That Boat Don't Float!!

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately it's not really an opinion at all, but chemicals firing to tell her it is so. All her ideas of truth are just perceptions from those chemicals.

The Terminal Man

 

[Freodin]

Hm... this will get a little difficult. I promised to adress the quotes in your last post, but I also need to answer the relevant points from this one. Poor me... but I will try to get it into a coherent form.

The desire to do harm is what I was addressing.

There is no need to distinguish between different "desires". If a mechanism can be used for one desire: to harm, to not harm, to eat cookies - it can also be used for another.

I'm not arguing that 'free will' comes from some chance alignment of chemicals in my brain that in effect 'trick' me into believing my beliefs are genuine.

I think I see the problem in your reasoning.
First, the "alignment of chemicals in your brain" is not by chance. It is by reaction to outside and inside stimuli... as it should be.
Second, you make a false distinction between "the chemicals in your brain" and "you [...] believing my belief are genuine". The chemicals (and other neurological processes) in your brain ARE you believing. There is no seperate "you" doing some evaluations of what your brain does. What your brain does IS you.

The same objection must be made to the quote you gave as well:

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

His mental processes are not determined by the motions of atoms - or whatever neurological process you want to mention - they ARE his mental processes.

His - and your, I´d say - real question of course his: if thinking is chemical, mechanical, electrical... how do I know it´s reliable or true?

Here we have to distinguish between the "reliable" and the "true" part. We have established that our mental processes are quite reliable. They are not random, they are based on outside influence, and they can be checked for consistency.
And because they are reliable, we also know that they are not "true". The picture they present us of "reality" are based on their limited structures. By expanding these structures - using different, non-human means of observation - we have found out that there is a lot more to the world than we would think... would we limit us to our biological equipment.

That's like saying the United States is responsible for you voting Republican - because they give you a choice, including not to vote!

Hm, so I may have misunderstood your earlier posts. I though you were arguing that the "desire not to harm" comes from God, while the "desire to harm" comes from "free will".
Are you saying that both desires come from "free will" and that God´s part in that is limited to "giving" this free will?
This would remove my earlier objections. As I (mis)understood you, you would, in this example, have argued that the US is responsible for me voting Republican, but if I vote Democrat, my free will is responsible.

Yet, even attributing these choices - harm/not harm, republican/democrat - to free will does not answer your initial question: where does that desire come from.

I choose republican or democrat, by free will. But why? Why the one, and not the other? What determines that choice? Not asking for a cause would mean that "free will" is arbitrary, random. I choose rep/dem by internally "tossing a coin".

Do you believe that?

 

[Montalban]

There is no need to distinguish between different "desires". If a mechanism can be used for one desire: to harm, to not harm, to eat cookies - it can also be used for another.

It wasn't the 'desire' that I was addressing, but the act of doing harm.

Someone asked where did that come from. Whether you call it a 'desire' or not was not what I was debating.

The reason for doing harm is not from God, but the absence of God.

It's like the difference between feeling heat and feeling cold. Whilst both are 'feelings', one is of the presence of heat. The other is of the abscence of heat. It is thus not the 'feeling' that is the issue, but what is being felt.

I think I see the problem in your reasoning.
First, the "alignment of chemicals in your brain" is not by chance. It is by reaction to outside and inside stimuli... as it should be.

So? Are you now arguing what you feel to be right is from a reaction to something external?

Second, you make a false distinction between "the chemicals in your brain" and "you [...] believing my belief are genuine". The chemicals (and other neurological processes) in your brain ARE you believing. There is no seperate "you" doing some evaluations of what your brain does. What your brain does IS you.

No. There's no real 'you' about it. "You" is a person. Person doesn't exist in chemical form, else you could go down to the shops grab a bunch of chemicals mix them up in the right percentages and call it a person.

The same objection must be made to the quote you gave as well:

His mental processes are not determined by the motions of atoms - or whatever neurological process you want to mention - they ARE his mental processes.

No. "Mental processes" are simply the by-product of that material process.

His - and your, I´d say - real question of course his: if thinking is chemical, mechanical, electrical... how do I know it´s reliable or true?

That's the point, of course.

Here we have to distinguish between the "reliable" and the "true" part.

No. Your sense of both is dependant on chemicals.

We have established that our mental processes are quite reliable.

No. Chemicals in your brain make you believe that they are so.

They are not random, they are based on outside influence, and they can be checked for consistency.

Checked against what?

Hm, so I may have misunderstood your earlier posts. I though you were arguing that the "desire not to harm" comes from God, while the "desire to harm" comes from "free will".

Well free will is involved in both. God is love. If we choose to do good, we are sort of 'tapping into' that love that comes from God. If we choose to do bad we are closing off ourselves to that love.

I choose republican or democrat, by free will. But why? Why the one, and not the other? What determines that choice? Not asking for a cause would mean that "free will" is arbitrary, random. I choose rep/dem by internally "tossing a coin".

Your sense of you choosing is simply a dellusion of chemicals.

 

[Hespera]

It wasn't the 'desire' that I was addressing, but the act of doing harm.

