Rational Thought
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Rational Thought
Okay home now, here's video:



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 03:52 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Can someone talk me through the logic of this one please?

Say you conclude based on the available evidence that the universe "just exists", or somehow self-created itself or whatever, and that humanity is just a random by-product of a random chain of events within that universe, and ergo all of our brains are yet a further random by-product.

Could you ever truly declare that you had "rationally" arrived at that as a conclusion? Because surely such an argument is self-imploding, is it not?

If your very premise is that your own brain is ultimately just a random by-product, then how can you declare that anything you have concluded with your own brain is rational at all?

If by random you mean uncaused then nothing happens randomly in the universe. Everything happens according to the law of causality. The law of causality, as I inform it is the law of identity applied to action or the identity of action. All actions have identity and all actions are caused by entities. The nature of the action is determined by the nature of the entity which acts. So there is no chance of any random actions. The brain, consciousness, a raindrop, a grain of sand, an apple, a lightning bolt....these things are not the result of random chance but of the law of causality.

When it comes to the universe as a whole, the sum total of what exists, asking what caused it or where it came from is a fallacious question. It trades in stolen concepts. So whenever someone asks what caused the universe or why is there something instead of nothing, your answer should be that that question commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is an invalid question.

The basic constituents of the universe, whatever they turn out to be, quarks or strings or whatever, are eternal. They can not come into or go out of existence. There's nowhere for them to come from or go to. They are the first cause and the actions they take are determined by their nature and we know, from the primacy of existence principle, that they exist independently of any conscious activity. They are the irreducible primary on which everything else depends including consciousness.

The sum total of what exists can not be caused or dependent on something else because existence has primacy. Nothing can be more fundamental than existence. Now if you can show how my reasoning is self imploding I'd like to see it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
02-04-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 03:52 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Can someone talk me through the logic of this one please?

Say you conclude based on the available evidence that the universe "just exists", or somehow self-created itself or whatever, and that humanity is just a random by-product of a random chain of events within that universe, and ergo all of our brains are yet a further random by-product.

Could you ever truly declare that you had "rationally" arrived at that as a conclusion? Because surely such an argument is self-imploding, is it not?

If your very premise is that your own brain is ultimately just a random by-product, then how can you declare that anything you have concluded with your own brain is rational at all?

Part two.

So I don't accept the premise that my mind is a random byproduct and I can declare that my conclusions are rational because I arrived at them by a rational process. Rationality is the commitment to reason as one's only means of knowledge. Reason is the faculty of Human consciousness that identifies and integrates the material brought in by the senses. Since this is a volitional process which is not automatic nor infallible, a method is needed to guide ones's reasoning. That method is logic, the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic is in essence the application of the law of identity applied to the task of identification. No, don't bother looking for any of this in the Bible. It is silent on these issues. The Bible talks only of faith, which is the polar opposite of reason.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
02-04-2016, 11:20 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 03:52 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Can someone talk me through the logic of this one please?

Say you conclude based on the available evidence that the universe "just exists", or somehow self-created itself or whatever

the universe coming into existence, well from what I understand when quantum fluctuations occur, protons and electrons just pop in an out of existence
I'm not well versed in physics so you'll have to find someone who is to get a better explanation

Quote: and that humanity is just a random by-product of a random chain of events within that universe, and ergo all of our brains are yet a further random by-product.
ok now your just bashing evolution and proving you don't even know how it works

firstly there are tens of trillions of planets in our universe thus we can conclude that there are billions of planets orbit a stars Goldilocks zone , so the chances of life as we know occurring 100%

secondly the only difference between us and other animals on earth is the higher level/extent of both intelligence and tool use because animals are already know to have intelligence and use tools
intelligence is simply being able to apply prior existing experiences to do something in the present
our brain is a result of natural selection, the only truly random by product in evolution are mutations but that randomness is corrected by selective pressure which ensures that only beneficial or non-harmful genes are passed on


Quote:Could you ever truly declare that you had "rationally" arrived at that as a conclusion? Because surely such an argument is self-imploding, is it not?

yes we can and no its not self imploding

Quote:If your very premise is that your own brain is ultimately just a random by-product, then how can you declare that anything you have concluded with your own brain is rational at all?

Facepalm

logic is simply a set of rules we follow to make inferences, deductions, and draw conclusions

the most powerful tool of logic we have to understand the universe is the scientific method

[Image: 2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png]

and no methodology in human existence has even come close to the results its achieved
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
02-04-2016, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 11:34 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 05:39 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Jennybee

Give me something you consider you have concrete "evidence" of. Say your brain is really plugged into a computer mainframe somewhere (a la "The Matrix") - or your consciousness was just a projection and you're actually an entirely different being in an entirely different dimension (a la "Avatar"). How would you know?

