Happy Atheist Forum

Hi,

This strange idea hit me the other day:

I've yet to isolate any knowledge I have that isn't related somehow to some experience. For instance: I "know" that time is maleable. I "know" this because I have experiential knowledge of math. I trust Albert when he tells me that the formula E=mc2 is simply a higher form of that math. Others I trust verify this, so I know(?) / believe(?) that time is maleable, even though I've never manipulated time.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I've yet to isolate any knowledge I have that isn't related somehow to some experience. Any thoughts?

Yes, I have one. If you've yet to isolate any knowledge that isn't related somehow to some experience then how can you be a theist? In other words, do you have knowledge of a god or deity that is related to personal experience?

Time isn't a part of E=mc2...

I think psychologically we are not capable of knowledge. The mind functions to accept new data if it must. All I mean by that is, if I know the name of my friend's dog is Rex and I am one day astonished to find out I've been calling him the wrong name all these years, I'll get over the initial feeling and accept that the dog's name is actually Rover. If I believe in a geocentric model of the universe I can come to believe in a heliocentric one. Even if somebody argued 2 + 2 = 5 you could come to believe it should your mind truly be persuaded. It doesn't matter the plausibility of the issue, the point is that the brain doesn't really know anything. Its job is to calculate based on experience, even if that experience means the input of new information.

Read the intro paragraph of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)

Instincts affect behavior but I don't think it's an actual form of knowledge. Depends upon how you wish to define "knowledge" I suppose.

Isn't epistemology fun?  

... it's turtles all the way down...

Quote from: "joeactor"... it's turtles all the way down...

What?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "joeactor"... it's turtles all the way down...

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

I know that I am. Everything after that is just frosting on the cake.  

Ahh...the ol' ergo sum.

I once read a really interesting critique of Descartes' famous statement. All I can remember of it is something along the lines of, "it thinks" (as in "it rains" or it snows", ie. a thought is happening), for all I know possibly without me. So thought happens (or this thought is happening), therefore thought exists.
 


Btw, it was Descartes' "proofs" for the existence of god that were collectively the final straw the finally convinced me there were no gods.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Isn't epistemology fun?  :hmm:
Btw, it was Descartes' "proofs" for the existence of god that were collectively the final straw the finally convinced me there were no gods.

I paused here for a bit and then I realized I am aware of said thought, ergo I am, but, as the one aware of the other, I am not the other, ergo I am not thought...

Descartes tried to prove God?  I find that odd.  The posit “God is” is no more tenable than “God isn’t”.  I’m surprised he didn’t know that.  Btw, what was his argument?  Maybe I’m wrong.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "elliebean"I once read a really interesting critique of Descartes' famous statement. All I can remember of it is something along the lines of, "it thinks" (as in "it rains" or it snows", ie. a thought is happening), for all I know possibly without me. So thought happens (or this thought is happening), therefore thought exists.
 :)

QuoteDescartes tried to prove God?  I find that odd.  The posit “God is” is no more tenable than “God isn’t”.  I’m surprised he didn’t know that.  Btw, what was his argument?  Maybe I’m wrong.

I don't recall what arguments he made, atm, but I do remember finding them so transparently fallacious as to suggest that he might have thrown them in just to satisfy the church and save his skin; they were still executing heretics then, iirc.

Quote from: "elliebean"I once read a really interesting critique of Descartes' famous statement. All I can remember of it is something along the lines of, "it thinks" (as in "it rains" or it snows", ie. a thought is happening), for all I know possibly without me. So thought happens (or this thought is happening), therefore thought exists.

Quote from: "Starting on page 240 of *The Will to Power, Nietzsche"436 (1885-1886)

To what extent dialectic and faith in reason still rest on moral prejudices. With Plato we are, as former inhabitants of an intelligible world of the good, still in possession of a heritage from that time: divine dialectic, as proceeding from the good, leads to all things good (â€"therefore, as it were, "backwards"â€"). Even Descartes had a notion of the fact that in a fundamentally Christian-moral mode of thought, which believes in a good God as the creator of things, only God's veracity guarantees to us the judgements of our senses. Apart from a religious sanction and guarantee of our senses and rationalityâ€"where should we derive a right to trust in existence! That thinking is a measure of actualityâ€"that what cannot be thought, is notâ€"is a rude non plus ultra of a moralistic trustfulness (in an essential truth-principle at the bottom of things), in itself a mad assumption, which experience contradicts every moment. We are altogether unable to think anything at all just as it isâ€"



484 (Spring-Fall 1887)

"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true a priori" our belief in the concept of substanceâ€"that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulateâ€" Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.
If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched uponâ€"that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself.



533 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Logical certainty, transparency, as criterion of truth ("omne illud verum est, quod clare et distincte percipitur." [1]â€"Descartes): with that, the mechanical hypothesis concerning the world is desired and credible.
But this is a crude confusion: like simplex sigillum veri. [2] How does one know that the real nature of things stands in this relation to our intellect?â€" Could it not be otherwise? that it is the hypothesis that gives the intellect the greatest feeling of power and security, that is most preferred, valued and consequently characterized as true?â€" The intellect posits its freest and strongest capacity and capability as criterion of the most valuable, consequently of the trueâ€"
"True": from the standpoint of feelingâ€": that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
from the standpoint of thoughtâ€": that which gives thought the greatest feeling of strength;
from the standpoint of touch, seeing, hearingâ€": that which calls for the greatest resistance.
Thus it is the highest degrees of performance that awaken belief in the "truth," that is to say reality, of the object. The feeling of strength, of struggle, of resistance convinces us that there is something that is here being resisted.


NOTESâ€"
[1]: Translated by Kaufmann, "All that is true which is perceived clearly and distinctly."

[2]: Translated by Kaufmann, "Simplicity is the seal of truth."


*Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, Inc., Vintage Books Edition, 1968.

QuoteBtw, it was Descartes' "proofs" for the existence of god that were collectively the final straw the finally convinced me there were no gods.

They were quite awful.

Quote from: "Descartes, in the Fifth Meditation,"But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45).

The intuition above can be formally described as follows:

1.Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2.I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Remind you of something else? http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4686&p=61844#p61844

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "elliebean"I once read a really interesting critique of Descartes' famous statement. All I can remember of it is something along the lines of, "it thinks" (as in "it rains" or it snows", ie. a thought is happening), for all I know possibly without me. So thought happens (or this thought is happening), therefore thought exists.
 :)

Quote"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true a priori" our belief in the concept of substanceâ€"that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulateâ€" Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.
If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched uponâ€"that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself.

Oh, well nevermind, then. The same can be applied to "I am aware of thought". It assumes the subject of the sentence to be real, while it's actually only grammatically a necessity.

Quote

QuoteThe intuition above can be formally described as follows:

    1.Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
    2.I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
    3.Therefore, God exists.

Remind you of something else? viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4686&p=61844#p61844 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4686&p=61844#p61844)

Haha, it does. that was one of the most blatant examples. Easy enough to refute thusly:

    1.Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
    2.I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God's superior evil twin.
    3.Therefore, God's superior evil twin exists.

The really ironic thing is a lot of theists don't seem to claim to have a clear and distinct perception of what God is. "God works in mysterious ways." The Christian community I'm surrounded by always says "it's not for us to know yet", or "his ways are beyond ours" in regards to apparent contradictions of God's behavior.

Ouch!  Descartes’ proof of God was painful, but do I detect a note of sarcasm?

I think I was confusing "internal dialog" with thought.  Does thought exist without dialog?  I think so, but I don't know what that looks like...

Quote from: "Sophus"The really ironic thing is a lot of theists don't seem to claim to have a clear and distinct perception of what God is. "God works in mysterious ways." The Christian community I'm surrounded by always says "it's not for us to know yet", or "his ways are beyond ours" in regards to apparent contradictions of God's behavior.

Please elaborate.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"The really ironic thing is a lot of theists don't seem to claim to have a clear and distinct perception of what God is. "God works in mysterious ways." The Christian community I'm surrounded by always says "it's not for us to know yet", or "his ways are beyond ours" in regards to apparent contradictions of God's behavior.

Please elaborate.

I know a few pastors personally. They use these sort of automated responses mainly for tough theological issues. For example, if I ask, "why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden there in the first place if He knew what would happen? Doesn't that mean He wanted everything to happen this way? That He made it so people would go to hell when there was an alternative? If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation? Why did he commit murder so frequently? If you were God would you have done the same?"etc. One also once told me that according to the Bible God has to let Satan run loose for a while after He has already won. "I don't know. I wouldn't do it, but He's God! He can do what He wants."
I think books like The Shack sell so well because they attempt to reason out God's behavior; make Him comprehensible. To give Christians a "clear, distinct perception."

Quote from: "Sophus"I know a few pastors personally. They use these sort of automated responses mainly for tough theological issues. For example, if I ask, "why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden there in the first place if He knew what would happen? Doesn't that mean He wanted everything to happen this way? That He made it so people would go to hell when there was an alternative? If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation? Why did he commit murder so frequently? If you were God would you have done the same?"etc. One also once told me that according to the Bible God has to let Satan run loose for a while after He has already won. "I don't know. I wouldn't do it, but He's God! He can do what He wants."
I think books like The Shack sell so well because they attempt to reason out God's behavior; make Him comprehensible. To give Christians a "clear, distinct perception."

Yes, I know these people.  I fear dogma has dulled their minds.  Let’s take a look at hose tough theological issues:

Why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden there in the first place if He knew what would happen?
All  part of His plan.  

Doesn't that mean He wanted everything to happen this way?
Yes, His plan is right on schedule.  (Feels like Logic 101 doesn’t it?)

That He made it so people would go to hell when there was an alternative?
Probably, but I don’t think I fully understand the question.  Please describe the alternative you have in mind..  
 
If  He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?
He didn’t fail... to do what He planned.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  And why would a currently imperfect Universe/creation be judged a failure?    

Why did he commit murder so frequently?
He seems to differentiate between killing for the common good (Capital Punishment) and killing for selfish motives (murder).  So if you asked Him, I think He would say he didn’t murder.    

If you were God would you have done the same?
I don't know, probably.  

One also once told me that according to the Bible God has to let Satan run loose for a while after He has already won.
He’s wrong, God doesn't have to do anything, because...

"... He's God! He can do what He wants."
Yes He can...

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I think I was confusing "internal dialog" with thought.  Does thought exist without dialog?  I think so, but I don't know what that looks like...

What relation has our mind with our brain?

QuoteAll  part of His plan.

A plan for Man to fall and inevitably have a large portion of the human race burn in hell. Keep in mind, even today Christianity, although the largest, only makes up about 1/3 of religious views out of nearly 7 billion people. If the tree is not there to begin with then eternity would consist of a heaven like state. After all, will there be such a tree in heaven. Why not just start that way and then nobody goes to hell?

QuoteYes, His plan is right on schedule.

An evil plan. Contradiction concluded: not an all loving being.

QuoteProbably, but I don’t think I fully understand the question.  Please describe the alternative you have in mind..

Starting out with the perfection the dead will have in heaven. Just begin with a place like that, lacking a tree, and viola! Nobody suffers for all of eternity. That's the only loving thing to do.

QuoteHe didn’t fail... to do what He planned.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  And why would a currently imperfect Universe/creation be judged a failure?

He has regretting making Man. Regret usually signifies a mistake. Why would anyone want to accomplish an imperfect plan?

QuoteHe seems to differentiate between killing for the common good (Capital Punishment) and killing for selfish motives (murder).  So if you asked Him, I think He would say he didn’t murder.

Not only were some did some of His laws call for murder for silly things such as homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13 NAB), sorcery (Exodus 22:17 NAB), not obeying priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT), slapping your daddy (Exodus 21:15 NAB), palm reading (Leviticus 20:27 NAB), fornication (Leviticus 21:9 NAB), worshiping false gods (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB), being a false prophet (Zechariah 13:3 NAB), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT), working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) and on and on and on.... He also killed people directly himself for equally petty reasons. Even having sacrifices made which would seem to be unnecessary for an omnipotent being.

QuoteI don't know, probably.

Really?

Quote"... He's God! He can do what He wants."
Yes He can...

Would that mean even if he had sinned he would be worthy of worship? I've gotten a "yes" response to that before.

Quote from: "Sophus"A plan for Man to fall and inevitably have a large portion of the human race burn in hell. Keep in mind, even today Christianity, although the largest, only makes up about 1/3 of religious views out of nearly 7 billion people.

I don’t think the Christians have the corner on eternal life, but why would their numbers matter anyway?    
Still, Hellish suffering, however short lived seems overkill.  (No pun intended)  I’m glad it’s not eternal.  (Matthew 10:28)

Quote from: "Sophus"If the tree is not there to begin with then eternity would consist of a heaven like state. After all, will there be such a tree in heaven.   Why not just start that way and then nobody goes to hell?

Could God reproduce Himself without pain and suffering?   Probably, but why would the potential for an alternative plan, (a plan more to your liking), invalidate His plan?

Quote from: "Sophus"An evil plan.  Contradiction concluded: not an all loving being.

Hmm...  Who told you He was “all loving”?   He made it clear that He hates as intensely as He loves.   And even if we consider Him all loving, why would that exclude hate?   I live both emotions concurrently.

Quote from: "Sophus"Starting out with the perfection the dead will have in heaven.   Just begin with a place like that, lacking a tree, and viola! Nobody suffers for all of eternity..

When the Supreme being in Time Bandits was asked why we have evil, He replied thoughtfully, “I think it has something to do with free will."    I agree, and I add the idea that for His children be like daddy God, they must know evil, and choose good.  

Quote from: "Sophus"That's the only loving thing to do.

Really?   What makes you so sure?   Do you consider yourself a master in the ways of agape?  

QuoteHe didn’t fail... to do what He planned.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  And why would a currently imperfect Universe/creation be judged a failure?

Quote from: "Sophus"He has regretting making Man. Regret usually signifies a mistake. Why would anyone want to accomplish an imperfect plan?

He can be such a girl.   “I hate you forever, don’t leave me...”  His exasperation and frustration don’t make His plan imperfect.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteHe seems to differentiate between killing for the common good (Capital Punishment) and killing for selfish motives (murder).  So if you asked Him, I think He would say he didn’t murder.

Not only were some did some of His laws call for murder for silly things such as homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13 NAB), sorcery (Exodus 22:17 NAB), not obeying priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT), slapping your daddy (Exodus 21:15 NAB), palm reading (Leviticus 20:27 NAB), fornication (Leviticus 21:9 NAB), worshiping false gods (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB), being a false prophet (Zechariah 13:3 NAB), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT), working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) and on and on and on.... He also killed people directly himself for equally petty reasons. Even having sacrifices made which would seem to be unnecessary for an omnipotent being.