Someone asked where did that come from. Whether you call it a 'desire' or not was not what I was debating.

The reason for doing harm is not from God, but the absence of God.

It's like the difference between feeling heat and feeling cold. Whilst both are 'feelings', one is of the presence of heat. The other is of the abscence of heat. It is thus not the 'feeling' that is the issue, but what is being felt.


So? Are you now arguing what you feel to be right is from a reaction to something external?

No. There's no real 'you' about it. "You" is a person. Person doesn't exist in chemical form, else you could go down to the shops grab a bunch of chemicals mix them up in the right percentages and call it a person.


No. "Mental processes" are simply the by-product of that material process.

That's the point, of course.

No. Your sense of both is dependant on chemicals.

No. Chemicals in your brain make you believe that they are so.

Checked against what?

Well free will is involved in both. God is love. If we choose to do good, we are sort of 'tapping into' that love that comes from God. If we choose to do bad we are closing off ourselves to that love.


Your sense of you choosing is simply a dellusion of chemicals.

Cold is not the absence of heat.

There is always hear present. At some point along the scale you can decide what you like and say 'hot" is above that and 'cold' is below it.

if god is love btw that would be a fine way to express the truth that god is a construct of the human mind, as is love; it is however a poor definition.

Or maybe its just being redundant, with two words for the same thing.

 

[Freodin]

It wasn't the 'desire' that I was addressing, but the act of doing harm.

Someone asked where did that come from. Whether you call it a 'desire' or not was not what I was debating.

Err, no. Here is your quote:

But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?

(my emphasis)

The reason for doing harm is not from God, but the absence of God.

It's like the difference between feeling heat and feeling cold. Whilst both are 'feelings', one is of the presence of heat. The other is of the abscence of heat. It is thus not the 'feeling' that is the issue, but what is being felt.

And how does the absence of God cause this feeling/desire/whatever?

This is what I was aiming at earlier: you are assuming a baseline. Something as it would be "without God". But you - and no one else I know of - has ever given a reason for why this baseline would be that way.

So? Are you now arguing what you feel to be right is from a reaction to something external?

External and internal both. For example, external informations reach my brain via the eye: your words. The internal system of my brain connects these informations - light patterns - with known forms that make up letters and words. Also internally these are connected with concepts, ideas, feelings, lead to conclusions and result in commands given to my fingers typing this response.

No. There's no real 'you' about it. "You" is a person. Person doesn't exist in chemical form, else you could go down to the shops grab a bunch of chemicals mix them up in the right percentages and call it a person.

Again you think to simple. A person is not a bunch of chemicals. A person is a bunch of chemicals (and other physical components) reacting and interacting in a very specific way.

No. "Mental processes" are simply the by-product of that material process.

That's the point, of course.

No. Your sense of both is dependant on chemicals.

No. Chemicals in your brain make you believe that they are so.

Checked against what?

Basically, it doesn´t matter if it is "chemical" or some immaterial "mental processes". What matters is that the processes, whatever they might be, are consistent.

Is there a difference between "chemicals are making you think so" or "free will is making you think so" or "God is making you think so"? No. (You might say now that God making you think so would mean you are thinking right, because God would only make you think right things, but this thought is only God making you think so. )

No, you cannot evaluate "truth" by these means. But you can check for consistency. Checked against what, you asked. Checked against all the other though processes. Yours and those of others.
Did you just read this sentence? Did you read latin letters and english words? Did you understand them? Do you think about positing an answer to my questions? Then your thoughs work similar to mine. Consistency.

Your sense of you choosing is simply a dellusion of chemicals.

No need to get snarky. Just consider my questions. If you don´t think it is a "delusions of chemicals"... what is it?

 

[sandwiches]

And why all the hoopla about why it happened?

Blaming it on Doom, blaming it on the environment, etc.

Because humans don't normally 'go feral.' Humans cheat, lie, etc, but it's rare when a human will kill another human in a very savage manner. I am not saying it doesn't happen, which it does, but it is not the normal human behavior. Therefore, we should find out why it happens. Or are you against this kind of research?

 

[sandwiches]

Then your 'feelings' towards others and concerns for them are governed by chemicals, not an actual sense of moral responsibility. One could in theory give you the right chemicals to make you feel the opposite then!

The "actual sense of moral responsibility," as you put it, is indeed a product of those chemical reactions. It's like saying "Then milk is governed by chemistry and is not an actual liquid that we can drink for nutrients." And I guess there's no such thing as a human, then, since we're bunch of cells, which in in turn are a bunch of chemical reactions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because humans don't normally 'go feral.' Humans cheat, lie, etc, but it's rare when a human will kill another human in a very savage manner. I am not saying it doesn't happen, which it does, but it is not the normal human behavior. Therefore, we should find out why it happens. Or are you against this kind of research?

You're mixing two different concepts here, and I submit that it's confusing you.

You say, 'humans don't normally go feral', but we're animals, right?

Animals go feral, do they not?

How are you going to find out why it happens, if you don't recognize it for what it is?

