Are we rational or irrational?

[lemondiesel]

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

The older you are though, the more the soul is covered up. It is covered with “You.”

 

[You]

The older you are though, the more the soul is covered up. It is covered with “You.”

Very like the parable of the sower; where the care of this world chokes up the word.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Faith in science is as cold as ice: it reduces persons to particles without passion…

Can it explain itself?!

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

I probably read Popper before you were born! He certainly doesn’t say science can explain itself…

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

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.

A most imposing term but it is based on supposition not fact. Have you ever met a responsible machine?

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?

They don’t claim to explain the whole of reality in terms of a toothbrush! Ah, the magical power of matter must be supreme!

 

[inocente]

Faith in science is as cold as ice: it reduces persons to particles without passion…

Yes of course, I see it all now, those proposing a scientific perspective on this thread lack passion, the fact we want to debate it doesn’t indicate passion at all, that makes a lot of sense .

I probably read Popper before you were born! He certainly doesn’t say science can explain itself…

Can philosophy explain itself then?

A most imposing term but it is based on supposition not fact. Have you ever met a responsible machine?

So immaterialism isn’t a supposition? We can’t fully explain the mind so it’s a fact it must be immaterial? Before we could explain the sun moving across the sky it must have been a sun god what did it? Dude, your logic here is as peccable as usual, including apparently your clandestine meetings with negligent machines.

They don’t claim to explain the whole of reality in terms of a toothbrush! Ah, the magical power of matter must be supreme!

Correcto , relative to God’s creation of course.

 

[tonyrey]

Faith in science is as cold as ice: it reduces persons to particles without passion…

A non sequitur. Faith in science is as cold as ice but **those who have faith **in science are inconsistent. In practice they don’t treat a person as a set of particles.

Can philosophy explain itself then?

Philosophy explains that nothing can explain itself whereas science does not know its limitations.

A most imposing term but it is based on supposition not fact. Have you ever met a responsible machine?

So immaterialism isn’t a supposition? We can’t fully explain the mind so it’s a fact it must be immaterial? Before we could explain the sun moving across the sky it must have been a sun god what did it? Dude, your logic here is as peccable as usual, including apparently your clandestine meetings with negligent machines.

There is no such thing as a negligent machine, pal! It is your logic that is defective. The obsolete belief in a sun god does not prove that all explanations must be scientific.

BTW Have you ever met a responsible machine?

They don’t claim to explain the whole of reality in terms of a toothbrush! Ah, the magical power of matter must be supreme!

Correcto , relative to God’s creation of course.

Irrelevant. Materialists are restricted to their blinkered vision of omnipotent matter…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m saying that under our definition of solids liquids and gases, we can find ways to describe everything

Because the definition of solids, liquids and gases has nothing to do with the power of human beings to explain** themselves.**

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. **Its **body is everything, while being *within *everything.

If you like, call it the Mind of God.

Then what was lost has been found!

 

[inocente]

A non sequitur. Faith in science is as cold as ice but **those who have faith **in science are inconsistent. In practice they don’t treat a person as a set of particles.

Your idea of science is, and here I’m trying hard to be discreet, weird.

Philosophy explains that nothing can explain itself whereas science does not know its limitations.

No, few scientists might believe that their feelings of love for their children are scientifically explicable. We know our place, even unto Catholic scientists.

There is no such thing as a negligent machine, pal!

Try telling that to Microsoft.

It is your logic that is defective. The obsolete belief in a sun god does not prove that all explanations must be scientific.

Too true, including the obsolete belief in immaterial minds.

BTW Have you ever met a responsible machine?

If you mean responsible to (being controlled by someone) then that would include all machines except those in your clandestine meetings. If you mean responsible for (having control and a duty of care) I guess any of those gizmos in an intensive care department would fit the bill.

Irrelevant. Materialists are restricted to their blinkered vision of omnipotent matter…

While immaterialists are restricted to their invincible ignorance, present company excepted of course.

 

[larkin31]

So, this thread, unsurprisingly, has become, “You’re ignorant”…“No, you’re ignorant.”



sweet

some threads are irrational

 

[inocente]

So, this thread, unsurprisingly, has become, “You’re ignorant”…“No, you’re ignorant.”

Yep, but tonyrey and I enjoy it every so often.

Anyway it passes the time while waiting for his cogs to click into gear.

Oops, sorry, done it again.

 

[tonyrey]

            *A non sequitur. Faith in science is as cold as ice but **those who have faith ***

It is not my idea that is weird but that of those who have blind faith that science can in principle explain persons completely.

Philosophy explains that nothing can explain itself whereas science does not know its limitations.

No, few scientists might believe that their feelings of love for their children are scientifically explicable. We know our place, even unto Catholic scientists.

Do you mean “few” or “a few”? It makes quite a difference! Why in fact should their feelings of love for their children be scientifically inexplicable? What excludes love?

There is no such thing as a negligent machine, pal!

Try telling that to Microsoft.

Is Microsoft your principal guide to reality?

It is your logic that is defective. The obsolete belief in a sun god does not prove that all explanations must be scientific.

Too true, including the obsolete belief in immaterial minds.

You are contradicting yourself!

                                                  *BTW Have you ever met a responsible machine?*

If you mean responsible to (being controlled by someone) then that would include all machines except those in your clandestine meetings. If you mean responsible for (having control and a duty of care) I guess any of those gizmos in an intensive care department would fit the bill.

Do they really have a **duty **in the same sense that a person has a duty?

Irrelevant. Materialists are restricted to their blinkered vision of omnipotent matter…

While immaterialists are restricted to their invincible ignorance, present company excepted of course.

You are either unaware or forgetting that your only form of invincible knowledge consists of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions - from which you infer that material objects exist. In other words you are putting the cart before the horse…

 

[larkin31]

It is not my idea that is weird but that of those who have blind faith that science can in principle explain persons completely.

If anyone actually argued this here, you’d have a point. But since they don’t, you don’t.

 

[Gregory_I]

I met a reliable machine once, but it was Unix based, SNAP!

 

[inocente]

It is not my idea that is weird but that of those who have blind faith that science can in principle explain persons completely.

Science has defined limits, it can’t explain our subjective feelings. It may explain the reasons why those feelings develop, the electrochemical operation and so on, but it can never explain how the feeling feels because that’s totally subjective.

Do you mean “few” or “a few”? It makes quite a difference! Why in fact should their feelings of love for their children be scientifically inexplicable? What excludes love?

As above, it’s subjective. The reasons why we feel love and the processes involved are scientifically interesting, for example if we understood the mechanism then we might be able to medically help someone who can’t feel love. But how the feeling feels isn’t open to research, that’s one of those dumb questions no one can answer.

*Do they really have a **duty ***in the same sense that a person has a duty?

Yes, life saving machines are a proxy for the duty of care in the good folk who design and build them.

*You are either unaware or forgetting that *your only form of invincible knowledge consists of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions - from which you infer that material objects exist. In other words you are putting the cart before the horse…

How we know that we know what we know is another dumb philosopher’s question to us practical guys.

Thousands of years ago seamen approaching landfall realized the Earth is round when they saw the tops of hills before the coastline. That is science. Some landlubbers refused to believe them as it didn’t fit their flat-earth theory. That is dumb.

It wasn’t until the 20th C that anyone decided to actually watch someone sleeping long enough to discover periods of REM sleep. That is science. And from there, further work found we enter REM sleep several times a night and that REM sleep is associated with dreaming. Yet some people still think they only dream occasionally, because we can only ever remember waking dreams (the chemical that induces sleep makes our long-term memory read-only). One day, by this continuing exploration, we will work out why we dream, but we’re already unconvinced that the narratives of dreams are in any way significant. That is science.

Ivory-tower landlubbers can keep hoping we’ll fall off the edge of their flat-earth but we already knew long-ago we can’t. Us practical guys are invincible, always were, always will be.

 

[inocente]

I met a reliable machine once, but it was Unix based, SNAP!

I loved My Name Is Earl and Joy’s repeated Oh, snap!

Looked-up the opening voice-over for old time’s sake (and because it will annoy some by referring to karma ): You know the kind of guy who does nothing but bad things, and then wonders why his life sucks? Well… that was me. Every time something good happened to me, something bad was always waiting around the corner. Karma. That’s when I realized I had to change. So, I made a list of everything bad I’ve ever done and, one by one I’m going to make up for all my mistakes. I’m just trying to be a better person. My name is Earl.

Earl, of course, by making his list, being methodical, and doing something practical, is a scientist .

 

[tonyrey]

Science has defined limits, it can’t explain our subjective feelings. It may explain the reasons why those feelings develop, the electrochemical operation and so on, but it can never explain how the feeling feels because that’s totally subjective.

You are still making an act of faith that science will explain all our thoughts, feelings and decisions!

As above, it’s subjective. The reasons why we feel love and the processes involved are scientifically interesting, for example if we understood the mechanism then we might be able to medically help someone who can’t feel love. But how the feeling feels isn’t open to research, that’s one of those dumb questions no one can answer.

In other words it is a form of reality inaccessible to science but no less significant than material objects - and very often more so.

Yes, life saving machines are a proxy for the duty of care in the good folk who design and build them.

If they malfunction it is not their fault so unlike persons they are not responsible for dereliction of duty.

How we know that we know what we know is another dumb philosopher’s question to us practical guys.

Thousands of years ago seamen approaching landfall realized the Earth is round when they saw the tops of hills before the coastline. That is science. Some landlubbers refused to believe them as it didn’t fit their flat-earth theory. That is dumb.

It wasn’t until the 20th C that anyone decided to actually watch someone sleeping long enough to discover periods of REM sleep. That is science. And from there, further work found we enter REM sleep several times a night and that REM sleep is associated with dreaming. Yet some people still think they only dream occasionally, because we can only ever remember waking dreams (the chemical that induces sleep makes our long-term memory read-only). One day, by this continuing exploration, we will work out why we dream, but we’re already unconvinced that the narratives of dreams are in any way significant. That is science.

Ivory-tower landlubbers can keep hoping we’ll fall off the edge of their flat-earth but we already knew long-ago we can’t. Us practical guys are invincible, always were, always will be.

Without insight and knowledge practice is useless! And it is all based on our intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions.

 

[larkin31]

You are still making an act of faith that science will explain all our thoughts, feelings and decisions!

No, he does not. He wrote that science “may” explain some causes, but that it will “never” explain all.

How can you even possibly interpret his sentence to mean what you summarized it as? I find your logic truly bizarre. Kinda shaken loose, really.

 

[tonyrey]

No, he does not. He wrote that science “may” explain some causes, but that it will “never” explain all.

How can you even possibly interpret his sentence to mean what you summarized it as? I find your logic truly bizarre. Kinda shaken loose, really.

Then how do you explain his original statement?

Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves. At one level it’s a whole bunch of complex electromagnetic activity, another a colony of cells, another a tree.

Don’t forget this is intended to refer to** everything** that exists…

 

[inocente]

You are still making an act of faith that science will explain all our thoughts, feelings and decisions!

That’s not what I said.

If just one in a thousand Catholics are involved in science there’s around one million invincible Catholic practical guys alongside me against the landlubbers here.

In other words it is a form of reality inaccessible to science but no less significant than material objects - and very often more so.

Correct, the feeling of feeling is subjective. Watch a gazillion photons dancing from the Spanish chapter of the invincible practical guys association.

(The US chapter’s offering is here – are you the landlubber on the left or the right at the end? )

If they malfunction it is not their fault so unlike persons they are not responsible for dereliction of duty.

Proxy is what I said.

Without insight and knowledge practice is useless! And it is all based on our intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions.

You left out the landlubber’s nemesis – evidence.

 

[larkin31]

Then how do you explain his original statement?

Don’t forget this is intended to refer to** everything** that exists…

All that says is that matter is electrochemical at its base and from their organizes itself into larger collections and forms.

What you summarize that as saying is just wacko.

 

[tonyrey]

All that says is that matter is electrochemical at its base and from there organizes itself into larger collections and forms.
What you summarize that as saying is just wacko.

Really? How precisely did inanimate matter not only organise itself but also become aware of itself, understand itself and become capable of controlling itself?