pretty sure I follow the laws of the constitution, my trainer, because I do not want to be punished.

 

[tonyrey]

Why must I produce additional examples? Aren’t 6+ billion humans enough? Are you going to claim that animals don’t make choices? Are you going to claim that because they do not appear to reason like us that, therefore, our reasoning cannot be of material origin? “Since dogs can’t do calculus, therefore calculus is non-material brain function”??

“Aren’t 6+ billion humans enough?” You are begging the question…

Can you detect or measure, taste, hear, smell or touch your self, thoughts, concepts, principles, values or decisions? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

Nah, I’m saying that under our definition of solids liquids and gasses, we can find ways to describe everything about a human being.

This is clearly false.

 

[tonyrey]

This is different from the Big Mind, which did not arise from anything. It gives witness to the rise of all forms, and watches them return into Itself. The Big Mind is intangible, immaculate, limitless and contains all notions of Universe. The little mind is subject to fear and loss. The Big Mind watches the little mind.

What exactly is this “Big Mind”? Does it have a body?

 

[tonyrey]

How do either of you separate the heart from the system? The heart can’t function independently, neither can the brain. They are both part of the rational system of “you”.

Do you regard the body as rational? If so where is your mind? Or, without impertinence, are you mindless?

 

[inocente]

Can you detect or measure, taste, hear, smell or touch your self, thoughts, concepts, principles, values or decisions? If not why not?

The issue with immaterial explanations is that with the exponential rate of progress in understanding the mind, this is one of the last generations that will find anything to debate, apart from a few flat-earthers.

This isn’t like big bang or evolution, this new knowledge is directly about us with provable causes and effects in heath-care and practical applications in understanding ourselves. Kids are learning it in school, industry is using spin-off knowledge, and as the model becomes ever more complete it will be the only viable one for future generations unless they want to stick their heads in the sand.

The question is whether philosophers and theologians are fazed or taking it in their stride.

 

[You]

Nah, I’m saying that under our definition of solids liquids and gasses, we can find ways to describe everything about a human being. When it comes to describing emotions, or pain states, or anything that isn’t apparently a solid liquid or gas, we can describe states of those types of matter, (like neural states for instance), which we always find at the same time that we find the exhibited behaviors which indicate those emotions to us. We call it supervenience, which is just a fancy way of saying, “there’s something about the brain that is always the case at any instance of a particular behavioral state”.

So every time a person says, “I’m sad”, there must be some corresponding brain state, or state of matter which occurs simultaneously. Because of that, we can reduce “mental” (or non physical) things like emotions to “brain states” (or physical states), and in doing so we can properly describe the non-physical in physical terms.

The argument against that is that a) “it is impossible to fully map neural states in every brain” and b), “inasmuch as we have examined these states in separate people who have exhibited the same emotions, we find differences in the brain states therefore there is no 1:1 correlation w/ brain states and mental states, (or physical and non physical), therefore the non-physical cannot be reduced to the physical”.

The response to that argument entails employing elements of functionalism to point out that there are in fact 1:1 correlations, even in brains where the functional mechanisms are different. Like the difference between an octopus brain and a human one.

I’m not sure I understand all this brain talk. Do you mean if someone believes in something [largely] invisible their brain is physically diseased or malformed. Or are our brains perfectly formed and functioning perfectly and part of this perfect functioning is the ability to believe in something [largely] invisible?

 

[tonyrey]

Can you detect or measure, taste, hear, smell or touch your self

That is a pure act of faith that science can explain everything! Can it explain itself?!

This isn’t like big bang or evolution, this new knowledge is directly about us with provable causes and effects in health-care and practical applications in understanding ourselves. Kids are learning it in school, industry is using spin-off knowledge, and as the model becomes ever more complete it will be the only viable one for future generations unless they want to stick their heads in the sand.

You are equating human behaviour with that of biological machines. How do free will and responsibility come into your equation?

The question is whether philosophers and theologians are fazed or taking it in their stride.

The question is whether those who worship science are misguided.

 

[larkin31]

“Aren’t 6+ billion humans enough?” You are begging the question…

Can you detect or measure, taste, hear, smell or touch your self, thoughts, concepts, principles, values or decisions? If not why not?

The brain does this. The “self” is a human concept, a construct of our language and higher thinking. One can’t measure the idea of the “self” any more than one can measure the* idea* of “God.”

Let me ask again: Do you accept or reject neuro-physiological studies of the workings of the human brain?

 

[inocente]

That is a pure act of faith that science can explain everything!

Faith is cool.

Can it explain itself?!

Of course, it’s called the scientific method. If you want a philosophical view, suggest you start with Karl Popper.

You are equating human behaviour with that of biological machines. How do free will and responsibility come into your equation?

Did you watch those videos yet? (can’t even remember which thread now). Free will, or what is indistinguishable from free will, emerges in a complex system, responsibility emerges from conscience, it’s all, you know, how can I put this in one word, bear with me here, oh yes, emergent.

The question is whether those who worship science are misguided.

Not with you. Are you suggesting that everyone who knows a toothbrush cleans teeth worships said toothbrush?

 

[lemondiesel]

This is clearly false.

Because thoughts are not composed of matter?

What exactly is this “Big Mind”? Does it have a body?

As stated earlier, the “Big Mind” is what brought Rationality (Pattern/Order) from the Irrationality (Chaos). It is the reason why atoms work the way they do. It’s body is everything, while being *within *everything.

If you like, call it the Mind of God.

 

[lemondiesel]

Free will, or what is indistinguishable from free will, emerges in a complex system, responsibility emerges from conscience, it’s all, you know, how can I put this in one word, bear with me here, oh yes, emergent.

It is all an illusionary phenomenon

 

[lemondiesel]

It would be interesting to know how the morality of a person been changed, bearing in mind that genuine morality is chosen not programmed. Or do you believe all your moral decisions are beyond your control?

Let me answer with a quote from another thread

Davidv said, (talking about dogs)

Any apparent moral choice is rooted in the morality of its trainer.

While I replied,

How is that any different from today’s society?

Hopefully that answers your question.

However, I will add that I believe education can influence (and in cases change) one’s morality.

 

[Tonitz]

LD, it would be an illusory phenomenon by, say, Buddhist interpretation, if I whacked you in the nose and you felt pain and a few other things. I might appreciate what you are saying, but for our viewing audience it might need fleshing out as an idea.

 

[lemondiesel]

I’m not sure I understand all this brain talk. Do you mean if someone believes in something [largely] invisible their brain is physically diseased or malformed. Or are our brains perfectly formed and functioning perfectly and part of this perfect functioning is the ability to believe in something [largely] invisible?

My apologies for my tardiness, I am trying to answer questions properly, as this is one of my favorite subjects of study

Now, there’s a whole idea called “multiple realizability”, which basically states that, "for any given exhibition of a mental(nonphysical) state, there can be multiple corresponding brain states. So let’s say we’re both happy, and we’re both acting happy, so a guy looks at us both and says, “let’s look at the state of the neurons in both those brains and see if they’re the same, since they’re both acting the same”. Then when he looks, he sees totally different concentrations of neurotransmitters between my brain and yours, then tries to assert that because the brain states are different, that there is no relationship, (or idenity, or reducability) between the brain states and the mental states. Therefore, there is still a dualism of physical and non-physical.

Then the next step for the materialist is to say that the identity is in the functional role that the brain state plays. Then you start saying that the identity between two brains is not in the placement of the neurotransmitters, as they can clearly be different, but that it’s instead in the functional role. The brains serve an identical function, and are defined in terms of the functional role that they play. (name removed by moderator)ut—>brain—>output. Dog dies—>brain state—>exhibition of behavior consistent w/ a mental state of “sadness”. In this case the differences in the locations of the neurotransmitters between your brain and mine are irrelevant. Both of us have the same (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs, and our brains therefore play the same functional role, but the neural states are still different, but that’s ok because we’ve dealt w/ the multiple realizability problem by pointing to a functional identity.

In philosophy of mind, there are no two more important concepts than reductionism, and functionalism.

 

[lemondiesel]

I would like to thank you wonderful people for even having a conversation w/ me about this. If only you knew how hard it was to find people interested in this stuff!!!

I don’t know if anyone has actually studied this subject (in school or independently) but I was wondering if anyone has come across Doxastic logic?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic

 

[You]

My apologies for my tardiness, I am trying to answer questions properly, as this is one of my favorite subjects of study

Now, there’s a whole idea called “multiple realizability”, which basically states that, "for any given exhibition of a mental(nonphysical) state, there can be multiple corresponding brain states. So let’s say we’re both happy, and we’re both acting happy, so a guy looks at us both and says, “let’s look at the state of the neurons in both those brains and see if they’re the same, since they’re both acting the same”. Then when he looks, he sees totally different concentrations of neurotransmitters between my brain and yours, then tries to assert that because the brain states are different, that there is no relationship, (or idenity, or reducability) between the brain states and the mental states. Therefore, there is still a dualism of physical and non-physical.

Then the next step for the materialist is to say that the identity is in the functional role that the brain state plays. Then you start saying that the identity between two brains is not in the placement of the neurotransmitters, as they can clearly be different, but that it’s instead in the functional role. The brains serve an identical function, and are defined in terms of the functional role that they play. (name removed by moderator)ut—>brain—>output. Dog dies—>brain state—>exhibition of behavior consistent w/ a mental state of “sadness”. In this case the differences in the locations of the neurotransmitters between your brain and mine are irrelevant. Both of us have the same (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs, and our brains therefore play the same functional role, but the neural states are still different, but that’s ok because we’ve dealt w/ the multiple realizability problem by pointing to a functional identity.

In philosophy of mind, there are no two more important concepts than reductionism, and functionalism.

Yes, I suppose thats interesting, though from my point of view multiple realizability may seem to reinforce the concept of a distinct human soul with its attributes in common with all of its fellow humans souls; and that the souls attributes, lets say will and intellect, act on the body through ‘ideas’ also in common with human souls, things like ‘mercy’ or what ever, and the soul expresses these its attributes through neurotransmitters to the body. So it simply does not matter about where exactly the neurons are used in each different persons brain because the soul is a compact unit and it will commandeer neurons as it chooses to express its will.

Which may lead back to the question of ‘belief’ in a healthy brain; would I say the brain is gone wrong or that the soul is once again expressing itself through its neurons as it chooses them.

 

[lemondiesel]

Yes, I suppose thats interesting, though from my point of view multiple realizability may seem to reinforce the concept of a distinct human soul with its attributes in common with all of its fellow humans souls; and that the souls attributes, lets say will and intellect, act on the body through ‘ideas’ also in common with human souls, things like ‘mercy’ or what ever, and the soul expresses these its attributes through neurotransmitters to the body. So it simply does not matter about where exactly the neurons are used in each different persons brain because the soul is a compact unit and it will commandeer neurons as it chooses to express its will.

Which is completely understandable. I use to have very similar views, but my life has taken me down a different path. Have you ever heard the Native American saying that if you look it into a new born baby’s eyes, you will get a glimpse of their soul? Perhaps there is that soul deep within us, but it is covered up by time, experiences, and choices on those experiences.

Remember, I am only posting my beliefs.

 

[You]

Which is completely understandable. I use to have very similar views, but my life has taken me down a different path. Have you ever heard the Native American saying that if you look it into a new born baby’s eyes, you will get a glimpse of their soul? Perhaps there is that soul deep within us, but it is covered up by time, experiences, and choices on those experiences.

Remember, I am only posting my beliefs.

Sure, yes, its a well known saying, not limited to the Native Americans either - ‘the eyes are the windows of the soul’