Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 11:36 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 10:55 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It is not useful to ascribe a choice or behaviour as being wholly rational or irrational. The paradox is that if you tried to live your life only by making 100% rational decisions, i.e. by evaluating all evidence and data and arriving at a decision based on expected utility, that you would in fact be judged by everyone as acting irrationally.

The classic example is from a surgeon called Antonio Damasio who had a patient with brain damage and emotional impairment. At the end of an appointment Damasio gave his patient two possible dates for the next appointment. Damasio then sat and waited for half an hour watching his patient decide between the two possible dates that were equally good. The patient was trying to take into account all possible factors, and the relevance to which day to choose was becoming increasingly small. Damasio eventually got bored and made the decision on behalf of the patient. The patient was immediately happy with the decision.

What this tells us is that we need irrational preferences in order to act rationally.

What we have are two competing systems. Cognition is understood to widen our choices, and with the patient above, the range of possibilities to consider was too wide so no choice was ever made. Emotions counter-act this by narrowing our range of choices.

Imagine a rabbit happily eating grass. It senses the presence of a predator but does not know where the predator is or whether it is in imminient danger. This is not a suitable time for being rational and deciding whether to continue eating grass or to run for shelter, and also to decide which shelter provides the maximum safety versus how quickly it can get there. If a rabbit had to figure all that out it would still be deciding while a predator crept up behind it and snatched it. The rabbit that runs the moment there is any sign of trouble is more likely to live to see another day.

Sometimes seemingly irrational choices and behaviour are actually rational on an evolutionary time scale. You can think of instincts as emotional drives instilled by evolution. A jealous wife may act irrationally for any minor misdemeanour and overreact at a moment's notice, but this behaviour could discourage a husband with the potential to commit adultery to even contemplate infidelity thus stopping it from becoming a problem. The husband is then more likely to stick around and help raise the children.

Our emotions provide the irrational preferences that we need in order to act rationally. They do this by reducing the range of choices available to us. Cognition provides the rational decision making processes and opens up the range of possibilities to us.

tl;dr Emotions are irrational. Cognition is rational. You need both to act rationally. Personal preference is driven by emotion.

How is cognition rational when it is a function of an irrational organ (the brain)?

You are using your brain to formulate a thought (the cause is your organ of cognition i.e. the brain, and the effect is a thought) which in turn is written or spoken. Now, if the locus or cause of these thoughts is irrational, then you have to explain how something that is not rational can cause an effect that is rational. You must explain how chaos can give rise to order. Inductive reasoning would argue against what you have said. Irrationality does not give rise to rationality anymore than non-being gives rise to being, non-life to life.

The statement: "the brain is irrational" is intended to actually communicate an idea or thought that is rational. In this way it is seen that it is self-refuting because it seeks to prove too much.

It is no different than saying: "There are no words in English" or "There is no such thing as truth" or "I cannot type."

All of the above are self-refuting statements
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
Chaos gives rise to order through entropy in an open system. Keep learning.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
24-05-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 10:22 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  So I've read a little into the link you provided. The mistake made over and over again is assuming that what applies to reality inside of this universe also applies outside of it.

It is, insofar as we currently have evidence for, impossible to assert with any kind of authority what may or may not exist outside of our universe, and what events or "causes" made it happen.

To do so is dishonest. Kalam is krap, sir. You keep insisting that it makes sense when it clearly does not.

Using inductive reasoning is not a mistake. In fact, inductive reasoning is what scientists utilize everyday when they formulate hypotheses and test competing theories.

Things that come into existence have causes.

Now with regards to the last bit, the proponent of the Kalam never makes assertions with regards to what exists outside of our universe when supporting the two premises, nor is this something one even has to do to demonstrate them to be more plausible than their negations.

Bringing this up is simply a red herring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:44 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Chaos gives rise to order through entropy in an open system. Keep learning.

Do we along with our brains exist in an open system?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
Same old shit.
It's a nice day out.
See ya. Cool

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
24-05-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... you have to explain how something that is not rational can cause an effect that is rational. You must explain how chaos can give rise to order. Inductive reasoning would argue against what you have said. Irrationality does not give rise to rationality anymore than non-being gives rise to being, non-life to life.

Yet this is what scientists observe, can test for and reproduce.

The ability to make irrational choices is required for rational behaviour.

Life can arise from non-life

Order can come from Chaos.

I have already explained why ability to make irrational choices is required for rational behaviour but I shall put it more succinctly. Irrational preferences solve what's called the frame problem. This arbitrarily reduces the search space so that action-selection can take place. An agent has multiple drives and needs but only one physical body. Neurochemicals act as a gain control to select between different groups of neurons. This results in effective management of emotional drives within an agent and gracefully arbitrates between the competing needs of exploration and exploitation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
24-05-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:52 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:44 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Chaos gives rise to order through entropy in an open system. Keep learning.

Do we along with our brains exist in an open system?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
24-05-2014, 12:08 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 05:06 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 04:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Germy Wanker says he attends this Indoctrination Camp :
http://elevationchurch.org/our-beliefs


Quote:Our Beliefs

Elevation Church aggressively reaches out to people who are far from God.

Yeah they may want to re-word that if they want any success.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4849533

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
24-05-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Things that come into existence have causes.

And how do you propose to prove that "things" haven't always existed?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
24-05-2014, 12:30 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 10:22 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  So I've read a little into the link you provided. The mistake made over and over again is assuming that what applies to reality inside of this universe also applies outside of it.

It is, insofar as we currently have evidence for, impossible to assert with any kind of authority what may or may not exist outside of our universe, and what events or "causes" made it happen.

To do so is dishonest. Kalam is krap, sir. You keep insisting that it makes sense when it clearly does not.

Using inductive reasoning is not a mistake. In fact, inductive reasoning is what scientists utilize everyday when they formulate hypotheses and test competing theories.

Correct. They formulate a hypothesis then test that hypothesis

An hypothesis that is not falsifiable is by definition unscientific.

The KCA doesn't qualify. Here's why:

(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Things that come into existence have causes.

This is untestable. We will never be able to empirically observe anything "come into existence" the same way the universe came into existence.


(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now with regards to the last bit, the proponent of the Kalam never makes assertions with regards to what exists outside of our universe when supporting the two premises,

The KCA employs a loaded question, and does in fact make an assertion (however subtly) that the laws of causality must have applied prior to causality. It relies on that assumption to reach the conclusion. It defines "Begins to exist" as <creation ex nilho> not any other form of "beginning to exist" and is an equivocation.

(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  nor is this something one even has to do to demonstrate them to be more plausible than their negations.

It begs the question and invokes special pleading to avoid infinite regress.

Quote:Bringing this up is simply a red herring.

It's exposing the hidden premises of the KCA.

Every recombination of existing matter has a cause [within in the universe as currently observed]

The universe began to exist [ex nilho, not from recombination of existing matter].

Therefore [as pre-universe physics and causality were identical to those observed within the existing universe] the universe has a cause.

Broken vending machine.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: