Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[tonyrey]

My view is based not on faith but on the fact

Evasion. Do we or do we not rely on reason rather than blind events to reach our conclusions and make our decisions?

.The “damning” only exists in your imagination!

False. You’ve made it perfectly clear whenever the subject has come up that you believe scientific investigation of consciousness to be futile.

“damning” still only exists in your imagination.

The only scientists who attempt to explain how consciousness work are those who have **faith **

in the power of neuroscience to explain all human behaviour, i.e. materialists. They are entitled to their faith as much as anyone else but that does not imply they are right or will succeed. If you really mean this, you are sadly misinformed. Neuroscientists investigate psychological phenomena because they seek to understand it. If there is evidence of some kind of magical woo or a soul at work in consciousness, the first people to confirm it will be neuroscientists. Supernaturalists just sit on their haunches and say, “It’s the mysterious ‘something more’, so just accept it and down tools on the study.” That gets us nowhere.

Like everyone else neuroscientists choose their topic for research in accordance with their beliefs and interests. Open-minded scientists don’t rule out the possibility of an explanation that doesn’t conform to the prevailing materialism of the Establishment which has scandalously prevented the publication of papers threatening scientific orthodoxy.

Ad hominem! You really must learn how to discuss a topic objectively without making personal comments…

As I’ve said before, commenting upon the tactics you use in discussion does not amount to an attack upon your person. It’s an observation based upon the evidence you provide in your posts.

Comments on alleged tactics are irrelevant, do precisely nothing to further the discussion and merely confuse the issue.

The sole primary

evidence we have is our mental activity on which all our subsequent reasoning is based - including the inference that physical objects like the brain exist… It is worth consulting the on-line article Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman Quine, an eminent atheist philosopher. Quine was arguing for a more comprehensive and all-embracing empiricism, not solipsism.

Quine was endorsing the fact that** the sole primary evidence we have is our mental activity on which all our subsequent reasoning is based - **which has nothing to do with solipsism.

If you assume that neuroscience is solely concerned with ‘reducing’ mental activity to the actions of particles and energy, then you are actually succumbing to one of the ‘dogmas’ that Quine rejected.

You are making an assumption about my assumptions - which is not only irrelevant but futile.

I have not made any claim that “'something more” exists but simply pointed out the inadequacy of the “Matter has created everything” hypothesis.

Oh, okay - so you’re saying you have no idea of your own on this subject, but you still know that my ideas are wrong?

Another non sequitur and “know” is another false assertion.

Another ad hominem! Please indicate where I have employed any other argument apart from the “Matter has created everything” hypothesis.

Observations upon your arguments are not ad hominems. If I said your arguments were invalid because you’re stupid or because you’re ignorant or because you look funny, that would be an ad hominem, and I have said none of these things. Saying that your arguments are invalid because they are, indeed, invalid is not an ad hominem. As I’ve now pointed out again, above, you are saying - more or less directly - that in your opinion (and in the absence of the evidence that is continually asked for but never provided), the materialist approach is invalid therefore there’s ‘something more’ at work that has to explain consciousness - hence ‘god of the gaps’: as long as you maintain that physical phenomena can’t explain consciousness, there’s room to invest faith in some kind of supernaturalist explanation. That is the foundation of your argument, is it not? If not, then what exactly are you arguing in the first place? Why not just wait and see whether the materialist, scientific approach actually yields the kind of results that help explain what’s really going on? Why assume that any endeavour is doomed before it’s completed?

This entire paragraph is a red herring:

1. Do we or do we not rely on reason rather than blind events to reach our conclusions and make our decisions?

2.Is the sole primary evidence we have is our mental activity on which all our subsequent reasoning is based? If not what is the primary evidence?
.

 

[inocente]

NB All remarks irrelevant to the discussion are deleted.

Then since no posts have been edited, all remarks must be relevant. Which means your claim is irrelevant and so should have been deleted. And since it wasn’t deleted, that makes your claim false, QED.

Precisely* how ***do cheating, co-operation and “fair play” prove my claims are false?

The behavior requires cognition which you claimed animals don’t possess.

It might be worth you revising what is known. For a short intro see:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

 

[inocente]

1. Animal intelligence does not prove animals have insight or are rational beings.
2. They simply remember previous situations and react accordingly.
3. They would be lost if they were in a completely novel situation whereas we would apply general rules and principles to solve the problem.
4. They do not have the power of abstract thought.
5. Their language is not syntactical.
6. Even with human instruction animal behaviour has not developed to any significant extent.
7. They are not morally or legally responsible for their actions because they lack the power of self-control.

It’s all too easy to be one-sided and apply human standards to other species, but doing so avoids major issues such as:

1. The time and effort humans put into finding new ways to kill each other and to rape the planet.
2. The significant number of humans caught in addictive, self-destructive or anti-social behaviors.
3. The very limited horizon of the comparison - there are trillions of other stars and we have no knowledge of what other species may be on planets orbiting them.
4. We don’t even have an objective measure for human intelligence, let alone an objective measure for reasoning powers across all species. So for example, how is it reasonable for you to claim that syntactical language is a prerequisite for reasoning?

In short, a relativist might agree with you but an absolutist would not.

 

[inocente]

We are not concerned with imagination but with fact. You can investigate to your heart’s content if you have faith in the magical power of blind events to conjure up entirely by themselves rational, autonomous beings. It amounts to a deification of Matter.

This could be taken as offensive for two reasons.

First, you are implicitly accusing other Christians, including Catholic scientists, of idolatry.

Second, there are more effective ways of helping those with disorders than hanging garlic round their neck, sprinkling them with holy water, and hoping for the best. Science absolutely requires that everything involved is explored and explained, it can’t possibly proceed on the basis that any part of the mind is deemed inexplicably inexplicable.

To summarize, your view is not exactly challenging.

 

[tonyrey]

We are not concerned with imagination but with fact. You can investigate to your heart’s content if you have faith in the magical power of blind events to conjure up entirely by themselves

Nonsense! Christians do not believe blind events have conjured up entirely by themselves rational, autonomous beings.

Second, there are more effective ways of helping those with disorders than hanging garlic round their neck, sprinkling them with holy water, and hoping for the best.

False dilemma.

Science absolutely requires that everything involved is explored and explained, it can’t possibly proceed on the basis that any part of the mind is deemed inexplicably inexplicable.

Only materialists believe everything and everyone is scientifically explicable.

 

[tonyrey]

The behavior requires cognition which you claimed animals don’t possess.

Please specify the exact type of cognition to which you are referring.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Animal intelligence does not prove animals have insight or are rational beings.

None of these statements has any bearing on the points I have made. Please address each of them individually.

1. We don’t even have an objective measure for human intelligence, let alone an objective measure for reasoning powers across all species.

False!
Well-constructed IQ tests are generally accepted as an accurate measure of intelligence by the scientific community.

So for example, how is it reasonable for you to claim that syntactical language is a prerequisite for reasoning?

The absence of syntax in animal communication is powerful evidence that they are restricted to the association of particular events and cannot understand, formulate or express abstract rules and principles. They lack the “universal grammar” necessary for the construction of sentences. There is no evidence that they can understand general concepts like “everything”, “nothing”, “always”, “never” or everywhere". They are highly intelligent but their intelligence is still limited to their particular biological and social needs. Why haven’t the apes developed for over a million years whereas man has progressed intellectually at an astonishing rate?

 

[tonyrey]

You are making an assumption about my assumptions - which is not only irrelevant but futile.

And false into the bargain! I certainly do **not **“assume that neuroscience is **solely ** concerned with ‘reducing’ mental activity to the actions of particles and energy” nor can you cite any statement of mine that could give that impression…

 

[tonyrey]

1. Animals are not morally or legally responsible for their actions because they lack the power of self-control.
2. Animal behaviour is **entirely **determined by forces beyond their control.
3. Personal behaviour is **not **entirely determined by forces beyond our control.
4. It is illogical to regard persons as animals.

It is significant that these statements have not been questioned…

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t believe persons are in the same category as dogs but you are entitled to your opinion.

Behaviorism works with humans as well as animals. We LEARN to be reasonable at an early age. Being reasonable is not something that is innate. The nature versus nurture distinction applies here.

 

[tonyrey]

Behaviorism works with humans as well as animals. We LEARN to be reasonable at an early age. Being reasonable is not something that is innate. The nature versus nurture distinction applies here.

Skinner’s Behavourism is not accepted by most psychologists and his rejection of free will is certainly incompatible with Christianity. The capacity for reasoning is not acquired; otherwise animals would be able to develop intellectually.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Skinner’s Behavourism is not accepted by most psychologists and his rejection of free will is certainly incompatible with Christianity.

Behaviorism is alive and well in the treatment of many psychological disorders. I agree that Skinner is radical in his thinking. But developmental psychologists would also claim that being reasonable is something that is learned. Moreover, I would predict that people are more ‘reasonable’ today than they were, say, 50 years ago.

The capacity for reasoning is not acquired; otherwise animals would be able to develop intellectually.

This is a bold statement that is untrue. Animals simply do not possess the ability to develop intellectually, humans do. There is something special about the human soul that allows us to grow in our being reasonable.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Piaget believed that preschoolers’ cognitive abilities are limited by egocentrism—the inability to distinguish between their own point of view and the point of view of others. The capacity to be egocentric is apparent at all stages of cognitive development, but egocentricity is particularly evident during the preschool years. Young children eventually overcome this early form of egocentrism when learning that others have differing views, feelings, and desires. Then children may interpret others’ motives and use those interpretations to communicate mutually—and therefore more effectively—with others. Preschoolers eventually learn to adjust their vocal pitches, tones, and speeds to match those of the listener. Because mutual communication requires effort and preschoolers are still egocentric, children may lapse into egocentric (nonmutual) speech during times of frustration. In other words, children (and adults) may regress to earlier behavioral patterns when their cognitive resources are stressed and overwhelmed.

This is one example of how our being reasonable develops with age. It’s a learning theory.

 

[tonyrey]

Behaviorism is alive and well in the treatment of many psychological disorders. I agree that Skinner is radical in his thinking. But developmental psychologists would also claim that being reasonable is something that is learned. Moreover, I would predict that people are more ‘reasonable’ today than they were, say, 50 years ago.

This is a bold statement that is untrue. Animals simply do not possess the ability to develop intellectually, humans do. There is something special about the human soul that allows us to grow in our being reasonable.

If Behavourism were true and being reasonable were no more than a learning process neither the soul nor free will would come into the picture…

 

[tonyrey]

Animals simply do not possess the ability to develop intellectually, humans do. There is something special about the human soul that allows us to grow in our being reasonable.

Robert, I hadn’t realised your statements support the fact that animals are not held morally or legally responsible for their actions because they lack the power of self-control. This is the insurmountable stumbling block for naturalists/physicalists/materialists. We choose to be reasonable or unreasonable whereas animals don’t have any choice. Their behaviour is usually reasonable in the sense that their instincts guide them but instincts are notoriously treacherous in certain situations - as we see when human beings descend to folly!

 

[inocente]

Nonsense! Christians do not believe blind events have conjured up entirely by themselves rational, autonomous beings.

Christians believe in Christ, and many of us accept evolution mediated by blind forces. For you to say that this “amounts to a deification of Matter” is to accuse us, including Catholic scientists, of idolatry.

Happily, attempts to tell Christians what we must and must not believe are roundly ignored.

False dilemma.

No. If we once accept that there are things which cannot or must not be explained, we must also accept that potential knowledge is forever forbidden to us, and that then denies applications which can help people.

Happily, attempts to tell scientists what they can and cannot explore are roundly ignored.

Only materialists believe everything and everyone is scientifically explicable.

Ad hominem. :yawn:

 

[inocente]

Please specify the exact type of cognition to which you are referring.

The behavior of the cooperating monkeys in the videos shows they have some kind of awareness of others as independent agents much like themselves.

Compare that with this conversation. Go back over all the posts. Did you look at the videos I linked? Did you read the summaries of animal cognition I linked? I’ve no idea because you’ve given me no feedback.

Put yourself in my shoes - do you think this shows you’ve some kind of awareness of me as an independent agent much like yourself? After thinking about it you should know the exact type of cognition to which I am referring.

 

[inocente]

None of these statements has any bearing on the points I have made. Please address each of them individually.

I addressed them en bloc. Posts containing numbered bullets are like the preambles to a European Directive - just add “Whereas” to the front of each bullet to see what I mean. It’s not necessary to comment on each preamble when the directive itself is faulty.

• False!
  Well-constructed IQ tests are generally accepted as an accurate measure of intelligence by the scientific community.*

Nope. IQ basically tests the kind of reasoning required by industry and taught in schools. They’re not intended to measure, and fail to predict, other kinds of intelligence such as who will be a great artist, actor, composer, mother, etc.

The absence of syntax in animal communication is powerful evidence that they are restricted to the association of particular events and cannot understand, formulate or express abstract rules and principles. They lack the “universal grammar” necessary for the construction of sentences. There is no evidence that they can understand general concepts like “everything”, “nothing”, “always”, “never” or everywhere". They are highly intelligent but their intelligence is still limited to their particular biological and social needs. Why haven’t the apes developed for over a million years whereas man has progressed intellectually at an astonishing rate?

Some apes didn’t and are still around, other apes did and that’s us.

You seem to be defining intelligence very narrowly to fit with some preconception. Are sentences an objective marker for high intelligence? I wouldn’t have thought so since we can imagine a higher still intelligence which dispenses with sentences.

 

[tonyrey]

Nonsense! Christians do not believe blind events have conjured up entirely by themselves

No rational Christian believes human beings are created entirely by blind events.
:

False dilemma.

No. If we once accept that there are things which cannot or must not be explained, we must also accept that potential knowledge is forever forbidden to us, and that then denies applications which can help people.

The false dilemma is the choice between science and sprinkling with holy water (which rational Christians do not consider magical.)

Only materialists believe everything and everyone

is scientifically explicable.
Ad hominem.

An uncomfortable fact for those who attribute everything to blind events…

 

[tonyrey]

The behavior of the cooperating monkeys in the videos shows they have some kind of awareness of others as independent agents much like themselves.

A surmise based on the assumption that monkeys have an abstract concept of independence rather than the more realistic view that they simply remember situations similar to previous situations and act accordingly.