Killing unjustly is considered evil, while killing with just cause is considered good.   I’m suggesting that a creator god would be the author of all that is and thus the final authority on all that is, including justification.  Our opinions would be irrelevant...

Quote from: "Sophus"If you were God would you have done the same?

I don't know, probably.

Quote from: "Sophus"Really?

Yes, really.  I’d have a huge problem doing those things as a human, but as Creator God?  I’m sure I’d have a valid reason...  

Quote from: "Sophus"”... He's God! He can do what He wants." Yes He can...

Quote from: "Sophus"Would that mean even if he had sinned he would be worthy of worship? I've gotten a "yes" response to that before.

The technical definition of sin is “transgression of God’s law”.  His law is an expression of His nature and His integrity makes it impossible for Him to sin.   Can He do evil?  i.e. cause disaster, calamity, woe, misery, suffering, sorrow?   Obviously.  Is He worthy of worship anyway?...

It took some time for me to get my head around that question.    I’ve never weighed God’s worth.   Worship just happens with me.   And now that I think about it, I seem to be in a constant state of worship, although my awareness of His presences ebbs and flows like the tide...   I know He is the author of evil, and I worship, so I would have to answer “yes".


I’ve heard that Atheists have the same background programs running as Christians.  I’m kinda leaning that way so far, so I’d like to throw this ball on the court and see where it bounces.

I know many Christians who don’t experience God as I do.   Logic fails to prove His exitance, so without experience why do they believe?  What are they standing on?    

Has anyone ever proved a Creator God does not exist?   Can logic take us there?   How did you get there?   And what are you standing on?   If it’s not pure logic, is it faith?  

How do you know what you know?

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"He can be such a girl.   “I hate you forever, don’t leave me...”  His exasperation and frustration don’t make His plan imperfect.  

 :upset:

Sorry, there is just one thing I can't handle.

A. God's plan is moving as intended.
B. People goto hell.
C. God is not malevolent.

Only 2 of these statements can ever be true at the same time. Vaguely assuming, of course, that God even could exist.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Sorry, there is just one thing I can't handle.

A. God's plan is moving as intended.
B. People goto hell.
C. God is not malevolent.

Only 2 of these statements can ever be true at the same time. Vaguely assuming, of course, that God even could exist.

Why is the idea that God can be malevolent bother you?
And why do you believe that God can not exist?

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"He can be such a girl.   “I hate you forever, don’t leave me...”  His exasperation and frustration don’t make His plan imperfect.  

 :upset:

I hate religion.  And I have the utmost respect for women.  In my family we use "(s)he is such a girl" to note the expression of contrary emotion, and "(s)he is such a boy" to denote oblique emotional behavior.  They are invalid stereotypes and simply figures of speech.  I wouldn't think them poison to the enlightened.  

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"He can be such a girl.   “I hate you forever, don’t leave me...”  His exasperation and frustration don’t make His plan imperfect.  

 :upset:

I hate religion.  And I have the utmost respect for women.  In my family we use "(s)he is such a girl" to note the expression of contrary emotion, and "(s)he is such a boy" to denote oblique emotional behavior.  They are invalid stereotypes and simply figures of speech.  I wouldn't think them poison to the enlightened.  

Peace - I/s

Who cares what you and your family say?  If you and your family decided calling black people the N word was 'simply a figure of speech', would the term cease to be racist?  No.  I'm not trying to hijack your thread, but If you really have respect for women, stop promoting sexism.

Quote from: "pinkocommie":upset:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I hate religion.  And I have the utmost respect for women.  In my family we use "(s)he is such a girl" to note the expression of contrary emotion, and "(s)he is such a boy" to denote oblique emotional behavior.  They are invalid stereotypes and simply figures of speech.  I wouldn't think them poison to the enlightened.  
Peace - I/s

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Who cares what you and your family say?  If you and your family decided calling black people the N word was 'simply a figure of speech', would the term cease to be racist?  No.  I'm not trying to hijack your thread, but If you really have respect for women, stop promoting sexism.

I’m not promoting sexism.   I’ve never heard “He’s such a girl” used as an insult.   (I would insult my God?)   Quite the contrary.   Women are far superior to men when it comes to integrating / expressing contrary emotions, and if a man can do that, he deserves credit for stepping out of the male box.   And why should I care what you say?   Do you care that I have friends that find “Pinko Commie” an insult?

Peace -I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m not promoting sexism.   I’ve never heard “He’s such a girl” used as an insult.   (I would insult my God?)   Quite the contrary.   Women are far superior to men when it comes to integrating / expressing contrary emotions, and if a man can do that, he deserves credit for stepping out of the male box.   And why should I care what you say?   Do you care that I have friends that find “Pinko Commie” an insult?

Peace -I/s

Wow.  A theist being disingenuous.  What a shock.  When in doubt, act oblivious and try to change the argument into something entirely different from the initial objection.  Super.  

Quote from: "idiotsolvent"I’m not promoting racism.   I’ve never heard “He’s such a Jew” used as an insult.   (I would insult my God?)   Quite the contrary.   Jews are far superior to blacks when it comes to integrating / expressing [steroetypical behavior], and if a black man can do that, he deserves credit for stepping out of the projects.   And why should I care what you say?   Do you care that I have friends that find “Idiot Savant” a compliment?

Peace -I/s

Fixed it for you.  

Having a harder time buying the savant part, though.

My oblivion isn’t an act.  I’m disappointed to find things I take for granted, such as the weaknesses and strengths inherent in males and females, are oblique to the intelligent Atheist.  I expected you all to be better read.  Your double standard is irritating, (you can say “pinko commie”, but I can’t say “such a girl”).  I really am surprised by your bias.  But hey, I came to Rome, and the onus is mine.  I’ll try to stay off your tender toes.  

So then, getting back to the OP:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’ve heard that Atheists have the same background programs running as Christians.  I’m kinda leaning that way so far, so I’d like to throw this ball on the court and see where it bounces.

I know many Christians who don’t experience God as I do.   Logic fails to prove His exitance, so without experience why do they believe?  What are they standing on?    

Has anyone ever proved a Creator God does not exist?   Can logic take us there?   How did you get there?   And what are you standing on?   If it’s not pure logic, is it faith?  

How do you know what you know?

Peace - I/s

anyone?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So then, getting back to the OP:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’ve heard that Atheists have the same background programs running as Christians.  I’m kinda leaning that way so far, so I’d like to throw this ball on the court and see where it bounces.

I know many Christians who don’t experience God as I do.   Logic fails to prove His exitance, so without experience why do they believe?  What are they standing on?    

Has anyone ever proved a Creator God does not exist?   Can logic take us there?   How did you get there?   And what are you standing on?   If it’s not pure logic, is it faith?  

How do you know what you know?

Peace - I/s

anyone?

This topic had really gone around and around it sprained a couple of my synapses once or twice. :hmm:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"My oblivion isn’t an act.  I’m disappointed to find things I take for granted, such as the weaknesses and strengths inherent in males and females, are oblique to the intelligent Atheist.

The very definition of willful ignorance.

QuoteI expected you all to be better read.

I would expect any idiot to be well read enough to be able to distnguish a statistic from inherent truth.

So then, getting back to the OP:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"How do you know what you know?

Looks like we have your answer:

QuoteI take for granted

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So then, getting back to the OP:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Has anyone ever proved a Creator God does not exist?   Can logic take us there?   How did you get there?   And what are you standing on?   If it’s not pure logic, is it faith?  

How do you know what you know?

anyone?

Perhaps no one has answered your question because it is generally  a straw man...most atheists are not gnostic atheists so most of us would not claim to have definite knowledge that absolutely no god exists.  Defacto Atheists (http://christophersisk.com/dawkins-belief-scale-images/) simply don't believe because there is no reason to believe...much like how most people don't believe that little green men live on mars.

This is helpful.  The Straw Man would be the default, and an honest person would add, “But ya never know...”

Religion is an evil machine. Cruel and destructive.  It uses guilt and shame to incite fear - the mind killer.  Fear brings torment, but Jesus is called the Price of Peace, how can those Christians be so oblique?  

And speaking of oblique:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"My oblivion isn’t an act..

Quote from: "elliebean"The very definition of willful ignorance..

ob·liv·i·onâ€, â€,/əˈblɪviÉ™n/ [uh-bliv-ee-uhn] â€"noun
1.the state of being completely forgotten or unknown: a former movie star now in oblivion.
2.the state of forgetting or of being oblivious: the oblivion of sleep.
3.official disregard or overlooking of offenses; pardon; amnesty.
Origin: 1350â€"1400; ME < MF < L oblÄ«viōn- (s. of oblÄ«viō), equiv. to oblÄ«v(Ä«scÄ«) to forget + -iōn- -ion; see ob-

I favor the first two.

Quote from: "elliebean"I would expect any idiot to be well read enough to be able to distinguish a statistic from inherent truth.

You may be half right here.  I suppose it's an assumption to jump from statistic to inherent, but isn't that why we study behavior?  Maybe not.  Please elucidate.  As for the other half - you might want to rethink idiocy.

Quote from: "elliebean"I take for granted

I see.  You chose the Straw Man default.  Where are you on the scale?  

Hey Sophus! What do you think?

Peace -I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"This is helpful.  The Straw Man would be the default, and an honest person would add, “But ya never know...”

So in order to be honest one must add the obvious to the end of every statement they are not completely sure of? I find it much more dishonest to say that, "god exists but I have no verifiable evidence" than to just say, "I don't believe in a god."

The default is much less of a straw man than you try to make it seem; the default should be the starting position on thinking that something is not true and before telling others that it is true, you should provide the evidence for it. Now I don't really care if people personally believe in things without evidence, but I find it funny that people go out saying things are true without any decent evidence. By "decent evidence" I mean things that are demonstrable, independently verifiable and predictable.

For an answer to the OP's question: if the goal is absolute knowledge, well that doesn't exist... we could break it all the way down to making everything pointless by saying, "can you even trust anything your senses are telling you?" What I consider knowing is what I can demonstrate and show others how to verify. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will tell me and provide evidence that I'm wrong or show me where I made a logical error.

Quote from: "Davin"So in order to be honest one must add the obvious to the end of every statement they are not completely sure of?

Only to ourselves...

Quote from: "Davin"I find it much more dishonest to say that, "god exists but I have no verifiable evidence" than to just say, "I don't believe in a god."

Apples and oranges.  Statement vs belief, but I think I got your drift.

Quote from: "Davin"The default is much less of a straw man than you try to make it seem;

Straw Man = “God is”.  Default = “God is not”.

Quote from: "Davin"the default should be the starting position

Yes, that was my point, but on this subject, is the default not arbitrary?

Quote from: "Davin"By "decent evidence" I mean things that are demonstrable, independently verifiable and predictable.

Standard scientific process, and there’s the rub.  What type of demonstration would satisfy you?  If the blind see, the deaf hear and the dead walk, would you not find an alternative explanation?  Logic fails to prove anything here.

Quote from: "Davin"if the goal is absolute knowledge, well that doesn't exist... we could break it all the way down to making everything pointless by saying, "can you even trust anything your senses are telling you?" What I consider knowing is what I can demonstrate and show others how to verify. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will tell me and provide evidence that I'm wrong or show me where I made a logical error.

I would say the goal is to know absolute truth.  And again you touch on logic’s waterloo.  All understanding is based on some assumption.  We gotta start somewhere.  I choose to believe my senses, even though logic says, “But have you considered...”  I’ve experienced God in many ways.  There’s a connection.  I can feel it, but I can’t define it.  

Such is my reality.  I feel sorry for those raised in religion.  She’s a whore - deceptive and deadly.  (Before you get all up in arms pinkocommie, I’m quoting Revelations 18 - Mystic Babylon, an enemy of God’s children...)

Peace - I/s

/////EDUCATION BREAK\\\\\\

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This education break has been brought to you by the all powerful Wikipedia.  

Bless you child.  How are you relating straw man to our topic?

You know, I thought about repling but everything seems to go in one ear and out the other.

Exactly. Except it comes out all sticky and smelly.

I do, however, feel compelled to address how you think the Bible says hell is not eternal. Read these: Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:11. The verse you had mentioned can just as easily be interpreted in a different manner, however it would not surprise me if it is in fact a contradiction to these.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"The default is much less of a straw man than you try to make it seem;

Straw Man = “God is”.  Default = “God is not”.

Wrong: positive: "God is", neutral: "nothing", negative: "God isn't", the neutral should be the default to start with.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"the default should be the starting position

Yes, that was my point, but on this subject, is the default not arbitrary?

What you claimed was the default is not arbitrary and there is good reason to think that "God is not" just like there is good reason to think that leprechauns do not exist. But the default on leprechauns should be the same starting point of just not having any position on the matter. Just someone saying "I feel that leprechauns exist" is not evidence. If that person goes on to say that you must believe in leprechauns then they should be providing the evidence of the leprechauns existence. The same should be for any god.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"By "decent evidence" I mean things that are demonstrable, independently verifiable and predictable.

Standard scientific process, and there’s the rub.  What type of demonstration would satisfy you?  If the blind see, the deaf hear and the dead walk, would you not find an alternative explanation?  Logic fails to prove anything here.

Think really hard about what makes you believe in a god. Make a short list of the top three things that convince you that there is a god, then let me know.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"if the goal is absolute knowledge, well that doesn't exist... we could break it all the way down to making everything pointless by saying, "can you even trust anything your senses are telling you?" What I consider knowing is what I can demonstrate and show others how to verify. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will tell me and provide evidence that I'm wrong or show me where I made a logical error.

I would say the goal is to know absolute truth.  And again you touch on logic’s waterloo.  All understanding is based on some assumption.  We gotta start somewhere.  I choose to believe my senses, even though logic says, “But have you considered...”  I’ve experienced God in many ways.  There’s a connection.  I can feel it, but I can’t define it.

I trust my senses as well, but not always my assumptions of the senses. When I went to church I got some warm fuzzy feelings and thought that it meant something special, until I started going into mosh pits and discovered I got the same kind of feelings from the rush of the music and "dancing" around knocking people and getting knocked. The point is, just because I had a feeling and others told me that that feeling was one thing, doesn't mean that I don't trust that I got the feeling, just what other people said the feeling was. The feeling by the way is very common for people known as dopamine (and other natural chemicals) releases in the brain brought on by various causes including the same things that happen in church. It's easy to look up the effects of dopamine releases and how they are triggered.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Such is my reality.  I feel sorry for those raised in religion.  She’s a whore - deceptive and deadly.  (Before you get all up in arms pinkocommie, I’m quoting Revelations 18 - Mystic Babylon, an enemy of God’s children...)

Peace - I/s

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

Quote from: "Sophus"You know, I thought about replying but everything seems to go in one ear and out the other.

I’ve reviewed our dialog Sophus.  I’ve answered all your questions, commented on your statements, and challenged your assumptions.  What is it I missed?

Quote from: "elliebean"Exactly. Except it comes out all sticky and smelly.

He/she who insults the best wins?  Sophomoric Inteligencia.  How original.

Quote from: "Davin"Wrong: positive: "God is", neutral: "nothing", negative: "God isn't", the neutral should be the default to start with.

I’ve been thinking about this for some time.  At first I thought it wouldn’t work because “nothing” would include “God isn’t”, but then I realized I was neutral when I asked God if He was real.  I didn’t care one way or the other, so I’m thinking neutral is the balance point between “is” and “is not”, where either is equally possible.

Quote from: "Davin"Think really hard about what makes you believe in a god. Make a short list of the top three things that convince you that there is a god, then let me know.

1.  I met Him, when I didn’t expect too.  (I was neutral)
2.  I’ve experienced instantaneous physical healings.  (a.k.a. miracles)
3.  Everything He has told me would happen in my life has happened.  
All three reasons are based on experience, but, like you, I don’t totally trust my interpretations.  So I find I must choose between faith and reason.  I don’t find reason superior, and I have found faith more beneficial.

Quote from: "Davin""The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

At some point, the two always become mutually exclusive, but it is a biased mind that views one of the two superior.
 
Your avatar looks familiar; is it a painting?  

Peace - I/s

I was once convinced everyone i came into contact with had previously been told about me and knew of my arrival. If i went to the shop, the shopkeeper would look at me as i passed goods across the counter. In her eyes i could see the recognition. She knew who i was and had been told something about me. I would walk out of that shop feeling terrified and i'd hole myself up in my room for the rest of the day. If i passed anyone in the street, they'd immediately start whispering to each other about me. One might even cock an eye back at me with a snigger or sneer. What was their agenda? I couldn't be sure. It was sinister, though. I wasn't sleeping very well and i found myself, in the dead of night, asking for help. I just needed someone to help me. Why did the entire planet have an agenda against me? Could god save me? One thing was for sure, my friends weren't up to the task. They just kept telling me it was all in my head. I started to believe some of them were in on the conspiracy as well. Maybe if i tested them to see if they really were in on it, i'd get the proof i was looking for and blow the lid off this whole damn thing. All i needed was a plan...

A couple of weeks before, i was at a festival. We'd had a very fun first day and the sun was starting to set. Unfortunately i'd left my tobacco tin on the grass where we'd previously been sitting. When i came back it was gone. I was gutted. All my weed and other supplements were in it. Resigned to this, i decided to find another purveyor. I found some dude in the corner of a very loud drum n' bass tent. He shoved a few things in my hand and i duly paid him. He looked dodgy but hey, it is a festival, everyone is here for fun, right? A few hours later everything wasn't fun. It wasn't fun at all. And that's where it all started to slip away from me. The next 24 hours is difficult for me to remember. Just lots of crazy images and feelings of despair and fear. I think i sat under a tree for about five hours with my eyes tightly shut and my fingers in my ears, the last remaining tendril of sanity trying to hold fast against a torrent of psychosis.

I truly lost it for about five weeks after that.

During that time I should have been institutionalised and treated for drug induced psychosis. Thankfully (somehow) i managed to get through it but the fear and the uncontrollable crying would sporadically come back in waves. Up to about four years after the incident i'd still get random paranoia attacks. They would take a huge amount of mental energy to keep at bay.

The main thing i learnt from this was that the brain is unbelievably good at tricking you. No matter how crazy things seem to get, it can still convince you anything is happening and is actually real. It just so happened to manifest itself as extreme paranoia where everyone had a secret agenda aginst me - Trueman show style. Nothing anyone said to me would make me see sense. I was 100% absolutely utterly convinced i was right and everyone else was wrong. I lost some very good friends because of it. I don't blame them, it must have freaked them out big time. to this day i'm ashamed of my stupidity.

I don't know how i managed to pull myself out of it but i did. Ever since then i've understood and appreciated just how ruthlessly powerful the mind is and how it can literally flip people on their heads. It also let me truly understand how fervently some religious people can believe god is talking to them. They do actually hear a voice, no doubt. I'm just incredibly glad my psychosis manifested itself as pure paranoia instead of god or the devil speaking to me. Had it been the latter, i'm not sure what i'd be like today.

I'm sure the things you said you've witnessed did happen, Idiotsavant, but probably not in actual reality. Please don't be offended by that. It is just how i see it because of how powerful the brain is at convincing you what you've experienced is utterly real. If your experiences have led you to being a better person, then that's really cool. I just hope you'll be able to function properly as the years roll on and these experiences aren't masking something a little more problematic.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’ve been thinking about this for some time.  At first I thought it wouldn’t work because “nothing” would include “God isn’t”, but then I realized I was neutral when I asked God if He was real.  I didn’t care one way or the other, so I’m thinking neutral is the balance point between “is” and “is not”, where either is equally possible.

I wouldn't consider it a balance... there are probably millions of things that people believe in that don't exist and you don't know about. You're neutral on those things as far as belief goes. Not because you think the likely hood of them existing is equal to them not existing, but just that you haven't even thought of their existence at all. Like if I asked you if you believed in dancing waffles? Did you, before I asked, ever hear of such a thing?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Think really hard about what makes you believe in a god. Make a short list of the top three things that convince you that there is a god, then let me know.

1.  I met Him, when I didn’t expect too. (I was neutral)
2.  I’ve experienced instantaneous physical healings. (a.k.a. miracles)
3.  Everything He has told me would happen in my life has happened.

Good for you, unfortunately that does absolutely nothing for any one else. Unless: you can point out where he is, you have evidence of the instantaneous physical healings or you can prove that you wrote down specific events that would happen in your life before they happened... specific in that it could only mean one thing: "on February 12th 2005 at around 6pm, some one will tell you that you ate too much cheese the day before" and not something fortune cookie ambiguous like: "You will get a job that you will enjoy."

Quote from: "idiotsavant"All three reasons are based on experience, but, like you, I don’t totally trust my interpretations.  So I find I must choose between faith and reason.  I don’t find reason superior, and I have found faith more beneficial.

I have never found an instance where faith was beneficial over knowledge, while I have found knowledge extremely useful.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin""The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

At some point, the two always become mutually exclusive, but it is a biased mind that views one of the two superior.

Let's let you handle this one:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I don’t find reason superior, and I have found faith more beneficial.

Of course I'm with you when I think one is more beneficial, but I don't think I came to the idea that reason is more beneficial because of bias.
 

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Your avatar looks familiar; is it a painting?

Peace - I/s

If you knew me, then you probably saw me draw at least one variation of it, but as far as I know the concept is fairly original. I call it Yetzer ha Ra from the ancient Aramaic belief that good and evil exists inside us and that we must all control the evil part of us. I can't get a direct link to it because where I have it is blocked from work but you can get it from my DeviantArt (http://davincreed.deviantart.com) page.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "elliebean"Exactly. Except it comes out all sticky and smelly.

He/she who insults the best wins?  Sophomoric Inteligencia.  How original.

What, you don't like my sassy sense of humor?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m thinking neutral is the balance point between “is” and “is not”

I wouldn't consider it a balance... there are probably millions of things that people believe in that don't exist and you don't know about. You're neutral on those things as far as belief goes. Not because you think the likely hood of them existing is equal to them not existing, but just that you haven't even thought of their existence at all.  Like if I asked you if you believed in dancing waffles? Did you, before I asked, ever hear of such a thing?

Dancing waffles - interesting, but no, never crossed my mind.  But I still don’t get it.  Neutral is the state of what?  Inertia?  Nothing?  It feels like it should be “between” - like neutral in a gearbox, or the median of opposites.    I suspect I’m tripping on semantics here, but oblique is as oblique does...  "Nothing" feels more like a foundation, or maybe a neutral staring point, like a seed in the ground which grows both ways...  I'll keep working on it.

Quote from: "Davin"Good for you, unfortunately that does absolutely nothing for any one else.

Not true brother, many others have benefited from God's investment in me. Even as I have benefitted from His investment in you...

Quote from: "Davin"Unless: you can point out where he is, you have evidence of the instantaneous physical healings

Evidence?  Think about that really hard, and tell me three types of evidence you would accept.

Quote from: "Davin"or you can prove that you wrote down specific events that would happen in your life before they happened... specific in that it could only mean one thing: "on February 12th 2005 at around 6pm, some one will tell you that you ate too much cheese the day before" and not something fortune cookie ambiguous like: "You will get a job that you will enjoy."

I’ve only one with a time frame, and that’s about 12 years away.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"All three reasons are based on experience, but, like you, I don’t totally trust my interpretations.

I need to add that my lack of trust is only in my logical mind, I innately trust my deep, it has an amazing track record, but my logic... not so good.

Quote from: "Davin""The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

Quote from: "idiotsavant"At some point, the two always become mutually exclusive, but it is a biased mind that views one of the two superior.

Let's let you handle this one:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I don’t find reason superior, and I have found faith more beneficial.

Of course I'm with you when I think one is more beneficial, but I don't think I came to the idea that reason is more beneficial because of bias.

Bias is an Ouroboros.  At some point “A” becomes more desirable than “B”.  After that, we lean.

I know I’ve seen your Yetzer ha Ra before, and the web sight looks familiar, I think I’ve been there before.  The image disturbs me.  I like that....

Quote from: "elliebean"What, you don't like my sassy sense of humor?

Every time I read this I .  I must like it.  I dub thee “Sassy Lassie”.

Sophus hasn’t deigned to reply.  He may be an example of the “Atheist - Religion Mirror Syndrome”.  Law and Judgment fuel religion.  I don’t satisfy Sophus’ law and he judged me unworthy...

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Dancing waffles - interesting, but no, never crossed my mind.  But I still don’t get it.  Neutral is the state of what?  Inertia?  Nothing?  It feels like it should be “between” - like neutral in a gearbox, or the median of opposites.    I suspect I’m tripping on semantics here, but oblique is as oblique does...  "Nothing" feels more like a foundation, or maybe a neutral staring point, like a seed in the ground which grows both ways...  I'll keep working on it.

I was talking about positive, neutral and negative assertions about the truth of something. Of course the possibility exists that one has no opinion at all, like my example of dancing waffles. Of course once you are presented with a concept you immediately form some kind of truth position on the matter, but as instant as it is, there is a lot that goes on even when being presented with my ridiculous example, likely: first you're presented with the concept and probably even have a flash of what a dancing waffle looks like, then you realize that waffles are an inanimate object in all cases you have come across, so then you come to the position that because waffles are inanimate they cannot dance on their own so the idea of them is tossed into your "not true (but probably silly)" basket in your head. And the only way you will even approach a belief that it's true is if you could see waffles dancing on their own. So in this example you go from no stance on the truth value, to a neutral stance to a negative stance in less than a second. This example is rather silly, but the point was to bring up something that you likely had never heard of to point out that you can have no stance on a proposition at all. Another reason is to show you that one should question why one would bring up the concept in the first place.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Good for you, unfortunately that does absolutely nothing for any one else.

Not true brother, many others have benefited from God's investment in me. Even as I have benefitted from His investment in you...

How does one know that whatever personal revelation one has is true (in the colloquial sense)? If I said that I now believe in god because he came to me and told me that everyone must give me millions of dollars so that I can create a space ship capable of traveling to another planet in order to avoid a world wide disaster that will wipe out all life on the planet, would you trust me because I fervently believe that god told me in person? I would hope not.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Unless: you can point out where he is, you have evidence of the instantaneous physical healings

Evidence?  Think about that really hard, and tell me three types of evidence you would accept.

Easy: demonstrable, verifiable and predictable.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"or you can prove that you wrote down specific events that would happen in your life before they happened... specific in that it could only mean one thing: "on February 12th 2005 at around 6pm, some one will tell you that you ate too much cheese the day before" and not something fortune cookie ambiguous like: "You will get a job that you will enjoy."

I’ve only one with a time frame, and that’s about 12 years away.

Is it specific? Let us know what it is so that in twelve years we can all see this evidence come to fruition.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"All three reasons are based on experience, but, like you, I don’t totally trust my interpretations.

I need to add that my lack of trust is only in my logical mind, I innately trust my deep, it has an amazing track record, but my logic... not so good.

Logic is what I do for a living, if I'm not logical then things don't work. Programming is purely a logical process... of course there are programmers that aren't very logical, but the fact that it won't work unless it's logical forces them to produce code that is, and you can generally notice the trails of code that go off where they don't need to go. I see the same thing in people when dealing with regular life things. So when someone tells me they have can't trust reason over their gut, I have a huge problem of trying to remain unbiased of anything they say.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Bias is an Ouroboros.  At some point “A” becomes more desirable than “B”.  After that, we lean.

I can agree that after we come to choose A or B that we become biased, but that has nothing to do with how we reach choosing one over the other. The process of choosing A over B can be accomplished without bias if approached through a logical process.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I know I’ve seen your Yetzer ha Ra before, and the web sight looks familiar, I think I’ve been there before.  The image disturbs me.  I like that....

It's a very popular website that I'm not popular on. I have shown more people my artwork in person than have seen it on that site. I don't find the image disturbing as much as cheesy.

Quote from: "Davin"Easy: demonstrable, verifiable and predictable.

That's only one type of evidence, since it has to meet all three criteria.

QuoteEvery time I read this I :cool:

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Davin"Easy: demonstrable, verifiable and predictable.

That's only one type of evidence, since it has to meet all three criteria.

I think differently, unless we're going to get all into semantics.

I consider "demonstrable evidence" when one can demonstrate that X will happen if we do Y, then of course you verify whether X happened. But I consider "verifiable evidence" more along the lings of being able to independently test something instead of just making sure X happened or not.
I consider predictable evidence not just: If I do Y then X will happen. I consider it more along the lines of 80% of the people will do X, the rock will be going 45mph when it hits the ground... etc.

But I do understand the need to verify your predictions of your demonstrations... but that road just seems to lead the same place as the "can you even trust what your senses are telling you?" road that I don't think the Laid Back Lounge was built to handle.

My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me.  

Quote from: "elliebean"My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me.  

It's not your mistake really, you just had a different view than I. It's more likely my mistake, which is why I wanted to clear it up.

QuoteSophus hasn’t deigned to reply. He may be an example of the “Atheist - Religion Mirror Syndrome”. Law and Judgment fuel religion. I don’t satisfy Sophus’ law and he judged me unworthy...

Oh, sorry I forget about this thread. :D

Quote from: "Davin"I was talking about positive, neutral and negative assertions about the truth of something

Okay, I think I’ve got this.  My thought process was just as you described.  My original thoughts on DWs were null, then came the DW image (nano-second), then not-DW.
That happened to me with Jesus.  Only it ended with yes.

Quote from: "Davin"How does one know that whatever personal revelation one has is true (in the colloquial sense)? If I said that I now believe in god because he came to me and told me that everyone must give me millions of dollars so that I can create a space ship capable of traveling to another planet in order to avoid a world wide disaster that will wipe out all life on the planet, would you trust me because I fervently believe that god told me in person? I would hope not.

Personal revelation is just that; we all must decide for ourselves.  I’ve found no way to convey my personal revelations to others.  And although I expect to have a million dollars to spare by 2022, I’m not giving it to you.  

Quote from: "Davin"Is it specific? Let us know what it is so that in twelve years we can all see this evidence come to fruition.

Like I said earlier, I'll be wealthy (...by U.S. standards.  (U.S. poor are wealthy)) by 2022.  The process has already begun -  If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, the sudden influx of money would cause harm, but I think my character will develop sufficiently in the next 12 years..  I doubt we’ll be in contact then, but if we are, what evidence would you trust to prove that my wealth came form God?  (Besides the fact I’m an idiot and must have had Divine help.)

Quote from: "Davin"(Wants) ...demonstrable, verifiable and predictable (evidence).

My experience says it’s never enough - An older lady tells you that on a missionary trip to the slums of India, a sick and dehydrated infant died in her arms as she prayed for its healing.  After another hour of  prayer the infant awoke, healthy and hungry.  She predicted the healing, it happened, and the parents verified it.  But you weren’t there.  This is just a story to you.  Like dancing waffles.  Hearsay.  And even if you were there, would you conclude God was involved?  I doubt it.  I suss you would look for alternative explanations.

Quote from: "Davin"Logic is what I do for a living

So you're a computer programmer.  I wrote COBOL programs on punch cards.  They tell me COBOL is still around, Ugh!  I liked PL1, Pascal, and and even Assembler better.  When Data Bases were coming in, I stepped out.  Recently I've heard of “Cloud" computing.  Do you know what that is?

Quote from: "Davin"...can't trust reason over their gut, I have a huge problem of trying to remain unbiased of anything they say.

That bias will change as you age.  Successful business people say they trust the gut.  It might help you to think of the gut as a subconscious supercomputer, processing minute information of which  we are not specifically aware.  I would have avoided many a regret had I trusted my deep...  Hindsight is a B.  (Can I write the B-word here?)

Quote from: "Davin"I can agree that after we come to choose A or B that we become biased, but that has nothing to do with how we reach choosing one over the other. The process of choosing A over B can be accomplished without bias if approached through a logical process.

I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’.  I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

Quote from: "Davin"I don't find the image disturbing as much as cheesy.

You underestimate your Yetzer ha Ra.  I see fleeting malice in his eyes, but I don’t see good there, only a “good" mask.  Perhaps not exactly what you wanted, but I see talent there.

Quote from: "Sophus"I do, however, feel compelled to address how you think the Bible says hell is not eternal. Read these: Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:11. The verse you had mentioned can just as easily be interpreted in a different manner, however it would not surprise me if it is in fact a contradiction to these.  I know we're veering but I would be interested.  

I’m disappointed Sophus, I had so hoped my answers (and questions) would be unique.
I use the KISimS principle with everything, Bible included.  So then, if we assume the Bible is the “Holy Written Word of God”, we must assume that any perceived contradictions are actually misperceptions.  In this case Jesus said God could (not necessarily would) kill both body and soul in geenna.  Your references speak of “eternal” and “everlasting” punishment.  At this point the argument could go either way, but if one of the exclusive benefits of salvation is eternal life, then geenna cannot be eternal.  And in Rev 20 hades (which I consider synonymous with geenna) is cast into the lake of fire, aka the second death.  Twice dead feels really dead...  

P.S.
I forgot John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (apollumi - to destroy fully), but have everlasting life.


And even if I’m wrong, why would it matter?  KISimS says, “If we assume that God is good, then any perceived evil is actually a misperception.”  In this light, your “difficult questions” can be summed up thusly: “Why doesn’t God fit my paradigm?”

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Okay, I think I’ve got this.  My thought process was just as you described.  My original thoughts on DWs were null, then came the DW image (nano-second), then not-DW.
That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes.

I don't understand. How is that even similar?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Personal revelation is just that; we all must decide for ourselves.  I’ve found no way to convey my personal revelations to others.  And although I expect to have a million dollars to spare by 2022, I’m not giving it to you.

Yes, personal revelation is logically worthless to anyone but yourself. I would even argue that it's somewhat worthless to yourself because you can't get any outside verification which would help to show that you're not just crazy.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Like I said earlier, I'll be wealthy (...by U.S. standards. (U.S. poor are wealthy)) by 2022. The process has already begun - If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, the sudden influx of money would cause harm, but I think my character will develop sufficiently in the next 12 years.. I doubt we’ll be in contact then, but if we are, what evidence would you trust to prove that my wealth came form God?  (Besides the fact I’m an idiot and must have had Divine help.)

So it's not specific.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"My experience says it’s never enough - An older lady tells you that on a missionary trip to the slums of India, a sick and dehydrated infant died in her arms as she prayed for its healing.  After another hour of  prayer the infant awoke, healthy and hungry.  She predicted the healing, it happened, and the parents verified it.  But you weren’t there.  This is just a story to you.  Like dancing waffles.  Hearsay.  And even if you were there, would you conclude God was involved?  I doubt it.  I suss you would look for alternative explanations.

Like I said before, personal revelation is worthless, not just because you can't trust the person, but also because memory is known to be inaccurate. Now if this lady went around to hospitals bringing dead babies back to life, then that would really be something, but a one off shot can have several explanations including that the baby was never dead to begin with. What is wrong with looking for alternate explanations, without explanations that don't have to do with the supernatural we have come a long way in increasing the life span of people and feeding more people.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So you're a computer programmer.  I wrote COBOL programs on punch cards.  They tell me COBOL is still around, Ugh!  I liked PL1, Pascal, and and even Assembler better.  When Data Bases were coming in, I stepped out.  Recently I've heard of “Cloud" computing.  Do you know what that is?

Yes CoBOL is still around, though now we use keyboards (jk). And yes I have heard of and know what cloud computing is; basically cloud computing is linking a bunch of computers together to share the processing power essentially creating a super computer.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"That bias will change as you age. Successful business people say they trust the gut. It might help you to think of the gut as a subconscious supercomputer, processing minute information of which  we are not specifically aware. I would have avoided many a regret had I trusted my deep...  Hindsight is a B. (Can I write the B-word here?)

Yes I have heard successful business people say that as well, however successful business people are also very competitive, why would you trust their advice? About saying "bitch" I did not see that is prohibited in the guidelines and I don't care about which words a person chooses to use.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’. I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

I think we should all strive to live rationally and here is why: If I steal from someone and then get punched in the face I will feel emotionally bad for the person hitting me despite me committing a wrong action to begin with, however if someone steals from me and I punch him in the face then I feel emotionally fine and justified. Emotionally there are two different conclusions, however, logically both situations are the same.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"You underestimate your Yetzer ha Ra. I see fleeting malice in his eyes, but I don’t see good there, only a “good" mask.  Perhaps not exactly what you wanted, but I see talent there.

It's cheesy to me, and not creepy at all.

I said brown.

Quote from: "mama_ape"I said brown.

And you were right.  Let's see if we can spark this up a bit.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Okay, I think I’ve got this. My thought process was just as you described. My original thoughts on DWs were null, then came the DW image (nano-second), then not-DW.  That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes.

I don't understand. How is that even similar?

Not DW - Maybe DW - No DW.  Not JC - Maybe JC - Yes JC.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, personal revelation is logically worthless to anyone but yourself. I would even argue that it's somewhat worthless to yourself because you can't get any outside verification which would help to show that you're not just crazy.

What value sanity?

Quote from: "Davin"So it's not specific.

Millions of $$ mine by 2022 not specific?

Quote from: "Davin"if this lady went around to hospitals bringing dead babies back to life, then that would really be something

Really?  In what way?  What would it prove?

Quote from: "Davin"What is wrong with looking for alternate explanations?

Wrong? Nothing.  I love our ability to imagine alternatives.  Our imagination has improved and prolonged life while it has improved war and destroyed life...  We stoop so low to reach so high.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes I have heard successful business people say that as well, however successful business people are also very competitive, why would you trust their advice?

Between the conception and the fruition lies the shadow.  I only trust what I experience.  We seek others with similar experiences to validate and encourage us as we walk through the shadow.

Karadan, my apologies, I wasn’t ignoring your post,  I just now stumbled on it.  And I hope you take no offense at my “What value sanity?" statement.  I’m actually questioning Davin’s definition of sanity.  I concluded years ago that joy and happiness matter much more than social acceptance / validation. And I learned that the only person altogether happy is the village idiot...

Your story sums up my OP quite nicely.  It seems all of us live by faith in our own perception of reality.  

Quote from: "Karadan"(I hope your) ...experiences aren't masking something a little more problematic.

I appreciate your concern, but so far I’ve seen nothing but improvement.  I had a sever bout with depression once.  I climbed out on my own by changing my focus from regrets to opportunities.  I now know the cup is 2/3 full at least. I’ve a friend who lost a brother to paranoia.  We can’t find any way past his defenses, as your friends couldn’t get past yours.  Still, I’d like to hear more details if you can.  I don’t want to pry, but  I wonder if you made a decision to change like I did.  Having been on the inside, can you see anyway for an outsider to help?

And don’t beat yourself for being stupid.  It’s the common state of man.

Peace - I/s

QuoteSo then, if we assume the Bible is the “Holy Written Word of God”, we must assume that any perceived contradictions are actually misperceptions

That's my problem. You're assuming. You're arguing from your conclusions not to them. One must follow the evidence where it leads, not selectively pick the evidence one likes that supports his conclusion. I don't do assumptions.

QuoteI forgot John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (apollumi - to destroy fully), but have everlasting life.

I'm familiar with this verse. Another translation is die. It is possible these authors interpreted death as something that did not cause you to cease existing. Certainly the Egyptians did. Then again, the other possibility is that there is a blatant contradiction. You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

It is interesting to get your take on this. Are you by any chance a Jehoviah's Witness? This must be their Biblical reasons behind their interpretation.

Are you guys still on topic?

If not, please link me to the post where the split should start and tell me what to title it (sorry I don't have time to read back through it all but just noticed the last two posts don't seem to have anything to do with exploring how we know we know)

Thanks for stopping in Whitney.  I think we’re still on topic - exploring the roots of personal claims of knowledge.

Quote from: "Sophus"That's my problem. You're assuming. You're arguing from your conclusions not to them. One must follow the evidence where it leads, not selectively pick the evidence one likes that supports his conclusion. I don't do assumptions.

I disagree.  We all assume more than we realize.  Can you prove your statement:

Quote from: "Sophus"If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

Without any assumptions; explicit or implied?  Btw, my assumption was rhetorical, I could just as easily argue that “If we assume that God is imperfect, then we wouldn’t have problems with Bible inconsistencies.”

I would be interested to know the evidence you followed to your world view.

Quote from: "Sophus"Another translation is die.

And how do we know which translation we can trust?  Have you found the Prefect Translation?  The Perfect Understanding?  

Quote from: "Sophus"You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.  My opinions are simply an attempt to mesh my God experience with Bible writ.  And I did explain the others - typos or some such human error.  Unless of course that shoe is on my foot...  

Jehoviah's Witness?  No, I’ve conversed with JWs on several occasions.  They feel like dead men.  They have the letter, but don’t know Spirit.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.

 

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.

 

You're right Pc, bad form on my part.  My apologies Sophus, that didn't come across the way I hoped...  Your point is valid and shouldn't be dizzed.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Can you prove your statement:

Quote from: "Sophus"[ a question]

Just thought I should point that out, in case anyone missed it.

Quote from: "Sophus"If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

Sophistry.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

And at the beginning of the question is the word "if". So does that mean you're asking Sophus to prove that the universe is imperfect?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Okay, I think I’ve got this. My thought process was just as you described. My original thoughts on DWs were null, then came the DW image (nano-second), then not-DW. That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Not DW - Maybe DW - No DW.  Not JC - Maybe JC - Yes JC.

Yes, the stances are similar, but the process for reaching them aren't. You said, "That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes." Which means you see the process as similar. I don't see how they are similar. In all my experiences with waffles, they don't dance. So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"What value sanity?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Karadan, my apologies, I wasn’t ignoring your post,  I just now stumbled on it.  And I hope you take no offense at my “What value sanity?" statement.  I’m actually questioning Davin’s definition of sanity.  I concluded years ago that joy and happiness matter much more than social acceptance / validation. And I learned that the only person altogether happy is the village idiot...

So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Sophus"Another translation is die.

And how do we know which translation we can trust?  Have you found the Prefect Translation?  The Perfect Understanding?

I don't speak Hebrew but I'm sure there's someone who could tell us which is more accurate. It could even have multiple meanings. That wasn't my point though. If you reread, my point was that you may, indeed, be interpreting it correctly, simply because neither one of us knows the original meaning of the word. However, if you are right, all that proves is that there's another contradiction in the Bible, as the other verses I listed clearly state there is an eternal hell which I will stop, drop and roll in after I die.

QuoteCan you prove your statement:

There was no claim. As Elliebean pointed out: it was a question.

QuoteJehoviah's Witness?  No...

The reason I asked is because JoHo's don't believe in hell.

Quote from: "Davin"So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

The lack of dancing waffles is similar to the lack of Jesus

Quote from: "Davin"So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

Which brings us to narcism.  Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine?  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

And no, were not quite done here yet...

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’. I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

Quote from: "Davin"I think we should all strive to live rationally....

Can you tell me one decision you made today that cannot be traced back to an emotional need?  

I agree Sophus, the Bible has apparent contradictions - I write them off as typos and human error.  You seem to place much importance on this.  Why?

Your question contains three assumptions: (If) God is perfect (then) Creation should be perfect (and) Creation is not perfect.

I know you only belive the latter, as you seem to think a perfect creation would lack pain and suffering.  How do you substantiate this idea?  What evidence did you follow to that conclusion?  Prove to me this is not an assumption.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"And no, were not quite done here yet...

You may not be, but I am. You already said you value happiness over reality.

I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive.  And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive.  And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Too difficult? No. Off topic? Yes. Beneficial to any rational discussion? I don't see how it is. I'm really doing my best to remain civil, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to invoke hostility. I don't think happiness and reality are mutually exclusive, however saying that you prefer happiness over validation is: because if the validation is something that makes you unhappy, you'd rather choose happy or reality. I will answer the remaining questions, but I'm pretty much done with this.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

The lack of dancing waffles is similar to the lack of Jesus

I know, that is why no one should believe in Jesus: for the same reason no one should believe in dancing waffles.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

Which brings us to narcism.  Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine?  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

No, it's not. There are no standard doctrines for atheism, just as there is no standard doctrine for theism. This is off topic.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"And no, were not quite done here yet...

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’. I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

Quote from: "Davin"I think we should all strive to live rationally....

Can you tell me one decision you made today that cannot be traced back to an emotional need?

Every decision I make. I have very little connection to my emotions, to relate, I need to give an example: when I place my hand on a hot burner I feel the burning but do not immediately remove my hand from the burner, I first see what is causing the burning and then calmly remove it from the burner. The "pain" to me isn't what it is to other people. I still feel it, but nothing causes me to scream out or jump around saying "ouch." The same thing that happens to me physically, happens to me emotionally. Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making. This is highly off topic though.

The reason why I said I think that you're done on this topic is because you stated that happiness is more important than verification, which means that if anything makes you unhappy you'd rather believe something else instead of trying to know what reality is. Once you're comfortable about learning things that may make you unhappy and accepting them as truth, then I think this discussion can continue: because verification is a very important thing if you want to make sure you know what you know.

We are right on topic Davin.  I’m suggesting that you don’t know what truly motivates you.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making

Emotions are the only motivator for decision making.  Today you wrote computer code to achieve a business goal.  The code is cold stark logic - on or off only.   But why did you write that code?  To make money of course - cold hard cash.  But why do you want cash?  To buy things you need and enjoy - Bingo! We need food and shelter to survive.  We know we need food and shelter because we feel hunger and cold.  After our basic needs are met, we look to fulfill our desires - joy, pleasure, comfort, happiness, etc.  Emotion is king, logic its tool.  Prove me wrong - tell me just one decision you’ve made that cannot be traced back to an emotional need or desire...

I don’t recall stating that happiness is more important than verification.  I did say it was more important than social validation, implying that social acceptance is not my #1 priority.  (But it is at least #4 or 5, as social connections help me feel safe and secure)

A neuro-surgeon told me I feel pain more acutely then most because I have an abundance of surface sensory nerves.  You sound like a woman I know, whose lack of surface sensory nerves endangers her welfare.  She once scalded her hand in warm water.  Is your situation the same?

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Emotions are the only motivator for decision making.

It might help if you defined what definition you're using for "emotions" so that we're on the same page and not arguing against two different versions of emotion.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Prove me wrong - tell me just one decision you’ve made that cannot be traced back to an emotional need or desire...

Who are you talking to?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I don’t recall stating that happiness is more important than verification.  I did say it was more important than social validation, implying that social acceptance is not my #1 priority.  (But it is at least #4 or 5, as social connections help me feel safe and secure)

I see, then it was just another off topic statement then.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"A neuro-surgeon told me I feel pain more acutely then most because I have an abundance of surface sensory nerves.  You sound like a woman I know, whose lack of surface sensory nerves endangers her welfare.  She once scalded her hand in warm water.  Is your situation the same?

Nope, my nerves are normal.

We have meandered in this conversation, and perhaps the question, “How do we know what we know?” has morphed to “What is our fountainhead?  Are we who / what we think we are?”.  Similar questions, but not spot on.  I’m ok with the morph, are you?  Should we start another string?

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

e·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

cog·ni·tion
1.   the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.   the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3.   knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

vo·li·tion (v$ lishÆÃn, vÃ-), n.
1.   the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2.   a choice or decision made by the will.
3.   the power of willing; will.
[1605â€"15; < ML voliti$n- (s. of voliti$), equiv. to vol- (var. s. of velle to want, wish; see WILL1) + -iti$n- -ITION]

And you Sophus have claimed your logic is pure, you don’t assume.  I think you do, and asked you prove me wrong.

I respect your intellect gentlemen.  You have questioned and challenged religious thought and seen through the smoke.  But I think you stopped asking questions too soon.  You know what makes religion tick.  What makes you tick?

Peace -I/s

Quotee·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

I don't have these kinds of emotions very often, but I very often choose to do things. It just appeared that you were saying that "emotions are the cause for all decisions," and by that definition there is no arguing that all decisions come from emotions, but I can argue that emotions are not the only motivator because I don't get angry, happy, scared or sad very often, but I do make many decisions.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

Quote from: "Davin"I have very little connection to my emotions, to relate, I need to give an example: when I place my hand on a hot burner I feel the burning but do not immediately remove my hand from the burner, I first see what is causing the burning and then calmly remove it from the burner. The "pain" to me isn't what it is to other people. I still feel it, but nothing causes me to scream out or jump around saying "ouch." The same thing that happens to me physically, happens to me emotionally. Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making.

I didn't say that to avoid your question, I said that because that is my perspective on the logic/emotion decision making "dichotomy." The reason I asked "Who are you talking to?" is because I typed this and you responded to something else.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"But I think you stopped asking questions too soon

I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

Just watching.

Rene Descarte said something like " I think therefore I'M " or I exist cause I think. How do we know we know? CAUSE I THINK THEREFORE I KNOW THAT I KNOW. Once I reject some part or parts of an information I no longer know that part or parts of information. Once I accept a part or parts of information that part or parts become the I know that I know. If I need to test it then the how do we know we know, becomes an unsure or a doubt of the knowing part or parts of information. An example; how do I know my name not to be another name? Its in my birth certificate. Notice that I did not say my parents gave me that name or people called me by that name. Unless my birth certificate is fake then then I do not know my name. You can do the same for many other things.

Quote from: "hvargas"Rene Descarte said something like " I think therefore I'M " or I exist cause I think. How do we know we know? CAUSE I THINK THEREFORE I KNOW THAT I KNOW. Once I reject some part or parts of an information I no longer know that part or parts of information. Once I accept a part or parts of information that part or parts become the I know that I know. If I need to test it then the how do we know we know, becomes an unsure or a doubt of the knowing part or parts of information. An example; how do I know my name not to be another name? Its in my birth certificate. Notice that I did not say my parents gave me that name or people called me by that name. Unless my birth certificate is fake then then I do not know my name. You can do the same for many other things.

Solipsism is useless.

Good answers!  Thanks!

Quote from: "Davin"I can argue that emotions are not the only motivator because I don't get angry, happy, scared or sad very often, but I do make many decisions.

You may be right, but I’ve yet to find an example.  Every decision I analyze satisfies some emotional need or desire.  e.g. Why do I post here?  I desire new information / experiences.  Why?  The unknown excites me.  Why?  There’s no drug like adrenaline...  I love that feeling of danger...  Okay - discovering atheist thought is low pump compared to the markets, but even I have limits.

I’m trying to get my head around your “hot burner” example.  Most of us react to pain before we know why.  This seems to be a hardwired subsystem.  This doesn’t happen to you?  Are you in danger of unnoticed injury?

Quote from: "Davin"I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

I appreciate your candor Davin, thanks for correcting my error.  I’d like to know of the others...

Quote from: "Davin"Solipsism is useless.

Solipsism and Narcism are close cousins; yes?  And are they not the common state of man?  This is probably another string.  What shall we use for a title?

Sophus - I’m disappointed.  Has the savant got you , or is it the idiot?

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"You may be right, but I’ve yet to find an example.  Every decision I analyze satisfies some emotional need or desire.  e.g. Why do I post here?  I desire new information / experiences.  Why?  The unknown excites me.  Why?  There’s no drug like adrenaline...  I love that feeling of danger...  Okay - discovering atheist thought is low pump compared to the markets, but even I have limits.

This is what I have so far as motivator/triggers for a decision making process: Mood (Emotions), physical state (pain, pleasure, neutral), goals (plans made, responsibilities accepted and things wanted) and senses (vision, smell, hearing, taste and touch). Anyone of these things can trigger a decision making process and I hold them all as separate things. We can get very detailed and say that all things are triggered by the senses, but I hold them as separate because making decisions because you smell something bad or see a rock flying at your face is different than looking at your watch and seeing that you have only ten minutes to get to the meeting you planned last week. So while everything must go through the senses, you're not always making decisions based on what is perceived, but on other reasons that the perception had shown a light on. If you wanted to get all down and dirty, I can say that it's your senses that trigger all decision making and not emotions because you wouldn't even feel sad if you didn't perceive something to make you sad. But I don't like going down the road of the absolute because then everything becomes pointless and useless.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m trying to get my head around your “hot burner” example.  Most of us react to pain before we know why.  This seems to be a hardwired subsystem.  This doesn’t happen to you?  Are you in danger of unnoticed injury?

No, I still feel pain, I just don't react to it like most people. I know when my hand is burning, I just make sure I know the best course of action before I do anything that could hurt me more or hurt someone else. I feel the pain, I feel the heat and there is nothing wrong with my pain system, honest. All the way up to a brain scan while causing me pain showed everything is functioning normally. No nerve damage, no brain damage and no tumors.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

I appreciate your candor Davin, thanks for correcting my error.  I’d like to know of the others...

Here are a few of 'em:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m suggesting that you don’t know what truly motivates you.

Twofer here.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive. And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Solipsism is useless.

Solipsism and Narcism are close cousins; yes?  And are they not the common state of man?  This is probably another string.  What shall we use for a title?

While I think we should all have a distrust of our senses, I think it's reasonable to assume that with an amount of verification depending on the importance and situation, is enough to confirm them. But a small amount of distrust in the senses is not what solipsism is, solipsism is the complete distrust of the senses. Solipsists would be more willing to believe that they're in the Matrix than to believe that what they heard someone say is what the person really said.
I don't think narcissism and solipsism are mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive. I would think that one who truly believed in solipsism would have a diminished ego because they can't trust their own perceptions while narcissism is the idea that yourself is awesome. So while I could see someone being a solipsist and a narcissist, I don't think that would be a very common combination, of course that is speculating from the hip. I just think that thinking your the center of the universe is different than thinking that you are the universe.
This is all I'm willing to discuss about solipsism, because it all can be summed up to: you can never absolutely trust your senses so you can't be sure of anything.

How humans want to make their life so complicated when its all so simple. How do we know we know? if you used your senses or mistrust them it will not make a different to a bullet if you survived it. Likewise, it will not make any different if you place one hand over a burning stove or left naked in the north pole. You know what the results will be for any of these situations. Knowing is not the same as believing and believing is not the same as knowing. Knowing is the end of an information and an information is an event. Believing is doubting the events of an information. For example, I believe it will rain today. Its the same as saying I doubt that it will rain today. In other words its not a sure thing. Compare it to the broadcast for the day of a probability of 95% chance of rain. Followed by the actual event of the actual rain falling for that day. The information to that event change to 100%. Now you know that you know and you take an umbrella with you if you have one.

This is all getting pretty out there.

Let's take the most profound bit of knowledge that any human being can possess: if you don't have any money you will starve. I know this to be true. Not that I have ever starved but I've experienced some pretty tough times, and I know without thinking about it that I need money in order to live. I also know that I need to be able to do something in order to get that money. I know that without money I'll lose my house and my car and I will end up on the street. And I know that I sure as hell don't want that.

I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?

Discuss...

Interesting...

Quote from: "Davin"...senses trigger all decision making and not emotions...

I agree.  Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”.  Maybe not everything - The extrapolation, “I will die if I don’t drink water for 4 days” feels so certain.  But it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.  

Quote from: "i_am_i"I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?
Discuss...

Good question.

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I agree.  Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

What emotional need or desire is satisfied by walking around a rock on the sidewalk instead of over it? Or over it instead of around it?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”.  Maybe not everything - The extrapolation, “I will die if I don’t drink water for 4 days” feels so certain.  But it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.

I really don't think this is the case. I think everything that can be demonstrated, verified and predicted with a great amount of accuracy is something we know. For instance: I know that a rock will fall to the ground if I let it go, I know that paper can catch on fire if exposed to enough heat, I know that four things plus four things is eight things and I know that if I don't eat I will get hungry. Because these things can be demonstrated, verified and predicted.

However if I somehow get the idea that at night I'm astral-projecting myself to Newbulous IV where I have an active life defending freedom from George Washington zombie clones and hamster pirates... I don't know that it's true just because I experience it. Can it be demonstrated? No. Can it be verified? No. Can it be predicted? Well if it happens almost every night then yes I can predict I will have the experience, but this isn't enough. Especially when the experience can be explained by a much less complicated, predictable, verifiable and demonstrable means (I was dreaming or I took a hit of acid).

So my answer is: we know we know when we can demonstrate, verify and predict it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"...Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

What emotional need or desire is satisfied by walking around a rock on the sidewalk instead of over it? Or over it instead of around it?

Good question.  I’m faced with that decision often, as I have large rocks in my yard that are often in my way.  They are only 14 inches tall with fairly flat tops, and I could easily step on, then over them, but  I usually walk around them for fear of injury.  But cowing to fear makes me feel weak, so I will occasionally step on and over them...

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”... it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.

I really don't think this is the case. I think everything that can be demonstrated, verified and predicted with a great amount of accuracy is something we know. For instance: I know that a rock will fall to the ground if I let it go, I know that paper can catch on fire if exposed to enough heat, I know that four things plus four things is eight things and I know that if I don't eat I will get hungry. Because these things can be demonstrated, verified and predicted.

...these things can be demonstrated (experienced), verified (experienced) and predicted (will be experienced).  You’ve experienced falling rocks, burning paper, addition and hunger.  What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Quote from: "i_am_i"I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?

Suicidal people don’t want to stay alive.  Others ignore or even avoid comfort.  And some prefer sadness...

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Good question.  I’m faced with that decision often, as I have large rocks in my yard that are often in my way.  They are only 14 inches tall with fairly flat tops, and I could easily step on, then over them, but  I usually walk around them for fear of injury.  But cowing to fear makes me feel weak, so I will occasionally step on and over them...

I see, because you make every decision based on an emotional need or desire, you assume everyone else does. This is one of the problems of only using yourself as a test population. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"...these things can be demonstrated (experienced), verified (experienced) and predicted (will be experienced).  You’ve experienced falling rocks, burning paper, addition and hunger.

Personal experiences cannot be demonstrated to any one else, however dropping a rock is a demonstration that can be shared with other people. Verification in the sense that I'm talking about is when another person independent of the person claiming something can verify it themselves as well as possibly finding alternate explanations, this is not possible if you only use yourself as the verifier. As for the predictions, it's not some hokey "you will be rich sometime later in your life," it's if I drop this rock from eighty feet high, it will reach 60MPH before it hits the ground because I'm trusting the theory of gravity (and the terminal velocity formula). Then we test it to see if the prediction is accurate.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

Quote from: "Davin"I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

Really?  Why would you want to save time?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Quote from: "Davin"Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

I thought you disagreed with this thought - another wrong assumption...

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

Really?  Why would you want to save time?

Let me save you some time, since we have been over this before: I don't have emotional needs and the few emotional desires are rarely ever considered in my decision making process. I can understand that you have a difficulty understanding this, but not every decision has something to do with emotions.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Quote from: "Davin"Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

I thought you disagreed with this thought - another wrong assumption...

Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.

But what exactly is the point of all this, idiotsavant? What is it that you're trying to say? Just come out and say it and be done with it man.

I’m simply asking Davin to support his claim:

Quote from: "Davin"I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires.

Why would you want to save time?  To get to work on time.  Why does that matter?  I need money to eat.  So you fear hunger?
Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...
But you’re not alone, Sophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

Quote from: "Davin"Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.

Do they have mirrors where you come from?

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Sophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

Hahaha.  Bailed or lost interest?  

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m simply asking Davin to support his claim:

Quote from: "Davin"I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires.

Why would you want to save time?  To get to work on time.  Why does that matter?  I need money to eat.  So you fear hunger?

No, I don't fear hunger. Hunger doesn't hurt me so there is nothing to fear from it. It just lets me know when to eat.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...

I appears that you have have stopped asking questions too soon, questions like: Do all decisions come from some kind of emotional need or desire? Ask the question again without your already reached conclusion that they do.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.

Do they have mirrors where you come from?

Why would I need one. Because you already stated that you think that all decisions must relate to some kind of emotion, I assumed that that is where you were leading, because I was very sure I decided to just skip to the end. This assumption was based on what you said and confirmed by what you just posted. I didn't assume incorrectly and if I had, I would have accepted that I was wrong.

QuoteSophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

roflol Typos? Hahahaha... if this is the case there's a only a few "typos" that are in your favor of there being no eternal hell. What are the odds of so many mistakes being made claiming that there is an eternal lake of fire? Even if one did make a mistake the odds are not in your favor. But have you read all of the Bible? Have you noticed just how many blatant contradictions there are? What of the Koran? Are contradictions in the Koran of any significance to you in revealing it's not "the true word of God"? Why is accuracy significant? Because if the Bible is fallible how do you know what to believe? You don't. You can't pretend to know anything because you have admitted that it is open to interpretation. If you give 100 men a Bible each, they'll give you 100 different religions (or should I say sects?).

I've already answered your other question. We're going in circles. I think it's time this thread died.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...

That statement right there makes you come across as being snide and insinuating. Why do you have a problem with the idea that everybody has different motivations, emotion-based or not, for making the decisions they do?

You are you. And that's just great! But stop telling everyone that they're you too.

I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question?   I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection.   I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question?   I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection.   I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

Peace I/s

Typical closed-minded claptrap.

You think you've got the answers, and the first moment you come across contrary evidence your first reaction is to say "You're hiding from the truuuuuth!"

Why won't you question your assumptions?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question? I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection. I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

How is my claim any more unsubstantiated than yours? I've never quit questioning my own assumptions, why are you so deadlocked in yours?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

I'm pretty sure you're going to keep going on with these stupid questions until you somehow link it to some kind of emotional need or desire. I'm going to tell you right now, with me answering those questions, we will never reach an emotion. So let's not play the boring game and skip to the end:

It's a preference. Why do some people like cream cheese and others not like it? Is it emotional?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"We have meandered in this conversation, and perhaps the question, “How do we know what we know?” has morphed to “What is our fountainhead?  Are we who / what we think we are?”.  Similar questions, but not spot on.  I’m ok with the morph, are you?  Should we start another string?

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

e·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

cog·ni·tion
1.   the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.   the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3.   knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

vo·li·tion (v$ lishÆÃn, vÃ-), n.
1.   the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2.   a choice or decision made by the will.
3.   the power of willing; will.
[1605â€"15; < ML voliti$n- (s. of voliti$), equiv. to vol- (var. s. of velle to want, wish; see WILL1) + -iti$n- -ITION]

And you Sophus have claimed your logic is pure, you don’t assume.  I think you do, and asked you prove me wrong.

I respect your intellect gentlemen.  You have questioned and challenged religious thought and seen through the smoke.  But I think you stopped asking questions too soon.  You know what makes religion tick.  What makes you tick?

Peace -I/s

I went back to this post to see what definition you were using for emotions and this time I noticed some very buggered things:

This definition that you gave. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4664&start=75#p65231)

Quote from: "idiotsavant"e·mo·tion n.
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

Your definition is very similar to this one:

Emotion (Dictionary.com) (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion)

Quote from: "dictionary.com"e·mo·tion
   /??mo???n/ Show Spelled[ih-moh-shuhn] Show IPA
â€"noun
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.

Origin:
1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmove-re, for L e-move-re; see e-, move, motion

For some reason the wording is exactly the same except for "volitional states of consciousness" is missing the word "volitional" on yours.

I'm just wondering where you got you're definition of emotion from, can you provide a link?

Similar thing with your definition of cognition:

Quote from: "idiotsavant"cog·ni·tion
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3. knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

Quote from: "dictionary.com"cog·ni·tion
   /k?g?n???n/ Show Spelled[kog-nish-uhn] Show IPA
â€"noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3. knowledge.
Use cognition in a Sentence
See images of cognition
Search cognition on the Web
Origin:
1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cognitio-n- (s. of cognitio-), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogno-scere (co- co- + gni-, var. s. of gno-scere, no-scere, to learn (see know1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -io-n- -ion

The difference is that the word "volitional" appears after a "etc." on your definition and I don't think a dictionary site would make that kind of mistake. If you could just link to where you got those definitions because if I do a search for "the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional" it only brings up your post here, same thing if I do a search for "an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness." I know I asked for what definition of emotion that you were using, but you posted something that looked like you just copied and pasted it from a dictionary reference, but didn't link to the source, didn't explain which parts you changed and didn't even mention that you modified them to show how you defined emotion.

Despite this: you define emotion as, "an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness." You defined cognition as "the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional", so emotions are a state of consciousness separate from making decisions. Not only in your definitions but the definitions everyone else uses. Why are we still talking about this? By your definitions you agree that emotions are distinguished from the decision making process.

Quote from: "Davin"For some reason the wording is exactly the same except for "volitional states of consciousness" is missing the word "volitional" on yours.

I must have botched my cuts and pastes with the definitions.  I use my computer based Webster’s and it agrees with your online definitions...   All I meant to do was lop off the last three uses, as I didn’t think they fit.  Sorry for the confusion.

 

Quote from: "Davin"Why are we still talking about this?  By your definitions you agree that emotions are distinguished from the decision making process.

"Distinguished from” is not synonymous with “separate from”.

I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?  

Peace I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Distinguished from” is not synonymous with “separate from”.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distinguish
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/distinguish
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distinguish
http://www.yourdictionary.com/distinguish
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

What is your definition of distinguish?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?

I don't like the taste.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.

For some people, sure. For others not at all.

Quote from: "Davin"What is your definition of distinguish?

I like these two:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distinguish 1. To perceive as being different or distinct. - (But not necessarily separate. ~ I/s)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish  2. to be a distinctive feature of; characterize.  (Emotion is a distinctive feature of our being, as is reason. ~ I/s)

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?

I don't like the taste.[/quote]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Like
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/like
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like
http://www.yourdictionary.com/like
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/like

What is your definition of “like”?

Peace I/s

How do you distinguish between things without being able to separate them? To distinguish you must be able to define things as distinct and different. A better approach for you to take instead of trying to destroy the meaning of a word is to say that emotion is separate but still affects the decision making process. That would have kept the meaning of the word while still allowing you to defend your point of view. Besides, this current argument isn't about whether emotions and volition are separate, it's whether every single decision made is for the purpose of fulfilling an emotional need or desire.

I don't think that your argument relies on them not being separate, I was just confused as to why you wouldn't consider them separate when the definition you gave clearly defined them as different. I can see that people can make choices for emotional needs or desires, I just don't see how every decision is for an emotional need or desire, especially since I do not have any emotional needs and very few emotional desires.

I define "like" in this context as a preference. I just don't like the taste of cream cheese, for no emotional reason. It tastes bad to me so I choose not to eat it. However I do keep trying things with cream cheese when people tell me something tastes really good, however I've tried very little with cream cheese that doesn't taste bad.

I don't do very much for sake of my emotions, I do do most things for the sake of preferences. I know based on your argument that your preferences are based around emotions, most of mine are not. There are many things that people just don't like merely because they don't like them. People like them just because they do. There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I think your going to have to stretch your meaning of emotion so thin that it doesn't even mean very much anymore in order to define choices made to seek or avoid things based on taste as emotional decisions. If your meaning of emotion is different than the definition that you offered, then give me that definition, because as far as I can see, it doesn't cover preferences as it is. It's also going to have to cover why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa. Also why people choose to cross their legs or use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard. Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.

Quote from: "Davin"...this current argument isn't about whether emotions and volition are separate, it's whether every single decision made is for the purpose of fulfilling an emotional need or desire....  I don't think that your argument relies on them not being separate...

I agree, but your statement

Quote from: "Davin"...emotions are a state of consciousness separate from making decisions.

implied separate = unrelated.  Although my ears and eyes are distinctly different, and are on separate parts of my head, they work together.

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.

Sounds like an assumption to me.

You accuse me of

Quote from: "Davin"...trying to destroy the meaning of a word...

when I simply chose from a list of commonly accepted definitions you offered.  ?

And speaking of word meanings:

Quote from: "Davin"I define "like" in this context as a preference.

How about we both use commonly accepted definitions?

Quote from: "Davin"I think you’re going to have to stretch your meaning of emotion so thin that it doesn't even mean very much...

Let’s cross that bridge if we get to it....
e·mo·tion n.
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

Does “I enJOY cream cheese” stretch this definition?

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"...this current argument isn't about whether emotions and volition are separate, it's whether every single decision made is for the purpose of fulfilling an emotional need or desire....  I don't think that your argument relies on them not being separate...

I agree, but your statement

Quote from: "Davin"...emotions are a state of consciousness separate from making decisions.

implied separate = unrelated.

I'm not responsible for you assuming I meant something different than what I said.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Although my ears and eyes are distinctly different, and are on separate parts of my head, they work together.

But eyes and ears are organs that relay senses, and quite different senses. You can't say that you hear things because you see them or that you see things because you hear them. This is not a good comparison for your argument. A better comparison would be that eyes and the visual cortex are separate, but the visual cortex relies on the eyes to see (while not necessarily required for relaying images to the brain, but for relaying images of the world to the brain).

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.

Sounds like an assumption to me.

Are you using some kind of text to voice software? I'm trying to be rude here, but this is like your example of "enJOY," in that you're using the colloquial definition of "enjoy" then comparing that to scientific definition of emotions. I could easily do the same for your use of "sounds like" when speaking about something that doesn't make a sound.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"You accuse me of

Quote from: "Davin"...trying to destroy the meaning of a word...

when I simply chose from a list of commonly accepted definitions you offered.  ?

How then, do you mark something off as different, without making it a separate distinct thing? If it can't be separated then it can't be different now can it?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"And speaking of word meanings:

Quote from: "Davin"I define "like" in this context as a preference.

How about we both use commonly accepted definitions?

My definition is accepted as a colloquial definition.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"I think you’re going to have to stretch your meaning of emotion so thin that it doesn't even mean very much...

Let’s cross that bridge if we get to it....
e·mo·tion n.
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

Does “I enJOY cream cheese” stretch this definition?

Maybe not for you, maybe you do get some joy from eating something. But just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else must. The point I'm making isn't that there are no decisions made for the sake of an emotion, it's that not all decisions are made for the sake of an emotion. If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Your concept that every decision made is to fulfill some kind of emotional need or desire must cover the following decisions:
Why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa.
Why people choose to cross their legs.
Why people use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard.
Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.

Not just in one instance where you have some kind of emotional need to put a sock on the left foot first, but why everyone must have some kind of emotional need or desire behind it.

Davin, please tell me again why don’t  you like / prefer cream cheese.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Davin, please tell me again why don’t  you like / prefer cream cheese.

It tastes bad.

idiotsavant, please explain why these choices must be for an emotional need or desire and not for any other reason:
Why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa.
Why people choose to cross their legs.
Why people use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard or vice versa.
Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.

Interestingly enough, there is probably strong evidence for the preferences of some people towards cream cheese, and others toward, say... yogurt. When I do zazen, I just sit. In this practice, you can use anything as your focus, but if you simply focus on your breath, then you are doing zazen.

In focusing on my breath, all there is, is my breath. In eating, all there is, is my eating. A person can become anxious, and try to Isolate some sort of data, or experience, but in doing that, all these cravings and delusions and desires are created... which is the turning away from the breath.

To put it simply, if you want to notice breath, notice breath. But do not try to "capture" or "isolate" the breath. In trying to do that, you have already turned away from the noticing... turned away from the breath. And when you notice your breath, then the breath is all there is.

 

Quote from: "Davin"It tastes bad.

It occurs to me that ultimately we humans avoid bad tasting food for self preservation - aka fear of death....

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"It tastes bad.

It occurs to me that ultimately we humans avoid bad tasting food for self preservation - aka fear of death....

Peace - I/s

Taste is subjective. Most vile-tasting things won't kill you and some good tasting ones will.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Taste is subjective. Most vile-tasting things won't kill you and some good tasting ones will.

Agreed.  Most people would say they enjoy the food they like, and don’t enjoy foods they don’t like.  But not Davin.  He doesn’t enjoy food.  He must eat only for survival...

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Taste is subjective. Most vile-tasting things won't kill you and some good tasting ones will.

Agreed.  Most people would say they enjoy the food they like, and don’t enjoy foods they don’t like.  But not Davin.  He doesn’t enjoy food.  He must eat only for survival...

Peace - I/s

Why won't you answer the rest of Davin's questions?  Being snarky isn't an argument.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Why won't you answer the rest of Davin's questions? Being snarky isn't an argument.

I plan to answer, but I need K.I.S.S., so we go slow...

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"It occurs to me that ultimately we humans avoid bad tasting food for self preservation - aka fear of death....

Things occurring to you is not what a good argument makes.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Taste is subjective. Most vile-tasting things won't kill you and some good tasting ones will.

Agreed.  Most people would say they enjoy the food they like, and don’t enjoy foods they don’t like.  But not Davin.  He doesn’t enjoy food.  He must eat only for survival...

Once again I will explain my position: People don't make every single decision for an emotional need or desire. If I have to restate this and continue to correct your assumptions, then I'm done with this discussion.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Why won't you answer the rest of Davin's questions? Being snarky isn't an argument.

I plan to answer, but I need K.I.S.S., so we go slow...

I'll go as slow as you need.

1. All human decisions are emotional events.
2. All decisions to look at a dropped booger are human decisions.
3. Ergo, all decisions to look at a dropped booger are emotional events.

I don't know about you guys but boogers make me feel sad and lonely.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"1. All human decisions are emotional events.
2. All decisions to look at a dropped booger are human decisions.
3. Ergo, all decisions to look at a dropped booger are emotional events.

I don't know about you guys but boogers make me feel sad and lonely.

What is a booger?

Quote from: "Tank"What is a booger?

Nose goblin.
Snot.
Nasal discharge.
Sinus mucus.
Rain of the sneeze cloud.
Finger flick ammunition.
 

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Tank"What is a booger?

Nose goblin.
Snot.
Nasal discharge.
Sinus mucus.
Rain of the sneeze cloud.
Finger flick ammunition.
 :D

Quote from: "Davin"If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.  I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

and look deeper, to your core.  Your resistance became obvious when you refused to use dictionary definitions for the word “like”, stating that your personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.

My friends called me Mr Spock in the days enjoyed the feeling of power and control that comes from living by logic. But I began to suspect that logic wasn’t king when I noticed that my arachnophobia causes me to jump or strike before “I” know why, and although in retrospect “I” might agree with the action, “I” didn’t make the decision...  The idea that logic is king is an illusion.
 
The waiter places a plate of savory food on your table as he says,  â€œEnjoy”.  Do you respond with, “Thanks for the thought, but I don’t enjoy food.”?

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

Oh brother. "Biased assumptions" indeed. You definitely come across as being willing to look past your own biased assumptions.

In spite of what you say about not trying to prove anything you have, indeed, proved something with all this. What you've proved is that your decisions are based on your emotions. And good luck with that!

Make that two things you've proved. The second thing you've proved is that you just can't, or won't, consider for one second that everyone isn't exactly like you. And good luck with that as well!

Make that three things you've proved. You seem to have some sort of hang-up about cream cheese. I'm guessing that it's emotional. After all, you're  a very emotional person, bless your tender little heart.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

You provided several examples of why you do things for emotions, I don't see how me saying that you providing examples of why your decisions are for emotions is an assumption on my part that you're providing testimony that you do everything for the sake of an emotional need or desire. You assuming that I have biased assumptions is an ironic statement.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.  I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

and look deeper, to your core.  Your resistance became obvious when you refused to use dictionary definitions for the word “like”, stating that your personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.

I avoid the emotional terms because I don't do everything for the sake of an emotional need or desire. If you want to argue against how you use the word against how I use the word then I'm not really for that, but if you want to argue my ideas based on how I express what I mean by the words I use then I'm interested.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"My friends called me Mr Spock in the days enjoyed the feeling of power and control that comes from living by logic. But I began to suspect that logic wasn’t king when I noticed that my arachnophobia causes me to jump or strike before “I” know why, and although in retrospect “I” might agree with the action, “I” didn’t make the decision...  The idea that logic is king is an illusion.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"The waiter places a plate of savory food on your table as he says,  â€œEnjoy”.  Do you respond with, “Thanks for the thought, but I don’t enjoy food.”?

I will take it like the people that say "Hi, how are you?" when I walk into a store, they likely don't really care how I'm doing, they're just instructed to ask that. I don't see what this has to do with anything we're talking about. My position isn't that I don't do anything for the sake of an emotional need or desire, it's that we don't make every decision for an emotional need or desire. It seems however that you're arguing against the former position that I clearly said, at least three times now, is not the position I hold.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

Oh brother. "Biased assumptions" indeed. You definitely come across as being willing to look past your own biased assumptions.

In spite of what you say about not trying to prove anything you have, indeed, proved something with all this. What you've proved is that your decisions are based on your emotions. And good luck with that!

Make that two things you've proved. The second thing you've proved is that you just can't, or won't, consider for one second that everyone isn't exactly like you. And good luck with that as well!

Make that three things you've proved. You seem to have some sort of hang-up about cream cheese. I'm guessing that it's emotional. After all, you're  a very emotional person, bless your tender little heart.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! There are three things... make that four things! Let's start all over.

QuoteTank wrote:
Well that is one suggestion. I just wanted to check that's what wildfire_emissary meant

JillSwift said what I meant with booger. Thanks. I was just toying with categorical syllogisms and the idea of being emotional at my decision to look at boogers which is highly incoherent. I mean, how can looking at boogers have any emotional value?

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

Peace - I/s

p.s.

Quote from: "Tank"...my decision to look at boogers,,,

You choose to look at boogers?  Why would you do that?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

Peace - I/s

p.s.

Quote from: "Tank"...my decision to look at boogers,,,

You choose to look at boogers?  Why would you do that?

Incorrect quote attribution.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self??

Is it just me or does this seem...I don't know, rude?  Davin and others have been respectfully arguing idiot's position that every decision everyone makes is done because of emotional responses, and so instead of admitting that he is wrong (which he obviously is) idiot declares that he's 'grown weary of this banter' and decides to change the subject?  Ugh.  I don't know, maybe I'm just being rubbed the wrong way, but that seems pretty lame-o to me.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self??

Is it just me or does this seem...I don't know, rude?  Davin and others have been respectfully arguing idiot's position that every decision everyone makes is done because of emotional responses, and so instead of admitting that he is wrong (which he obviously is) idiot declares that he's 'grown weary of this banter' and decides to change the subject?  Ugh.  I don't know, maybe I'm just being rubbed the wrong way, but that seems pretty lame-o to me.

Sounds like a rather disingenuous tactic to me too.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

It doesn't matter if I know about concept X as long as you understand and can explain concept X. But yes I'm familiar with this and lot's of other psychological concepts (I do heavily refrain from using the word theory to describe most of them because, most can't predict anything useful and/or accurately).

You said you're weary of this banter, then why not just get to the meat and potatoes? By asking your question, it doesn't matter if I say yes or no, you've just wasted an entire post and time by asking your question instead of just getting to the point.

Not the first time I’ve rubbed you wrong pc, and for the same reason. “I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” ~ The Animals.  I suggested we change tack, not subject...  But it’s okay, the onus is mine.  I wise lady once told me:

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Sincerity doesn't translate well on the internet...

So then, here’s my conundrum:  I can give you valid emotional reasons for all my decisions, but  my motivations are not universal.  I can tell you that I choose to look at boogers to: a) Gross out my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  b) Be grossed out by my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  c) Check on my general health. (fear of death / species survival)  d) Clean said booger from whatever.  (see general health)  e) Curiosity (joy of discovery).

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons, so I ask.  So far your answers have been shallow and defensive.  I see Davins’ claims:

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

as barrier assumptions.  Unconsciously designed to prevent awareness of his Shadow Self.

In Jung’s postulation, the shadow is everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied. As developing children negative reactions to our expressions of self caused us to judge those expressions as bad, so we divorce them. But it’s a separation, not a divorce.  Our shadow is in the background, pulling strings, manipulating our perceptions.  I believe this is the source of our hypocrisies (e.g. My arrogant parents insisted that arrogance was wrong).

“The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.” ~ DR. CARL GUSTAV JUNG

Neo of The Matrix reconciled his shadow.  Dr Jekyll did not.

So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.  â€œWelcome to the Machine” ~ Pink Floyd.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Not the first time I’ve rubbed you wrong pc, and for the same reason. “I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” ~ The Animals.  I suggested we change tack, not subject...  But it’s okay, the onus is mine.  I wise lady once told me:

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Sincerity doesn't translate well on the internet...

So then, here’s my conundrum:  I can give you valid emotional reasons for all my decisions, but  my motivations are not universal.  I can tell you that I choose to look at boogers to: a) Gross out my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  b) Be grossed out by my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  c) Check on my general health. (fear of death / species survival)  d) Clean said booger from whatever.  (see general health)  e) Curiosity (joy of discovery).

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons, so I ask.  So far your answers have been shallow and defensive.  I see Davins’ claims:

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

as barrier assumptions.  Unconsciously designed to prevent awareness of his Shadow Self.

In Jung’s postulation, the shadow is everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied. As developing children negative reactions to our expressions of self caused us to judge those expressions as bad, so we divorce them. But it’s a separation, not a divorce.  Our shadow is in the background, pulling strings, manipulating our perceptions.  I believe this is the source of our hypocrisies (e.g. My arrogant parents insisted that arrogance was wrong).

“The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.” ~ DR. CARL GUSTAV JUNG

Neo of The Matrix reconciled his shadow.  Dr Jekyll did not.

So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.  â€œWelcome to the Machine” ~ Pink Floyd.

Awesome, using a concept that has no solid evidence for it as your basis of an argument. That still makes the argument baseless.

How is "species survival" an emotion?

Also, please explain this currently unexplained reason why people have preferences and how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. Please make sure it covers:
Why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa.
Why people choose to cross their legs.
Why people use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard or vice versa.
Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.
Why people like red apples over yellow or green apples and how it's emotional.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.

How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?

(Cue haughty response.)

Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.  Is that quote from Davin supposed to be an example because it seems like he's doing the exact same thing you are - explaining how/why he reacts to things.  You might read it and 'see' something else, but that isn't Davin being shallow or defensive, it's you reading into something (that a stranger wrote on the internet) and deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.  Especially since, after 9 pages of this ridiculous conversation, Davin has done nothing to make anyone assume he's being disingenuous, whereas you - well, you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.  

Quote from: "Davin"How is "species survival" an emotion?

Good question.  Individual survival is actually an action motivated by fear of death or harm.  Species survival is motivated by love of offspring, siblings, parents, tribe, etc., coupled with fear of death or harm to loved ones.  We should probably add empathy, sympathy and compassion to the mix.

Quote from: "i_am_i"How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?  (Cue haughty response.)

lol... My  resentful mother  judged my physical and emotional wants and needs unworthy of her attention.  I accepted her judgment and believed it mine, hiding my needs and desires from her and eventually from myself. But as I said earlier, it was a separation, not a divorce, and my denied self lives on in the shadow of my constructed public self.  When this Shadow Judgment rules my relationships it creates a lopsided synergy that can be counterproductive, even destructive.

Jung declared that all of us have Shadow Selves.  I think he’s right.

I’ve tagged my Shadow a time or two, but he’s still here with me, so I agree with pc:

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.

I’ve more examples of shadow tag, but propensity will not sway you.  Our shadow personality is like the Matrix - “...no one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to experience it for yourself.” ~ Morpheus.

Which is why

Quote from: "Davin"...the argument (is) baseless.

and why I’m not trying to prove it.  I'm just a guy who found something valuable he’d like to share.  

And I agree with

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...it seems like he's doing the exact same thing you are - explaining how/why he reacts to things.

He is.  I am.

Quote from: "Davin"Also, please explain ... how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. ...

You continue to insist I prove something I’ve told you I cannot.  After all,

Quote from: "Idiotsavant"I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons...

and if I can’t tell you your reasons, then I certainly can’t prove your reasons.  That fact alone derails any argument.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  ...You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.

Theses statements were my examples:

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

And we should add his avoidance of dictionary definitions for the word “like” - stating that his personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.  (Isn’t “personal colloquial” an oxymoron?)  Our Shadows were birthed in pain and fear, they always defend themselves...  I’m not exempt, so I see no insult.  Do you feel insulted Davin?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Level of truth...  Interesting.  I’m confident that Davin, like me, is speaking all the truth he knows.  When it comes to the Shadow realm, I’ve experienced things he hasn’t. So I know things he doesn’t.  Davin, on the other hand, has experience things I haven’t.  So he knows things I don’t.  Ignorance is the common state of man...  I prefer “arena of understanding”.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction

I didn’t grow wary, I grew weary.  And I don’t see how changing tack is changing direction, I simply hoped a new approach would help us reach an understanding.  Have I changed the subject?  (Think OP)

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.

I already stated I cannot not prove this, but does my inability to prove the statement make it false?

And if this post is

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...9 pages of ridiculous conversation...

why are you still here?

Peace - I/s

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

Your inability to prove it may not mean it is false. But you can't expect a prudent man to believe that it is true. Because if the case for truth means not being able to prove that it is false, then I can claim that Chuck Norris created the universe. I cannot prove it, but my inability doesn't make it false, so just believe it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Crap.  I love Philosophy.  Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?  

Nope, sorry.  While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad"  activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Crap.  I love Philosophy.  Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?  

Nope, sorry.  While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad"  activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

I think you just proved our point (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Crap. I love Philosophy. Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?

Nope, sorry. While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad" activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

I think you just proved our point (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

I know. You're welcome.  Just so you recognize that it took Philosophy to prove that Philosophy is pointless...

The ultimate question.

[spoiler:u520art9]Philosophy, why?[/spoiler:u520art9]

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"How is "species survival" an emotion?

Good question.  Individual survival is actually an action motivated by fear of death or harm.  Species survival is motivated by love of offspring, siblings, parents, tribe, etc., coupled with fear of death or harm to loved ones.  We should probably add empathy, sympathy and compassion to the mix.

Then why place it in your dichotomy along with fear?

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "i_am_i"How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?  (Cue haughty response.)

lol... My  resentful mother  judged my physical and emotional wants and needs unworthy of her attention.  I accepted her judgment and believed it mine, hiding my needs and desires from her and eventually from myself. But as I said earlier, it was a separation, not a divorce, and my denied self lives on in the shadow of my constructed public self.  When this Shadow Judgment rules my relationships it creates a lopsided synergy that can be counterproductive, even destructive.

Jung declared that all of us have Shadow Selves.  I think he’s right.

I’ve tagged my Shadow a time or two, but he’s still here with me, so I agree with pc:

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.

I’ve more examples of shadow tag, but propensity will not sway you.  Our shadow personality is like the Matrix - “...no one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to experience it for yourself.” ~ Morpheus.

