- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,727
- 52,531
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Terminal ManUnfortunately 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.
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.The desire to do harm is what I was addressing.
I think I see the problem in your reasoning.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.
His mental processes are not determined by the motions of atoms - or whatever neurological process you want to mention - they ARE his mental processes.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."
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".That's like saying the United States is responsible for you voting Republican - because they give you a choice, including not to vote!
It wasn't the 'desire' that I was addressing, but the act of doing harm.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.
So? Are you now arguing what you feel to be right is from a reaction to something external?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.
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.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. "Mental processes" are simply the by-product of that material process.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.
That's the point, of course.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?
No. Your sense of both is dependant on chemicals.Here we have to distinguish between the "reliable" and the "true" part.
No. Chemicals in your brain make you believe that they are so.We have established that our mental processes are quite reliable.
Checked against what?They are not random, they are based on outside influence, and they can be checked for consistency.
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.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".
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".
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.
Err, no. Here is your quote: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.
(my emphasis)But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?
And how does the absence of God cause this feeling/desire/whatever?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.
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.So? Are you now arguing what you feel to be right is from a reaction to something external?
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. 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.
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.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?
No need to get snarky. Just consider my questions. If you don´t think it is a "delusions of chemicals"... what is it?Your sense of you choosing is simply a dellusion of chemicals.
And why all the hoopla about why it happened?
Blaming it on Doom, blaming it on the environment, etc.
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!
You're mixing two different concepts here, and I submit that it's confusing you.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?
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.
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.
I see my point is going over your head, isn't it?
If we are all animals, what prevents us from going feral?
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".
I think the truth of the matter is, you don't know what makes any animal go feral, not just Homo sapiens.
The kind of answer I'm really looking for, BS, is something on the order of: "Zoologists say, Kelbold and Harris..."
I don't care what some fancy psychiatrist has to say.
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. .
So why do you keep playing?
It is impossible for me to let somebody spout nonsense and not correct them.
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?
I don't agree with this statement.That's fine. Just because some animals can go feral, doesn't mean all normally do.
This statement makes no sense whatsoever.We are animals. We are also human.
I'm familiar with animals going feral."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 don't see the correction, BS.It is impossible for me to let somebody spout nonsense and not correct them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?