 

[sandwiches]

You're mixing two different concepts here, and I submit that it's confusing you.

You say, 'humans don't normally go feral', but we're animals, right?

Animals go feral, do they not?

How are you going to find out why it happens, if you don't recognize it for what it is?

That's fine. Just because some animals can go feral, doesn't mean all normally do.

For instance, most animals have exoskeletons. Why don't humans? Why don't dogs? What about birds or elephants? I guess none of those are animals.

 

[Hespera]

That's fine. Just because some animals can go feral, doesn't mean all normally do.

For instance, most animals have exoskeletons. Why don't humans? Why don't dogs? What about birds or elephants? I guess none of those are animals.

For a human being to "go feral" in any very real sense of the word is about impossible. Very hard, for one thing, to find an environment you could live in that doesnt already have a lot of people who dont much want no wild men in their presence.

Also, of course, people have existed as socially dependent animals for a very long time. The lone wolf, biologists tell us, is soon a dead wolf, for similar reasons. A lone ant for sure cant 'go feral" with any hope of success, they have to be part of a group.

People ho do live a socially isolated life still rely on the artifacts of civilization one way or another.

 

[sandwiches]

For a human being to "go feral" in any very real sense of the word is about impossible. Very hard, for one thing, to find an environment you could live in that doesnt already have a lot of people who dont much want no wild men in their presence.

Also, of course, people have existed as socially dependent animals for a very long time. The lone wolf, biologists tell us, is soon a dead wolf, for similar reasons. A lone ant for sure cant 'go feral" with any hope of success, they have to be part of a group.

People ho do live a socially isolated life still rely on the artifacts of civilization one way or another.

I'm just accepting his definition for the sake of argument. I don't think humans can go feral in the same way other animals do. It really makes no difference in this argument, to be honest, since not all animals are the same.

 

[Hespera]

I'm just accepting his definition for the sake of argument. I don't think humans can go feral in the same way other animals do. It really makes no difference in this argument, to be honest, since not all animals are the same.

ok gotcha. i dont normally read his posts.

'humans don't normally go feral', but we're animals, right?

Animals go feral, do they not?

I had not been following the logic.

here is another version

Birds are animals. Clams are animals. Animals can fly can they not?

 

[BananaSlug]

I see my point is going over your head, isn't it?

If we are all animals, what prevents us from going feral?

We are animals. We are also human.

And please don't answer me if you're not going to be specific.

This "clinical psychopath" stuff doesn't cut it.

That's just a fancy way of saying they "went feral".

So you ignored the study that link psychopathy to genes? "Going feral" doesn't cut it because they did not go "feral".

I think the truth of the matter is, you don't know what makes any animal go feral, not just Homo sapiens.

"Going feral" is a term for an animal (such as a domesticated cat) that reverts to its wild instincts. A feral cat doesn't want to be petted on the head, it is scared of people.

The kind of answer I'm really looking for, BS, is something on the order of: "Zoologists say, Kelbold and Harris..."

Well too bad. What they did has nothing to do with zoology. It is psychology.

I don't care what some fancy psychiatrist has to say.

Psychologist, not psychiatrist.

If they were truly sick, why didn't their parents take them to a vet, like any evolutionist would?

It seems to me like someone is getting mad because no one is wanting to play your games. No parent ever wants to believe that there is something wrong with their child. There are lots of case studies where children have been sick (physically or mentally) and the parents did not do anything about it.

 

[Hespera]

It seems to me like someone is getting mad because no one is wanting to play your games. .

So why do you keep playing?

 

[BananaSlug]

So why do you keep playing?

It is impossible for me to let somebody spout nonsense and not correct them.

 

[Hespera]

It is impossible for me to let somebody spout nonsense and not correct them.

Well, what i do with a street corner preacher who is spouting nonsense is i walk past and ignore him. They quit after a bit if there is no audience.

some people are immune to correction, in any case.

 

[sandwiches]

ok gotcha. i dont normally read his posts.

'humans don't normally go feral', but we're animals, right?

Animals go feral, do they not?

I had not been following the logic.

here is another version

Birds are animals. Clams are animals. Animals can fly can they not?

LOL
That's pretty much it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine. Just because some animals can go feral, doesn't mean all normally do.

I don't agree with this statement.

You are assuming we are immune from going feral.

Why are we immune?

Or are you just guessing?

 

[AV1611VET]

We are animals. We are also human.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

What does "we are animals, we are also human" mean?

"Going feral" is a term for an animal (such as a domesticated cat) that reverts to its wild instincts. A feral cat doesn't want to be petted on the head, it is scared of people.

I'm familiar with animals going feral.

I've paid the price of being in the vicinity a couple of times when they have; and I'll never forget the look in their eyes when they do.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is impossible for me to let somebody spout nonsense and not correct them.

I don't see the correction, BS.

All I see is rhetoric.

"We are animals, we are also human" and "we don't go feral" are two statements that mean nothing to me by ways of explanation.

I've asked why we are immune to going feral and am still waiting for an answer.

So far, all I hear is: "We just don't".