Which is why

Quote from: "Davin"...the argument (is) baseless.

and why I’m not trying to prove it.  I'm just a guy who found something valuable he’d like to share.

Then share what you found, otherwise I'm left to assume that you found nothing because you can produce nothing.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Also, please explain ... how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. ...

You continue to insist I prove something I’ve told you I cannot.  After all,

Quote from: "Idiotsavant"I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons...

and if I can’t tell you your reasons, then I certainly can’t prove your reasons.  That fact alone derails any argument.

You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  ...You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.

Theses statements were my examples:

Quote from: "Davin"There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

And we should add his avoidance of dictionary definitions for the word “like” - stating that his personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.  (Isn’t “personal colloquial” an oxymoron?)  Our Shadows were birthed in pain and fear, they always defend themselves...  I’m not exempt, so I see no insult.  Do you feel insulted Davin?

There is a difference between feeling an insult and knowing what an insult is. One can recognize an insult without feeling it. So the answer is no, I feel no insult, however I did recognize insulting and condescending language. And from someone who has admitted to not have any evidence to support their claims.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Level of truth...  Interesting.  I’m confident that Davin, like me, is speaking all the truth he knows.  When it comes to the Shadow realm, I’ve experienced things he hasn’t. So I know things he doesn’t.  Davin, on the other hand, has experience things I haven’t.  So he knows things I don’t.  Ignorance is the common state of man...  I prefer “arena of understanding”.

Meaningless drivel.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction

I didn’t grow wary, I grew weary.  And I don’t see how changing tack is changing direction, I simply hoped a new approach would help us reach an understanding.  Have I changed the subject?  (Think OP)

I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.

I already stated I cannot not prove this, but does my inability to prove the statement make it false?

Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"And if this post is

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...9 pages of ridiculous conversation...

why are you still here?

Monty Python is completely ridiculous as well, however it entertains many people.

Quote from: "Davin"You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

You dishonest? No.  Stopped asking questions?  Only when you hit your assumption barriers.  Everything for  emotions?  We’d know if we could just get past that assumption barrier....  â€œA man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. ~ Demosthenes

Quote from: "Davin"Meaningless drivel.

... I too recognize insulting and condescending language.

Quote from: "Davin"I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

You’re the one holding your evidence hostage.

Quote from: "Davin"Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

I didn’t say we have no evidence.  I said I couldn’t prove the statement (to you).  Does the shell game usually work for you?  

Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all.  Take a walk on the wild side Davin.
 
And I’m not arguing, I’m just asking questions...

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

You dishonest? No.  Stopped asking questions?  Only when you hit your assumption barriers.  Everything for  emotions?  We’d know if we could just get past that assumption barrier....  â€œA man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. ~ Demosthenes

No assumption barriers, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that they stopped asking questions. I don't wish anything to be true, the truth is just fine without my wishes.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Meaningless drivel.

... I too recognize insulting and condescending language.

Good.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

You’re the one holding your evidence hostage.

I'm sure one who hasn't stopped questioning, such as yourself, has probably already thought: my evidence is that not all decisions are for the sake of an emotion.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"

Quote from: "Davin"Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

I didn’t say we have no evidence.  I said I couldn’t prove the statement (to you).  Does the shell game usually work for you?

You failed to provide evidence for your claim, so either provide evidence or submit that it's baseless speculation.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all.  Take a walk on the wild side Davin.

There is nothing wrong with trusting logic, however many incorrect baseless assumptions derive from the absence of logic. Using logic is the best way to be sure that what one accepts as true is as close to reality as possible. If my goal weren't to have an understanding of reality that is as close to reality as possible, then sure logic wouldn't be very helpful. However I want to make sure that I only believe in things that are real. So I use logic to ensure that goal.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"And I’m not arguing, I’m just asking questions...

Ok, then have fun.

So intuition has never served you?

(You sound irritated...)

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all. Take a walk on the wild side Davin.

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." ~ Demosthenes

I love this quote.  Of course, it can as easily apply to your assumptions as it can to Davin's.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So intuition has never served you?

I for one have had many intuitions - some of which did turn out to be correct.  Many of which did not.  The trick is determining when your intuition is telling you something useful, as opposed to something like offering you a conclusion that in truth is proceeding from your unconscious biases (as in having an intuition about another person's character). Logic and the experimental method are wonderful tools for checking the veracity of an intuition or other baseless assumption.  If it proves the intuition or assumption, the intuition or assumption is no longer on shaky ground and becomes (more genuine) knowledge.

By the way, just because intuition has served you once, or even several times, is no proof of its reliability.  Probability theory declares that intuitions will sometimes be correct, merely by chance. And many studies have shown our very human predilection for selection bias with regards to positive evidence for things like intuition - we remember the times that it happened to be correct, we don't tend to remember the numerous times it led us astray.

Having said that, many neurobiological studies are now beginning to investigate the unconscious processing that goes on behind the scenes, that may in fact underlie things like "intuition."  It will be interesting to see what those studies determine in terms of how we actually make decisions.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

Spot on assessment  

Logic is a tool in the sense of a chisel, it should be used to cut away at the material until the 'truth' within is revealed. However if there is no 'truth' nor any material, logic is as useful as a chisel with no wood, you'll just play with it until you cut yourself.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

Spot on assessment  

Logic is a tool in the sense of a chisel, it should be used to cut away at the material until the 'truth' within is revealed. However if there is no 'truth' nor any material, logic is as useful as a chisel with no wood, you'll just play with it until you cut yourself.

True.  Philosophy is dangerous.  Always wear your safety goggles.

This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"True.  Philosophy is dangerous.  Always wear your safety goggles.

While at RDF we called the Philosophy Forum the Bear pit. Mods ventured in there at their own risk. We ended up conniving a regular contributor into becoming the forum mod, it was not a pretty sight, particularly after he worked out what we'd done

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"So intuition has never served you?

Intuition is useful for thinking of ways things might work and for finding possible solutions to problems. I use intuition all the time, however I never accept my intuition as true without reasonable evidence to support it.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"(You sound irritated...)

Not in the least.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

I didn't want to speak for you, so I'm glad that you responded. Edit: I intentionally used the word glad as bait. Though I have very little emotions to speak of, it doesn't mean that I think that I'm completely devoid of emotions. This bait is meant to help make that point.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "idiotsavant"“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." ~ Demosthenes

I love this quote.  Of course, it can as easily apply to your assumptions as it can to Davin's.

I think the best way to avoid the problem described in this quote is to not wish anything to be true but to wish to know the truth.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Having said that, many neurobiological studies are now beginning to investigate the unconscious processing that goes on behind the scenes, that may in fact underlie things like "intuition."  It will be interesting to see what those studies determine in terms of how we actually make decisions.

I've been moderately following this development with interest. The brain is capable of doing some amazingly complicated things and while it won't produce the calculations or solutions that show that the brain has been successful, the fact that the hand has caught the ball shows that the brain was successful. I think it would be very useful to find out how exactly the brain does all those seemingly complicated processing so quickly.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

I've found that that it's much more efficient for me to avoid ad hominems, hasty generalizations and appeals to authority by simply considering the message instead of the man who expresses it. Of course there is merit to consider also the amount of bad philosophies that are produced by a single person.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.

I would absolutely agree that the worth of any particular instance of philosophical thinking is ALL about the person applying the philosophic method, their aims, and how connected they are to the world around them.

I've found that that it's much more efficient for me to avoid ad hominems, hasty generalizations and appeals to authority by simply considering the message instead of the man who expresses it. Of course there is merit to consider also the amount of bad philosophies that are produced by a single person.

I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my own perspective to the same. I'll try to be more clear with my position on the view that I'm responding to.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I guess I was trying to express that the crucial feature, regarding whether or not Philosophy produces useful knowledge, is in how it's used.  I would never argue that one should attack the person and not the message.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my own perspective to the same. I'll try to be more clear with my position on the view that I'm responding to.

No need!  I think, on second glance, that you were clear...it was I that was confused.

Quote from: "Davin"Edit: I intentionally used the word glad as bait. Though I have very little emotions to speak of, it doesn't mean that I think that I'm completely devoid of emotions. This bait is meant to help make that point.

Quote from: "Davin"Intuition is useful for thinking of ways things might work and for finding possible solutions to problems. I use intuition all the time, however I never accept my intuition as true without reasonable evidence to support it.

 

I've been following this discussion with interest.  I'm fascinated by the idea of someone who is so little driven by their emotions, and who can reliably resort to reason in their personal decisions and actions.  I'm envious, to some degree.  While it was useful to me in my acting, I have always been prey to quite powerful emotional upheavals.  I almost, at times, felt as though I was possessed by them, rather than it being I who possessed them.  A case of possession?  It's taken me many years to achieve any kind of balance in my emotional life.  The frustrating thing is that, while I could quite clearly and logically think my way through a situation, such thinking very rarely resulted in my following the recommendations of my logical training.  My emotions would override the decisions my reason made.  I think this is partly what lead me to religion when I was younger.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I've been following this discussion with interest.  I'm fascinated by the idea of someone who is so little driven by their emotions, and who can reliably resort to reason in their personal decisions and actions.  I'm envious, to some degree.  While it was useful to me in my acting, I have always been prey to quite powerful emotional upheavals.  I almost, at times, felt as though I was possessed by them, rather than it being I who possessed them.  A case of possession?  It's taken me many years to achieve any kind of balance in my emotional life.  The frustrating thing is that, while I could quite clearly and logically think my way through a situation, such thinking very rarely resulted in my following the recommendations of my logical training.  My emotions would override the decisions my reason made.  I think this is partly what lead me to religion when I was younger.

I wouldn't be so envious, I think the ability to be driven by ones emotions can be very useful, many have accomplished things merely because their emotions are what kept the drive. If I were to improve myself magically, I would have some kind of toggle function that allowed me to have emotions for certain things and not for others. Without a good connection to ones emotions, empathy is usually lost. Without empathy personal relationships are very difficult to have, further complicated by the lack of understanding of why some things affect people.

There has been a lot I've had to learn in order to function well with people. Reading people's body language is a very good skill, however it's very error prone, which kind of leads back to intuition. In an extreme example: if someone is crying it usually means they're sad, but unfortunately that doesn't help with knowing how to speak with them, so other body queues and paying attention to language choice is needed if you want to help them or at the very least not make things worse. So while I've gotten very accurate with my intuitions about how to interact with people, I must still take the assumption that without evidence to support my intuitions, I could very easily be wrong. Another problem is deciding at what level do I trust my conclusions enough to act on them. If I always waited until I was sure that my decision was the best decision, I would be waiting far too long to have a reasonable discussion with almost anyone. So while I put a bit of trust into my intuitions, I always keep in mind that they are wrong.

All of the interpreting, analyzing and deciding my choice of words is very exhausting. I learned a long time ago that it's much more efficient for me to adapt to the behavior of others than to expect them to adapt to me. Because I want to ensure that what I accept as true is as close to reality as possible, other people are necessary for that goal, so I do choose to interact with people. So while all people have problems, I do see the efficient nature of emotions, which is why I don't think people should strive to live without them, but I do think they shouldn't base decisions on them where the outcome of an incorrect conclusion could easily result in any kind of harm (except minor harm).

Quote from: "Davin"So while all people have problems, I do see the efficient nature of emotions, which is why I don't think people should strive to live without them, but I do think they shouldn't base decisions on them where the outcome of an incorrect conclusion could easily result in any kind of harm (except minor harm).

It is an extremely difficult tightrope to walk, this determination of when we should be lead by which process.  I like how you are narrowing in on how emotion is extremely useful in telling us how to make decisions about how we should interact with people, and enables us to care about people.  While I have typically characterized my extreme emotional responsiveness as a bit of a liability, it has certainly provided me with a deep sense of empathy for others.  Emotion is such a broad category, as well, so that we must be careful to define what exactly we are speaking about.  It is also interesting to note that current research on people with an extreme lack of emotion (probably even more of a lack than that about which you speak), who seem to rely exclusively on an intellectual and "logical" approach to life, have great difficulty making decisions because they cannot decide what things to prioritize.

But my personal catalog of mistakes gives rich testimony to the fact that emotion cannot drive the car in many situations - it cannot be trusted with the interpretation of non-social, non-personal facts.

Interesting -  Jester and Davin on opposite sides of the spectrum...  Like Spock and Dr. McCoy.  Captain Kirk was the tightrope center, melding logic and emotion to produce decisive action...

I’ve read a bit about the  neurobiological research.  One fellow compared the working of the human psyche to the English Parliament, where the House of Lords debate an issue until a majority agrees on a specific action.  A Page is then sent to inform the Queen, who then makes the formal decree.  As you all know, I believe all our actions are emotion inspired (House of Lords), but our logic (“I”), unlike the Queen, has veto power, including line veto.  Emotion is the  why.  Logic is the how.  

If I’m right, then finding and understanding the why matters.  Logic is hamstrung without proper emotional input.

Jester - You mentioned good philosophy.  I’d like to hear some of that.

Peace - I/s

Quote from: "idiotsavant"Jester - You mentioned good philosophy. I’d like to hear some of that.

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Philosopher!"  

I suppose it depends entirely on your predilections - I get the sense that you wouldn't much take to many of them.  I can only express my own preferences (thus far) for certain thinkers.  Epicurus.  Spinoza.  Voltaire.  Nietzsche.  Russell.  Dennett.  I quite like a modern young Philosopher name Jesse Prinz.  I don't necessarily agree with everything they assert - but I admire their ideas and their expressions of them.

Quote from: "idiotsavant"I’ve read a bit about the neurobiological research. One fellow compared the working of the human psyche to the English Parliament, where the House of Lords debate an issue until a majority agrees on a specific action. A Page is then sent to inform the Queen, who then makes the formal decree. As you all know, I believe all our actions are emotion inspired (House of Lords), but our logic (“I”), unlike the Queen, has veto power, including line veto. Emotion is the why. Logic is the how.

Christof Koch discusses this in a book of his on Consciousness that I'm currently reading.  I have read other studies that make a strong case that areas of the brain typically attributed to emotion are active during the decision making process, but so are the areas more commonly associated with rational analysis and judgment, as I understand it (and there very well may be variation among individuals, re: your debate with Davin).  You have to be careful what conclusions you draw from this, however, because they are still very much learning precisely what those respective areas and their contributions actually amount to, and the picture is likely far more complex, neurologically speaking, than common-sense ideas of "logc" vs. "emotion."  My suspicion is that these areas are far more intertwined than we suspect, and that areas associated with conceptual analysis can influence responses from the emotional areas of the brain.

End of Line.