Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[tonyrey]

OK, but the “levels of existence” discussion could have been interesting, as the levels at which we model and represent the world do seem to have a direct bearing on how well we can reason about the world.

A consistent materialist recognises only one level of existence - like the member of this forum who described truth as “an isomorphism of atomic particles”. Most people regard mind and matter as the two basic levels but it can be argued there are three: inanimate objects, living organisms and rational beings. Inanimate matter is in a separate category because it is purposeless. The Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod referred to the unconscious purpose of animals as “teleonomic” to distinguish it from the conscious purpose of human beings which is “teleological”. Are there others you have in mind?

 

[tonyrey]

Research by Antonio Damasio(Neuro Scientist) and others support this.Theres a book that he published ( Descarte’s Error) contains a summary of some of the cases that he used to come to this conclusion.

Does he believe his conclusions stem from emotion?

 

[inocente]

A consistent materialist recognises only one level of existence - like the member of this forum who described truth as “an isomorphism of atomic particles”.

Surely he was joking? Only chemicals can be made from atoms (the chemist’s lament ).

We can also instantly transmute yon materialist into an idealist - theorists think that elementary particles are actually geometric forms in many dimensions, which means that by his logic truth is form.

Most people regard mind and matter as the two basic levels but it can be argued there are three: inanimate objects, living organisms and rational beings. Inanimate matter is in a separate category because it is purposeless. The Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod referred to the unconscious purpose of animals as “teleonomic” to distinguish it from the conscious purpose of human beings which is “teleological”. Are there others you have in mind?

I wouldn’t have thought any system of classification is any more than a system of classification. For instance the fact that antidepressant medications work implies that mind/matter are artificial categories (or at the very least the boundary is mighty fuzzy).

As a species we love taxonomy, but while reasoning seems to demand concepts/representations, it surely doesn’t rely on any particular classifications.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Does he believe his conclusions stem from emotion?

He believes that rational thought is entangled with emotion, and that without the assistance of emotion ones ability to think rationally is impaired.

From my own perspective and slightly off the topic of his work there seems to be some underlying emotion that motivates much rational thought and behaviour. To use myself as an example one might say that i am acting rationally when I alter my path to work im response to traffic conditions to minimize drive time amd fuel comsumption. I dont disagree with this. But there are emotional motivators such as frustration from being stuck in traffic, knowing that fuel consumption takes away from my ability to emgage in other activities because of the money consumed, possible anxiety about being late on an important day, and so on. My rational capabilities are motivated by emotional considerations with the hopes of avoiding or bringing about certain emotional states. Rationality here is a tool that is serving these considerations. I sometimes wonder if I were in a state of perfect apathy and perfectly anhedonic what would remain that would motivate my behaviour.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Lochias]

Correct, Baptists don’t distinguish it from tap water.

Then I can only assume, from your post, that Baptists do not bother to study things that bring them outside of their spheres of comfort.

If I’m wrong, prove it. Look up the Catholic definition of a sacramental, and look for their basis in Christian tradition, history, and Scripture. It’s all there.

Please, however, do not categorize all Catholics as “irrational Christians” (implied in your post) simply because you lack understanding of a Catholic teaching.

It’s in very poor taste, and makes Baptists look very, very bad.

 

[inocente]

Then I can only assume, from your post, that Baptists do not bother to study things that bring them outside of their spheres of comfort.

If I’m wrong, prove it. Look up the Catholic definition of a sacramental, and look for their basis in Christian tradition, history, and Scripture. It’s all there.

Please, however, do not categorize all Catholics as “irrational Christians” (implied in your post) simply because you lack understanding of a Catholic teaching.

It’s in very poor taste, and makes Baptists look very, very bad.

If you know anything of Spain you’ll know that virtually everyone around me is Catholic, so your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and you can rest easy.

On the other hand if you’ve joined the thread in the hope of starting a sectarian squabble, go find someone else.

 

[Lochias]

If you know anything of Spain you’ll know that virtually everyone around me is Catholic, so your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and you can rest easy.

On the other hand if you’ve joined the thread in the hope of starting a sectarian squabble, go find someone else.

Well, since you apparently know all about sacramentals, their history, Scriptural history and context of use, you’ll be able to refrain from disparaging Catholics in the future for our proper and Christian use of them, since to say otherwise would just be silly and a tad ignorant. Awesome sauce. Cheers!

 

[inocente]

Well, since you apparently know all about sacramentals, their history, Scriptural history and context of use, you’ll be able to refrain from disparaging Catholics in the future for our proper and Christian use of them, since to say otherwise would just be silly and a tad ignorant. Awesome sauce. Cheers!

**If you know anything of Spain you’ll know that virtually everyone around me is Catholic, so your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and you can rest easy.

On the other hand if you’ve joined the thread in the hope of starting a sectarian squabble, go find someone else.**

Could you post on-topic - what do you think of the OP?

 

[tonyrey]

He believes that rational thought is entangled with emotion, and that without the assistance of emotion ones ability to think rationally is impaired.

From my own perspective and slightly off the topic of his work there seems to be some underlying emotion that motivates much rational thought and behaviour. To use myself as an example one might say that i am acting rationally when I alter my path to work im response to traffic conditions to minimize drive time amd fuel comsumption. I dont disagree with this. But there are emotional motivators such as frustration from being stuck in traffic, knowing that fuel consumption takes away from my ability to emgage in other activities because of the money consumed, possible anxiety about being late on an important day, and so on. My rational capabilities are motivated by emotional considerations with the hopes of avoiding or bringing about certain emotional states. Rationality here is a tool that is serving these considerations. I sometimes wonder if I were in a state of perfect apathy and perfectly anhedonic what would remain that would motivate my behaviour.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

Not one mistake - even though you may have been stuck in traffic! I agree with you that we’re not logical machines but the final decision should - in my opinion - be ruled by reason rather than emotion. Otherwise neither logic nor science nor common sense would have progressed…

 

[Sair]

I just read the following article for something unconnected with CAF. It’s a great example of a cognitive bias we apparently all have, which is both reasoned and unreasonable, with both negative and positive effects.

*72 female subjects were made to watch a confederate receiving [simulated] electrical shocks under a variety of conditions. Initially, subjects were upset by observing the apparent suffering of the confederate. However, as the suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, the observers began to derogate the victim. Derogation was greater when the observed suffering from shock treatments was greater. However, under conditions in which subjects were told that the victim would receive compensation for her suffering, subjects did not derogate the victim. Lerner and colleagues replicated these findings in subsequent studies, as did other researchers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis*

That’s a very interesting set of observations - I wonder if the derogation stems from some deep-seated desire to distance onesself from the suffering of the victim, so as not to feel it so acutely, not imagine too deeply what it would be like to be in their position? Pure speculation, of course, but not entirely unfitting with the additional observation that the derogation did not occur if there was the prospect of compensation for suffering…

 

[Sair]

A consistent materialist recognises only one level of existence - like the member of this forum who described truth as “an isomorphism of atomic particles”. Most people regard mind and matter as the two basic levels but it can be argued there are three: inanimate objects, living organisms and rational beings. Inanimate matter is in a separate category because it is purposeless. The Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod referred to the unconscious purpose of animals as “teleonomic” to distinguish it from the conscious purpose of human beings which is “teleological”. Are there others you have in mind?

I can only recall your posts describing reality - cynically though it may have been - as “an isomorphism of atomic particles”. I don’t know if you merely borrowed that phrase from someone else, though.

I’ve generally seen ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’ regarded as two separate levels, with ‘mind’ straddling somewhere in between.

I’m also not sure how, if your god created everything with a purpose, so-called inanimate matter can be purposeless. I suspect that geological phenomena such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are caused by what you would refer to as ‘inanimate’ matter, yet they have profound effects upon living organisms - including rational beings, if they are indeed a separate category and not simply a subcategory of living organisms. My own supposition has for a long time been that any attempt to barricade nonhuman animals into their own psychological sphere is just a desperate attempt to exonerate ourselves for our egregious treatment of them - much like what was done by many Europeans to non-white humans used as slaves, or ruthlessly and unconscionably slaughtered so that European invaders might have unfettered use of their land. Again, the question comes down to whether any differences are of degree or of kind…

 

[tonyrey]

Ican only recall your posts describing reality - cynically though it may have been - as “an isomorphism of atomic particles”. I don’t know if you merely borrowed that phrase from someone else, though.

I asked:

Precisely how does one physical state represent another physical state? And what guarantee is there that this representation (whatever it may be) is a source of information? In fact what constitutes information according to the materialist?

It’s an isomorphism. A map. In human brains, it is made of neurons and axons and synapses, in fantastically huge arrays interconnected in stupendously complex patterns. But if you draw a map, say a crude drawing of the floorplan of your home, it is isomorphic to the structure of your home (from the top down, looking at the vertical walls) to the extent your drawing skills obtain.

To which I replied:

In that case, the physical state could be grooves in the sand which you made with a stick to draw the floor plan of your home. It has meaning, because it is isomorphic; it corresponds to the plan of your house to some significant degree, where comprehending one leads to comprehension and understanding of the other, to the point (perhaps) where one is recognizable from familiarizing oneself with the other.

That’s what meaning is – isomorphism and symbolic representation. The brain does it one way, but there are innumerable ways to effect isomorphisms – the light arriving from a far away star is a kind of crude (but enormously useful) isomorphism to the chemical make up of the star – via spectroscopy we can “read the map” of the light for the star and understand something significant about its makeup. The light has meaning in that way, as an isomorphism to its source.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6158208&postcount=28

To which I replied:

So it is an entirely deterministic system. We play no part in the emergence of isomorphisms. In fact “we” are “stupendously complex patterns” of atomic particles which have no insight into, and no control over, events…

                                             In that case, the physical state could be  grooves in the sand which you made with a stick to draw the floor plan  of your home. It has **meaning**, because it is isomorphic; it corresponds to the plan of your house to some **significant** degree, where comprehending one leads to **comprehension **and **understanding** of the other, to the point (perhaps) where **one **is **recognizable** from familiarizing **oneself **with the other.

All the highlighted words refer to nothing in a world composed of nothing more than material objects!

That’s what meaning is – isomorphism and **symbolic **representation. The brain does it one way, but there are innumerable ways to effect isomorphisms – the light arriving from a far away star is a kind of crude (but enormously useful) isomorphism to the chemical make up of the star – via spectroscopy we can “read the map” of the light for the star and **understand **something **significant **about its makeup. The light has meaning in that way, as an isomorphism to its source.

To which I replied:

You are conjuring up “meaning” from nowhere in your atomic system. Atomic particles do not understand or grasp meaning; they just move in accordance with the laws of physics.

It seems miraculous that atomic particles are capable of all this intangible activity! I think you are living in a totally different world from that inhabited by the vast majority of human beings… It is worth repeating that intangibles do not exist in your scheme of material things.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6160131&postcount=29

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

I asked:

Precisely how does one physical state represent another physical state? And what guarantee is there that this representation (whatever it may be) is a source of information? In fact what constitutes information according to the materialist?

 

[inocente]

That’s a very interesting set of observations - I wonder if the derogation stems from some deep-seated desire to distance onesself from the suffering of the victim, so as not to feel it so acutely, not imagine too deeply what it would be like to be in their position? Pure speculation, of course, but not entirely unfitting with the additional observation that the derogation did not occur if there was the prospect of compensation for suffering…

The prevailing theory, as I understand it, is that we feel a strong need to have control over our lives, but that would be impossible in a capricious and disordered world, so we imagine that the world is orderly and fair to maintain our illusion of control. This is why we want to believe that we reap what we sow, because otherwise control would be lost.

This logic means that when bad things happen to us, we blame ourselves and conclude that we must try harder next time. This maintains our illusion of control, which helps keep us mentally healthy. But the very same logic means that when bad things happen to others we tend to blame the victim for getting raped, or for being poor, etc.

It’s also interesting that the more we know about victims, the less likely we are to blame them, hence I suppose why it’s love your neighbor not love a stranger.

 

[inocente]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6158208&postcount=28

All the highlighted words refer to nothing in a world composed of nothing more than material objects.

You are conjuring up “meaning” from nowhere in your atomic system. Atomic particles do not understand or grasp meaning; they just move in accordance with the laws of physics.

I’m not sure you and I have the same understanding of what he said.

To me he’s not talking about the world as it is but the world as we see it in our minds. We see the world as a set of concepts and representations. Each maps onto others without any single hierarchy.

An analogy is a dictionary, where each word is defined using other words, and no fundamental word from which all others can be derived.

So there is no fundamental level of existence, because both in the real world outside our heads and in the maps of the world inside our heads, everything is interdependent.

 

[tonyrey]

All the highlighted words refer to nothing in a world composed of nothing more than material objects

Do you believe the world “inside our heads” is not real?

Is it really inside our heads?

 

[tonyrey]

It’s also interesting that the more we know about victims, the less likely we are to blame them, hence I suppose why it’s love your neighbor not love a stranger.

That’s where the teaching of Jesus is superior to the Decalogue. He pointed out that anyone in need is our neighbour… and He loved - and loves - us more than Himself…

 

[inocente]

Do you believe the world “inside our heads” is not real?

Is it really inside our heads?

Reality is things as they actually are, which may or may not coincide with what we think they are.

It took many centuries to work out that we can only reliably tell them apart by careful use of objective evidence, a hard won lesson which some have yet to hear.

(And the evidence is that the lesson is learned by the organ between the ears.)

 

[tonyrey]

*Do you believe the world “inside our heads” is not real?

Are persons things?

It took many centuries to work out that we can only reliably tell them apart by careful use of objective evidence, a hard won lesson which some have yet to hear.

Is subjective evidence less valuable?

(And the evidence is that the lesson is learned by the organ between the ears.)

Is “the organ between our ears” our mind? If not how do you distinguish them?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you believe the world “inside our heads” is not real?

Is it really inside our heads?

The “world inside your head” would be a representation of the real world. Ideally it would have some inference preserving isomorphic relationship to the real world (which would help you in making better predictions or have a better understanding of what is going on). Though it can diverge from reality from slight (ex: “I thought I saw a person out of the corner of my eye, but it was just a manikin”) to wild (ex: schizophrenic hallucinations, dreams, drug or alcohol induced mental states).

Are persons things?

They “persons” can be considered “things.” Though the semantics for “persons” and “things” can vary with contexts. Under some contexts only humans are considered “persons.” Under others there are also non-human persons (animals, spirits).

Is “the organ between our ears” our mind? If not how do you distinguish them?

As I’ve seen it used the “mind” is what the brain does. Those without brains (ex: extreme Anencephaly, description and graphic medical photos here ) are regarded as not having minds. If you disrupt the activity of the brain you can be said to have affected one’s mind. Bringing the activity of one’s brain to a complete halt could be said to take away their mind. The fuzzy area is when the brain’s activities are temporarily interrupted (in some cases we can’t tell if it’s activities are going to resume again). In such states it’s not known if their mind is completely gone until the person either dies or their brain resumes activity.