Are we rational or irrational?

[Spock]

Tony has become virtually incomprehensible.

I would like to respectfully disagree. He has never been comprehensible. He has a few “pre-canned” posts (this current one is one of them) and likes to present them again and again. No matter how many times he is told that materialism is not the same as reductionism, he either does not read it, or cannot comprehend it. Best strategy is to leave him alone. I am guilty of violating this strategy, unfortunately. Shame on me.

 

[Tonitz]

I
youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g
youtube.com/watch?v=S5NRNG1r_jI

It would be of great value for anyone to watch these and consider deeply the implications.

 

[tonyrey]

Whatcha talking about? :whacky: Explaining consciousness will explain freedom and justice? In justifying your claim to be a Catholic? I’ve one word for you - hah!

I haven’t even mentioned consciousness!

Twas behavioral psychology, neuroscience and information technology, not programmers or AI.

Are you trying to divorce them?

Did you look at the videos? Hopefully they gave you an insight, intuition and inspiration about the hymnbook. We can build from there but it’s dog walking time before the sun goes down. Foresight is an occupational hazard of being rational.

I wonder how a bunch of atomic particles succeeded in escaping from the presnt moment… Magic must be at work!

Come to think of it, there’s not much substance in your post… but then we have to contend with an atomistic view of reality, I suppose.

 

[You]

Temperature isn’t energy. Each molecule in a system has a kinetic energy we call heat. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system. When kinetic energy is lost (the molecules jiggle less) we say the system is colder. At some point all the molecules stop moving (no more jiggling, no more kinetic energy). The system can’t be any colder than when no molecule has any kinetic energy - it isn’t possible for stationary molecules to become any more stationary.

You don’t need any temperature scales here, this is just physics. No one is trying to make any debating points on this, look it up .

I want to argue this - because I’m right…

Temperature is one measure of energy added to a system. Its 20C today, the sun has added 20C to the molecules in the air and they jiggle more with the new energy added. But its just energy. Everything is just energy. Degrees of energy range from no energy (no matter); to energy (matter, or jiggly matter).

 

[larkin31]

I would like to respectfully disagree. He has never been comprehensible. He has a few “pre-canned” posts (this current one is one of them) and likes to present them again and again. No matter how many times he is told that materialism is not the same as reductionism, he either does not read it, or cannot comprehend it. Best strategy is to leave him alone. I am guilty of violating this strategy, unfortunately. Shame on me.

He may go on my ignore list. I have become suspicious of his motives. His posts are innocuous. He asked me to respond to his specifics, so I did. Since then he has not replied a word to me.

 

[tonyrey]

You persist in asking questions without making any attempt to refute my points!

I’m not surprised. You tire because you cannot refute them…

What could be more direct than the following statements?

1. No one has explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension

no kidding. No one asserts it but you.

Produce evidence to the contrary - if you can.

1. No one has explained the increase in complexity

which complexity? Tony, you are just blowing vague philosophical smoke with this stuff.

You’ve made a real faux pas there! The development of complexity in the universe is precise scientific fact. Try again…

1. There is an immense gulf between a particle and a person

no kidding. no one assterts otherwise but you, for a strawman to tilt against.

You must be living in a dreamworld if you can bridge that gulf. How about some evidence for a change?

1. A person is an** indivisible entity **

This is a definitional claim from you. I disagree that a “person” is “indivisible.” A “person” can easily be dismembered of parts, even of parts of one’s personality. That has been done thousands of times.

How many parts of a person are required to qualify for the right to life? Which parts? Or perhaps you don’t recognise anyone as having the right to life… Which part of a person makes the decisions? Which part is responsible for those decisions?

1. Neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation

. Not entirely true.

Why leave a loophole? What explains the irreducible elements?

You are claiming a broad conclusion without any qualifying terms. SOME aspects of “understanding” and “reasoning” have had MUCH of their neural activities quantified, but not down to every atom (of course–no one claims this but you, as a strawman to tilt against).

MUCH OF SOME<> ALL

“How much of” consciousness has been quantified? What makes you think **everything **can be quantified? Where are truth and freedom located? Inside your skull?

Therefore materialism

must be false no. You don’t even define the term that you are refuting, and your definition of “materialism” is nowhere in this pseudo-syllogism (which actually is a requirement of the logic). This is terrible syllogistic thinking.

You’re on a philosophy forum and you don’t even know what materialism is!

Could you possibly explain why it is a “pseudo-syllogism”?

I actually think that you are just tooling around, trolling for entertainment. No serious thinker writes what you just wrote.

I actually **know **you’re just evading a precise discussion by trying to obfuscate the issue with argumenta ad hominem. The devil is in the details…

There is another materialist on this forum who resorts to derogatory remarks about me in posts to others in a futile attempt to discredit me because he is incapable of refuting my arguments…

 

[GEddie]

I disagree that a “person” is “indivisible.” A “person” can easily be dismembered of parts, even of parts of one’s personality. That has been done thousands of times…

That does not “divide” a person. If you lose a limb, although your life will not be the same, you would not be “divided,” there would just be an incomplete “you” and a dead human limb.

If you were head-injured so as to scramble your personality, your life would not be the same, but you would still not be “divided.”. You would be you, but with an altered personality.

If you lost your head, you would be dead, but not “divided.”

Whatever happens to a human being, the “personhood” remains unitary.

ICXC NIKA

 

[larkin31]

That does not “divide” a person. If you lose a limb, although your life will not be the same, you would not be “divided,” there would just be an incomplete “you” and a dead human limb.

If you were head-injured so as to scramble your personality, your life would not be the same, but you would still not be “divided.”. You would be you, but with an altered personality.

If you lost your head, you would be dead, but not “divided.”

Whatever happens to a human being, the “personhood” remains unitary.

ICXC NIKA

Chances are, you are assuming that “person” means something unitary and divine (supernatural). Since you mean to assume this from the start, then there is no need for discussion.

I, by the way, “assume” quite the opposite: that there is no such thing as a supernatural “soul” of divine unitary spirit in us that cannot be “divided.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

What you don’t realize is that every logical contradiction expresses a physically impossible state of affairs.

Nice attempt at mind-reading. What you do not realize is how intelligent everyone but yourself is. Everyone realizes more than you think. How could you even say something stupid like that, anyway?

In all of your posts, there is an utter statement of hubris to show that you are far superior than anybody and everybody that believes in something. (By those statements, you actually discredit yourself.)

I will reply fully to your post and correct your false ideas later… I got a concert. (Your cross-analysis of infallibility is wrong anyway. This is why non-Christians need to stay out of theology AND the Bible. Sound familiar?)

Take care buddy

 

[tonyrey]

Chances are, you are assuming that “person” means something unitary and divine (supernatural). Since you mean to assume this from the start, then there is no need for discussion.

I, by the way, “assume” quite the opposite: that there is no such thing as a supernatural “soul” of divine unitary spirit in us that cannot be “divided.”

You assume we are biological machines in spite of all the insurmountable problems that hypothesis presents for any civilised person who believes in free will, human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. How do you even begin to solve them?

 

[larkin31]

I’m not surprised. You tire because you cannot refute them…
Produce evidence to the contrary - if you can.

I need not provide evidence to the contrary of a claim given no evidence to defend it in the first place. Your request is a canard.

You’ve made a real faux pas there! The development of complexity in the universe is precise scientific fact

Huh? COmplexity of matter? Why would this matter one iota here?

You must be living in a dreamworld if you can bridge that gulf. How about some evidence for a change?

My evidence is your post, which I quoted.

How many parts of a person are required to qualify for the right to life? Which parts? Or perhaps you don’t recognise anyone as having the right to life… Which part of a person makes the decisions? Which part is responsible for those decisions?

1. One must be a surviving post-partum individual to have any legal rights. The definition of “alive” is somewhat vague, but for the most part it is not dependent on “parts” at all beyond core tissue and organ life. Several organs, however, can be in failure, yet, if blood circulation is still continuing and massive organ failure has not occurred, then one can still be considered alive and still retains rights.
2. I don’t care to make this an argument about abortion, which is even further off the topic.

“How much of” consciousness has been quantified? What makes you think **everything **can be quantified? Where are truth and freedom located? Inside your skull?

1. I don’t know how much. I am aware that regional brain activities have been charted, and that some of the functions of brain structures have been assessed. You can read about it if you are interested.
2. I have never claimed that “everything” can be quantified. No one has claimed this, and you have erected another strawman to tilt against.

You’re on a philosophy forum and you don’t even know what materialism is!

I am asking you to be specific. You are being cagey and vague and will not define the terms you are using. Then, you define them poorly in order to erect strawmen to tilt against. It is poor argument, and you should be called out on it since you put on a superior rhetorical attitude–without justification.

Could you possibly explain why it is a “pseudo-syllogism”

You pretend to be arguing through a syllogism when in fact you are not.

I actually **know **you’re just evading a precise discussion by trying to obfuscate the issue with argumenta ad hominem. The devil is in the details…

Then define “materialism” as you are arguing against it. You seem to be suggesting that “materialism” claims that atoms must be capable of purpose or consciousness or ethics or personhood or whatever…OR materialism is false. Well. Please give us the definition of materialism that actually makes the claim you say it makes. Quote that definition from anywhere. PLEASE. Let’s see the scholarly definition of “materialsm” that claims that an atom must have in it the ability to perform these higher function tasks of individuals for this thing called “materialsm” to be valid (and you can’t quote yourself!)

There is another materialist on this forum who resorts to derogatory remarks about me in posts to others in a futile attempt to discredit me because he is incapable of refuting my arguments…

“me” “me” “me” …

 

[larkin31]

You assume we are biological machines in spite of all the insurmountable problems that hypothesis presents for any civilised person who believes in free will, human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. How do you even begin to solve them?

Not by placing a god in a thing called heaven to solve it all for me. My answer, which I repeat for the 50th time here, is that human collective wisdom, experience, conscience, and survival needs have developed certain patterns over time and across cultures and several of these ideas have become the abstractions which you and many others, including myself, value. There is no requirement to make these eternal standards forever enshrined in the supernatural realm for them to have a major impact on human thought and relations.

 

[tonyrey]

                 [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7509216#post7509216)

In other words you believe they are human inventions/conventions that can be ignored when it suits you. We see the results of this “progressive” outlook in the moral decadence of our secular society in which the law of the jungle reigns supreme under the cloak of democracy. “human collective wisdom, experience, conscience, and survival needs” are a convenient fiction which masks rampant individualism with the consequent disintegration of the family and the community. Everything is indeed relative -** to the self**!

The acid test of any interpretation of morality is its results. The colossal amount of unnecessary misery and suffering in the world demonstrates that the major impact of relativism on human thought and relations is disastrous - which is only to be expected when it is stems from the view that we exist for **no reason **whatsoever. It is not surprising that when people stake everything on this life they have no genuine moral values or principles. “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die… and to hell with the rest!”

 

[grannymh]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.
2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
5. Therefore materialism must be false.

Actually, materialism is incomplete because it cannot address all reality.
It is the reality which materialism is unable to address which proves that it is limited.

Being thus limited, materialism becomes false when one tries to apply it to all reality.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing:

 

[tonyrey]

I need not provide evidence to the contrary of a claim given no evidence to defend it in the first place.

Precisely what evidence do you require?

The development of complexity in the universe is precise scientific fact

Huh? COmplexity of matter? Why would this matter one iota here?

It was the basis for the origin and development of life.

My evidence is your post, which I quoted.

That is too vague to comprehend.

How many parts of a person are required to qualify for the right to life? Which parts? Or perhaps you don’t recognise anyone as having the right to life… Which part of a person makes the decisions? Which part is responsible for those decisions?

1. One must be a surviving post-partum individual to have any legal rights. The definition of “alive” is somewhat vague, but for the most part it is not dependent on “parts” at all beyond core tissue and organ life.

Then what is it dependent on?

Several organs, however, can be in failure, yet, if blood circulation is still continuing and massive organ failure has not occurred, then one can still be considered alive and still retains rights.

Who makes this arbitrary decision and why?

1. I don’t care to make this an argument about abortion, which is even further off the topic.

That would be too compromising…

“How much of” consciousness has been quantified?

1. I don’t know how much. I am aware that regional brain activities have been charted, and that some of the functions of brain structures have been assessed.

Brain activities <> consciousness

I have never claimed that “everything” can be quantified.

Then you cannot be a consistent materialist.

Where are truth and freedom located? Or are they illusions?

I am asking you to be specific.

Isn’t “atomic particles” precise enough?

You pretend to be arguing through a syllogism when in fact you are not.

Please specify the exact non sequitur.

Then define “materialism” as you are arguing against it. You seem to be suggesting that “materialism” claims that atoms must be capable of purpose or consciousness or ethics or personhood or whatever…OR materialism is false. Well. Please give us the definition of materialism that actually makes the claim you say it makes. Quote that definition from anywhere. PLEASE. Let’s see the scholarly definition of “materialism” that claims that an atom must have in it the ability to perform these higher function tasks of individuals for this thing called “materialism” to be valid (and you can’t quote yourself!)

The very first definition I find in Google:

“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that** everything**, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

• American Heritage Dictionary

“Belief that** only physical things truly exist**. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object.”

• A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names

There is another materialist on this forum who resorts to derogatory remarks about me in posts to others in a futile attempt to discredit me because he is incapable of refuting my arguments…

“me” “me” “me” …

…

How can you be “another”? (There must be two "you"s - although a materialist cannot consistently believe even in one!

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, materialism is incomplete because it cannot address all reality.
It is the reality which materialism is unable to address which proves that it is limited.

Being thus limited, materialism becomes false when one tries to apply it to all reality.

Thank you for that! How could it possibly address itself?!

Logical positivism perished because the verification principle cannot be verified…

:snowing: Keep warm…

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for that! How could it possibly address itself?!

Logical positivism perished because the verification principle cannot be verified…

:snowing: Keep warm…

I’ve had to have two cups of hot chocolate to keep me warm until I could get the heat up.

I did not say that materialism could address itself. I said: “Actually, materialism is incomplete because it cannot address all reality. It is the reality which materialism is unable to address which proves that it is limited. Being thus limited, materialism because false when one tries to apply it to all reality.” This comes from an observation of the reality of human nature and not from any philosophical principle.

Blessings,
granny
:coffeeread:

 

[GEddie]

Chances are, you are assuming that “person” means something unitary and divine (supernatural). Since you mean to assume this from the start, then there is no need for discussion.

I, by the way, “assume” quite the opposite: that there is no such thing as a supernatural “soul” of divine unitary spirit in us that cannot be “divided.”

Excuse me, I did not use the terms “supernatural” or “soul” anywhere in my post.

Even rejecting the idea of a supernatural soul, the “personhood” of a human being, remains unitary. Whatever comes off the body, the personhood remains the same, remains in the live body, and only there, until life is gone.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[larkin31]

In other words you believe they are human inventions/conventions

Yes

that can be ignored when it suits you.

No, this is just pejorative palaver. As is the rest of your post.

 

[larkin31]

Excuse me, I did not use the terms “supernatural” or “soul” anywhere in my post.

Even rejecting the idea of a supernatural soul, the “personhood” of a human being, remains unitary. Whatever comes off the body, the personhood remains the same, remains in the live body, and only there, until life is gone.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

sorry

you jumped into a conversation I was having with the other poster. I did not look at the screen name (I often don’t).

I still disagree with your definition, but, true, you did not use those terms.