Oh for fuck sake we don't need any more of the solipsism nonsense. This line of questioning gets you no where cause it can be equally applied to your belief too. Can you provide a single scrap of evidence that we are "in the Matrix"? No. So I have no reason to entertain it as an argument. "What if's" are bloody useless in getting to what is actually factually accurate. You say god exists but how do you know he wasn't fucked to death in some seedy back ally by god fuck-murdering pixies? You don't have the technology to detect god fuck-murdering pixies so to say they don't exist is silly and foolish. Also due to your lack of needed technology you have no way of knowing if your god is a live or fuck-murdered.
So how do you know if your god is real and alive or dead and non-existent? You can't know so you would look for evidence of which one it is. So......got any evidence your god exists?

Also, quickly:
Even if our position is not solid (which it is) our failure to make our case does not make your case for you. You still have to show your god exists. That's still very much on your shoulders and until you do the belief is irrational and unjustified.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
03-04-2016, 12:24 AM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 03:52 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  .... Possible opening post....

Hello! Big Grin

Welcome to the forums. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 12:27 AM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  In my experience, those who demand empirical evidence to believe something are the only one's who don't take solipsism seriously - and it is because their entire worldview implodes with the fact that you cannot prove that you can trust your own brain/senses.

No, it doesn't. And no, no one takes solipsism seriously.

(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  This is not semantics, it is a logical fact.

It is semantics, actually.

(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  All of your supposed "mathematics" and "logic" hinges on the assumption you are really here on Earth, and you can really count things, and that there really is such a thing as gravity etc.

No, it doesn't. And this is why solipsism is irrelevant.

Even if we were in the Matrix, it would change nothing. It would simply mean that systems like logic and mathematics are accurate representations of the Matrix. They are still perfectly valid.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-04-2016, 12:45 AM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 12:27 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  In my experience, those who demand empirical evidence to believe something are the only one's who don't take solipsism seriously - and it is because their entire worldview implodes with the fact that you cannot prove that you can trust your own brain/senses.

No, it doesn't. And no, no one takes solipsism seriously.

(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  This is not semantics, it is a logical fact.

It is semantics, actually.

(02-04-2016 06:01 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  All of your supposed "mathematics" and "logic" hinges on the assumption you are really here on Earth, and you can really count things, and that there really is such a thing as gravity etc.

No, it doesn't. And this is why solipsism is irrelevant.

Even if we were in the Matrix, it would change nothing. It would simply mean that systems like logic and mathematics are accurate representations of the Matrix. They are still perfectly valid.


Agreed. Solipcism starts and ends with cogito ergo sum. If you refuse to accept that some of your perceptions are at least somewhat accurate some of the time, you have nowhere to go epistemologically. Solpicism is a dead end, full stop. It has no way to determine the truth value of anything. Whereas something like evidentialism, once you take that first step, is a very powerful tool epistemologically. Both mathematics and logic can be checked, tested, and validated with evidence.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-04-2016, 01:32 AM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 12:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
Solpicism is a dead end, full stop.
...

Yabut, it does have one good thing going for it ...

Whereas agnostic-atheism leaves a tiny bit of room for the existence of a non-interventionist, igniter-deity ... solipsism gives you 100% certainty that any and all deities are ex imaginatione.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
03-04-2016, 01:35 AM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 12:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Agreed. Solipcism starts and ends with cogito ergo sum. If you refuse to accept that some of your perceptions are at least somewhat accurate some of the time, you have nowhere to go epistemologically. Solpicism is a dead end, full stop. It has no way to determine the truth value of anything. Whereas something like evidentialism, once you take that first step, is a very powerful tool epistemologically. Both mathematics and logic can be checked, tested, and validated with evidence.

While this is true, I think it's important to reiterate that this isn't at all my point.

Solipsism is not merely of no practical use. It is entirely pointless, because, even if it is true, nothing changes. Logic and mathematics and any number of other things still function. Demonstrably so. They remain entirely valid and coherent. At absolute worst, we would have to come up with a new system to describe the "higher" reality - but this in no way invalidates descriptions of the reality that we are in right now.

Whether the universe is external and independent of us, a computer simulation, or all just a dream of the Red King, it all still works. Logic beats out solipsism not because we choose to ignore solipsism, but because logic doesn't give a damn about whether or not solipsism is true.

Well, for the most part. There's also the issue that solipsism is an incoherent position based on word games, and can be trivially dealt with by anyone with a basic understanding of formal semantics, but that's rather beside the point at the moment.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: