Are we rational or irrational?

[GreggAlvarez]

I had to jumble up the order in order to make it fit properly into the posts. I had not realized it was this long. Shall we?

The circle is the catholic underpinning of its claims. The church “claims” that God gave it the attribute of infallibility. And how does the church substantiate this claim? By referring to its own alleged infallibility. That is the circle I am talking about. And that circle is not better than to utter an unsubstantiated claim, like you did above.

Again, my claim only seems unsubstantiated to you because you have no idea I even said, much less understand it. That stopping point is not circular, as even you yourself claimed. The stopping point was the starting point of our belief. But, here it is again. Perhaps, you will understand that I know more about theology than you do. (Understandably though, because that is how it should be and is.) God promised that His Church that it will not fail. (It has not yet.) That promise was substantiated by Him giving the authority to His Church through Peter and the Apostles. Yes, the Church eventually officially proclaimed the declaration of infallibility, but that is because the Church officially proclaims what has been taught to Christ’s Apostles. It is not a “claim” per se; it is a belief passed down by the Apostles taught by God Himself. The Church did NOT just at one point in time say, “Ok… We are now infallible.” Nor was it a “self-proclaimed” infallibility as you seem to suggest. No, it is the belief passed on through Sacred Tradition from apostolic succession. If the Church refers “to its own alleged infallibility”, it is understood by Catholics to mean that it is protected from untruth by the Holy Spirit. We know that it is not of human doing. Believe it or not, Catholics actually understand what the Church means when it refers to its infallibility (most of them anyway). Infallilibity is not of its own doing. Your claim is based on the assumption that you know more than Catholics about infallibility. Your claim is completely unsubstantiated and an utter act of hubris… Again… Please stop the insults so we can have candid conversation.

To “know” something is to have information about something that exists - which is different from “imagining” something that does not exist - the nonsense of “eternal now” notwithstanding.

See… Now, this statement is completely meaningless to both of us. Because if you told I “know” my God, you would call me an idiot like you have been doing (but, to your credit, without the actual word “idiot”) this entire conversation. Same exact thing if I told you I “know” God exists. With that said, if you tell me I am “imagining”, you better be ready to defend that position (that is, the position that asserts that someone is imagining something). You will have to teach me why I am imagining about something I know. But, I can guarantee you this: I know more about my belief than you do. That I am sure of.

Side note: I have heard atheists say that they “know for a fact” that God does not exist. According to your definition of omniscience, they are claiming omniscience in that they know what does not exist, has never and will never exist. And according to your definitions of “knowing” and “imagining”, this “knowing” that God does not exist is in fact “imaging”.Your definitions and the “knowledge” of other atheists (presumable not you) actually argues that it is impossible for Him not to exist. Again, I am not saying you say this. I agree that one cannot prove what does not exist. But, on the other hand, one can know what does.

Your opinion of the “eternal now” is based on the idea that we cannot imagine someone else viewing it that way. Read “What is it like to be a bat?” by Thomas Nagel if you have not already done so.

If this conversation does come up, then perhaps Private Messages would be best because that would indeed be a theism/atheism conversation.

 

[tonyrey]

I think this is the fallacy of composition where you are assuming that the qualities of the whole are the same as or limited by the qualities of the parts. The sum can be greater than the parts.

Without any explanation of how many distinct individuals (atomic particles) can constitute one indivisible entity (a person) it is reasonable to reject that hypothesis. It is also necessary to explain the source of abstract thought, the location of decision-making and the basis of responsibility.

1. Atomic particles are not visible to the naked eye.

1. We consist solely of atomic particles.

1. We are not visible to the naked eye.

If it is assumed that **we **are they!

It’s worth noting that assuming what is true of the parts is also true of the whole is not inherently a fallacy, but it depends on what qualities are being discussed.

I agree entirely. The transition from physical to **personal **qualities is another ball game altogether!

Would it be to ‘stonerish’ of me to ask, What if the purpose of atomic particles was rationality and reason?

Not at all! It is a possibility which would explain the existence of human rationality but it would merely postpone the question of how rationality originated… It would also raise the problem of **why **atomic particles are rational (apart from donating it to us!)

 

[tonyrey]

So your first premise is flawed - no?

Why?

 

[jonfawkes]

Why?

1. Atomic particles are not rational.

The first assumption isn’t proven. It’s not even agreed upon as convention. You allow for their “rationality” as part of a rational system, and possibly rational on their own. It seems a weak jumping off point. You aren’t even convinced of it. - no?

 

[larkin31]

I think this is the fallacy of composition where you are assuming that the qualities of the whole are the same as or limited by the qualities of the parts. The sum can be greater than the parts.

Indeed.

It is a fallacy to argue that “because a heart pumps blood that every particle within the heart must also be able to pump blood, or ‘materialism’ is false.”

or that “because we can’t say specifically how many particles make up a working heart that ‘materialism’ fails.”

 

[lemondiesel]

Without any explanation of how many distinct individuals (atomic particles) can constitute one indivisible entity (a person) it is reasonable to reject that hypothesis. It is also necessary to explain the source of abstract thought, the location of decision-making and the basis of responsibility.

Not at all! It is a possibility which would explain the existence of human rationality but it would merely postpone the question of how rationality originated… It would also raise the problem of **why **atomic particles are rational (apart from donating it to us!)

Chaos (irrationality) is simply a pattern (rationality) we haven’t recognized yet, and perhaps never will. When you say atomic particles are not rational, you mean that they do not posses gnosis of rationality…which is an illusory phenomenon.

Atomic particles are best defined by reference to the quantifiable aspects of their being. It has been argued that the standard definition of an atom is more a linguistic construct and that atoms in and of themselves are not repeatable. There can be no two atoms that are 100% identical in properties w/ out violating the rule of “no 2 objects in the same place at the same time”, assuming you consider spatiotemporal location to be a property of an object.

The structure of those quantitative descriptions is extrapolated from the physical, (material) world by way of empirical observation.

The descriptions constitute physical laws.

The best method we have of describing things which are not empirical, (as in metaphysical things, or non-material things), is by examining sets of possible outcomes according to variances in future conditions.

We examine sets of possible outcomes w/ regard to variances in future, or unknown conditions by reference to modalities such as necessity and possibility. Some people call this a “counterfactual analysis”.

The same principles hold for both types of description. Those speculative and pluralistic about outcomes, and those empirical and which point to singularities.

Because the principles are the same, we can use the same descriptions, and because the descriptions are extrapolated from the physical world in the form of “laws of physics”, and because we can construct linguistic models of supervenience in which there is a 1:1 correlation between instances of “matter” and “non-matter”, for all intents and purposes, materialism is true.

To be honest I don’t understand too much about how rational agency plays into this. It seems to be more an issue of ??ontology?? What exists? Physical objects? Non physical objects? Or both?

The main distinction that I can come up w/ regarding materialists has to do w/ the notion that some of them think, “all things are matter such as solid liquid or gas”. Others, (such as myself), think that, “all things whether they are made of solids liquids gasses or “non-matter” exist, function, and are understood according to the same principles and therefore since this identity has been made, materialism is true”.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.

I simply conceded it as a possibility but there is **not one jot of evidence **that atomic particles are rational. The vast majority of people would ridicule the suggestion because being rational implies that inanimate objects are conscious, aware of us and understand what we are doing. Yet it is impossible to disprove conclusively because the more absurd a suggestion is the more difficult it is to refute! How would you prove life is not a dream?

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed.

It is a fallacy to argue that “because a heart pumps blood that every particle within the heart must also be able to pump blood, or ‘materialism’ is false.”

or that “because we can’t say specifically how many particles make up a working heart that ‘materialism’ fails.”

Your argument fails because the heart is a** material** object which is irrational (i.e. non-rational). The issue is the difference between a rational **person **and irrational particles.

 

[tonyrey]

Chaos (irrationality) is simply a pattern (rationality) we haven’t recognized yet, and perhaps never will.

How would you prove that?

When you say atomic particles are not rational, you mean that they do not posses gnosis of rationality…which is an illusory phenomenon.

Are you saying you are not rational?!

Atomic particles are best defined by reference to the quantifiable aspects of their being. It has been argued that the standard definition of an atom is more a linguistic construct and that atoms in and of themselves are not repeatable. There can be no two atoms that are 100% identical in properties w/ out violating the rule of “no 2 objects in the same place at the same time”, assuming you consider spatiotemporal location to be a property of an object.

The structure of those quantitative descriptions is extrapolated from the physical, (material) world by way of empirical observation.

The descriptions constitute physical laws.

The best method we have of describing things which are not empirical, (as in metaphysical things, or non-material things), is by examining sets of possible outcomes according to variances in future conditions.

We examine sets of possible outcomes w/ regard to variances in future, or unknown conditions by reference to modalities such as necessity and possibility. Some people call this a “counterfactual analysis”.

The same principles hold for both types of description. Those speculative and pluralistic about outcomes, and those empirical and which point to singularities.

Because the principles are the same, we can use the same descriptions, and because the descriptions are extrapolated from the physical world in the form of “laws of physics”, and because we can construct linguistic models of supervenience in which there is a 1:1 correlation between instances of “matter” and “non-matter”, for all intents and purposes, materialism is true.

You still have to explain how persons have insight and understanding whereas particles do not.

To be honest I don’t understand too much about how rational agency plays into this. It seems to be more an issue of ??ontology?? What exists? Physical objects? Non physical objects? Or both?

Your frankness is refreshing!

The main distinction that I can come up w/ regarding materialists has to do w/ the notion that some of them think, “all things are matter such as solid liquid or gas”. Others, (such as myself), think that, “all things whether they are made of solids liquids gasses or “non-matter” exist, function, and are understood according to the same principles and therefore since this identity has been made, materialism is true”.

You are saying in effect that a person is merely a collection of solids, liquids and gases which can choose how to behave and predict what will happen…

 

[larkin31]

Your argument fails because the heart is a** material** object which is irrational (i.e. non-rational). The issue is the difference between a rational **person **and irrational particles.

So you agree with my analogy about the heart.

rationality is a function of a different organ of the body. You seem to be denying neuroscience and the study of human brain function.

 

[larkin31]

You are saying in effect that a person is merely a collection of solids, liquids and gases which can choose how to behave and predict what will happen…

As an agnostic, I would answer, “With all likelihood, yes.”

 

[jonfawkes]

So you agree with my analogy about the heart.

rationality is a function of a different organ of the body. You seem to be denying neuroscience and the study of human brain function.

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”.

 

[larkin31]

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”.

Not sure how/why this matters in this discussion. I am not claiming that organ systems can function independently of each other. (?)

 

[tonyrey]

You are saying in effect that a person is merely a collection of solids, liquids and gases which can choose how to behave and predict what will happen…

		 		 	 	 As an agnostic, I would answer, "With all likelihood, yes."

In other words you renounce any claim to be rational! This obviously raises a great deal of doubt as to whether your answer is reasonable …

Have you any experience of any other collections of solids, liquids and gases choosing how to behave and predict what will happen? (Apart from human beings of course… )

 

[inocente]

Have you any experience of any other collections of solids, liquids and gases choosing how to behave and predict what will happen? (Apart from human beings of course… )

Don’t know if this counts but my dogs choose to rush around when they predict I’m getting ready to feed them, and choose to stand by the door when they predict it’s time to go out.

 

[lemondiesel]

How would you prove that?

We are present aren’t we?

You still have to explain how persons have insight and understanding whereas particles do not.

Because we obtained the ego mind from evolution. It rised from a series of discriminations, the primary one is identifying with a finite body subject to decay and death.

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.

Remember, the sum of the parts differs from the parts themselves. As particles are parts to us, We are parts to the Whole as well.

 

[lemondiesel]

You are saying in effect that a person is merely a collection of solids, liquids and gases which can choose how to behave and predict what will happen…

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.

 

[larkin31]

In other words you renounce any claim to be rational! This obviously raises a great deal of doubt as to whether your answer is reasonable …

Have you any experience of any other collections of solids, liquids and gases choosing how to behave and predict what will happen? (Apart from human beings of course… )

I asked you if you were denying the results from the study of neuro-physiology and behavioral sciences.

 

[larkin31]

In other words you renounce any claim to be rational! This obviously raises a great deal of doubt as to whether your answer is reasonable …

Have you any experience of any other collections of solids, liquids and gases choosing how to behave and predict what will happen? (Apart from human beings of course… )

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”??

 

[davidv]

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”??

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.