Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let’s a ask a more specific question:

Is being rational dependent on neurochemical responses? Is being rational dependent on the chemistry of the brain?

Thinking is.

The rationality of the thought in question is only dependent on whether or not it follows the rules of logical calculus.

The sky is blue whether or not your eyes are currently looking at it.

(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It is difficult, because it’s not apparent in what your saying here, what distinguishes conscious rational thought from conscious irrational thought at the neurochemical level of the brain.

I never said there was. I said that you can necessarily tell whether or not a thought is rational or not if you examine it, not that the brain necessarily has two separate processing centers for irrational versus irrational thought.

I'm not going to let you go that easily, you keep wanting to dodge the elephant in the room. The same elephant that did away with free will, by slipping through the question.

So I'll ask again, is being rational dependent on neurochemical responses? Is being rational dependent on the chemistry of the brain?

Responding that "thinking is" doesn't really answer the question. Is it a yes, or no?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 12:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not going to let you go that easily, you keep wanting to dodge the elephant in the room. The same elephant that did away with free will, by slipping through the question.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you that you aren't understanding what is being said to you.

(31-08-2015 12:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So I'll ask again, is being rational dependent on neurochemical responses? Is being rational dependent on the chemistry of the brain?

I already told you this. No.

Rationality is dependent on the rules of logical calculus. In case it's still not getting through, here:

(31-08-2015 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The rationality of the thought in question is only dependent on whether or not it follows the rules of logical calculus.

(31-08-2015 12:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...the criteria for being rational are not dependent upon what you feel. The rules of logical calculus are quite straightforward.

(31-08-2015 09:52 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Assuming that you have a detailed-enough knowledge of the brain, you could theoretically map out the thoughts of a person attempting to think rationally and see whether or not it actually measures up against the laws of logical calculus.

Do try to pay attention. This is getting silly.

"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
31-08-2015, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 01:29 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 12:36 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia


I think we are having a misunderstanding on what defining one's term means. You, again, just provided your opinion and your disbelief on the concept of rational thought without providing any clear definition of the said concept and no components and expected behavior that would constitute elements of rational thinking or demonstrate it. Instead, you have created a non-definition that requires still more explanations and requirea to delve deeper into your own thought system, thus preventing us to analyse it and debate it. I would also point out that your pseudo definition commits the fallacy of reduction to the absurd and thus is useless.

What I believe requires accepting a variety of other things beyond the question of rational thinking, that you're never going to accept. And in the spirit, the only way your going to believe anything I have to say, as if I can provoke a certain sensation in you, like the sensation associated with a "aha" or "eureka" moment.

And I don't know the laws of physics well enough to produce that in you. My inability to produce that sensation in you, makes believing anything I have to say impossible.To get you to believe something you currently don't believe, requires that I find some way of evoking that feeling of truthiness in you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 12:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  [quote]I’m not dodging anything. I'm telling you that you aren't understanding what is being said to you.


No, you’re not understanding what is being said to you. You’re conflating the point that I’m making, with the point you’re trying to make, that may seem synomous, but it’s not.

My point revolves around the question of what it does it mean to think rationally at the level of the brain. Where your point revolves around the question, of whether or not what we think is rational, is actually rational or true.

My point revolves around the question, of what does it mean to believe something is true. Where as your point revolves around whether the thing that someone believes is true, is in fact true or not.

All thinking, even the supposed thing we refer to as “rational thinking”, is dependent and reducible to neurochemical responses. It’s dependent and reducible to the chemistry of the brain. And these neurochemical responses are all governed by the laws of physics.

The point you seem to want to make, while maybe even agreeing with what I just said, is that the actual Truth, beyond what my neurochemical responses lead to me to believe is true, is not dependent on the chemistry of the brain.

All you need to understand at this point, is that we’re not talking about the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you’re not understanding what is being said to you. You’re conflating the point that I’m making, with the point you’re trying to make, that may seem synomous, but it’s not.

No, I fully understand what you are trying to say.

It's just rather silly.

(31-08-2015 01:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My point revolves around the question of what it does it mean to think rationally at the level of the brain.

Which is a nonsensical question.

The brain does not determine rationality. The rules of logical calculus do.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 01:40 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is a nonsensical question.

The brain does not determine rationality. The rules of logical calculus do.

Omg.

How the hell can you think rationally without a brain? How the hell can you determine what is rational or not, without relying on your brain to make those determinations?

Sometimes in discussion with some atheists, I feel like a man trying to a convince the man suffering from blindsight, that he can see the things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you’re not understanding what is being said to you. You’re conflating the point that I’m making, with the point you’re trying to make, that may seem synomous, but it’s not.

No, I fully understand what you are trying to say.

It's just rather silly.

(31-08-2015 01:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My point revolves around the question of what it does it mean to think rationally at the level of the brain.

Which is a nonsensical question.

The brain does not determine rationality. The rules of logical calculus do.

How did we get from dualism to rationality?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How the hell can you think rationally without a brain?

You can't think at all without a brain. The brain still isn't what determines whether or not something is rational.

(31-08-2015 01:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How the hell can you determine what is rational or not, without relying on your brain to make those determinations?

The sky is blue whether or not you are looking at it, and two plus two doesn't stop being four just because you aren't actively adding it up. The rules of logical calculus exist whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.

This is not a complicated concept.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  How did we get from dualism to rationality?

Tomasia is attempting to draw a parallel between the idea of rational thought and the idea of dualistic concepts such as free will.

He is not doing so particularly well, but that is the general idea.

"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
31-08-2015, 01:48 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 01:52 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You can't think at all without a brain. The brain still isn't what determines whether or not something is rational.

....

The sky is blue whether or not you are looking at it, and two plus two doesn't stop being four just because you aren't actively adding it up. The rules of logical calculus exist whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.

This is not a complicated concept.

If all you're saying here, is that what is true not dependent on any person recognizing it. It's true, whether or not my brain has the capacity to recognize it or not. That it's true even if every living thing were to perish tomorrow.

I agree with you.

And if you think at any point I was disagreeing with this, than you've been confused for awhile.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: