BF2S Forums 5 Philisophical Questions that make your brain hurt

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.

In a scientific sense, that is.

If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.

If not, read on...

Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?

Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.

Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.

Biology is not philosophy.

That depends on your definition of 'philosophy'.

Let's use the definition used in the article that we're talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm wrote:

Philosophy involves standing back and thinking - intensely and rigorously - about aspects of our lives that are at once ordinary and fundamental.

You mean like asking questions like "Why does the sun rise?" or "What constitutes matter?" ?

And "What is a person?"

Precisely.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.

We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.

No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.

On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.

Does that make you a paedophile?

(assuming you're not)

Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.

Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?

No.

Because you ARE NOT A FISH!

You take things too literally.

Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.

That's just redefining words. It doesn't change you. And you are still not kept in any way real by the people who "remember who he was or what he believed". Which was your assertion.

We are our flesh and blood and our thoughts and memories. Not the opinions of others.

Nor are we "an idea, not an object."

What are you to me then? Am I talking to a flesh and blood? It couldn't matter any less to me if you were a human or a weirdo from another planet. The idea of Scorpion0x17 is the same to me. It holds true for any other person I know in the flesh. Yes I recognize they have physical aspects and associate their body with them, but they themselves are an idea that is only embodied in that bag of mostly water.

They, themselves, are exactly that bag of mostly water, no more, no less. Part of which holds their true personality. Not what you think their personality is.

If I think you an idiot, that doesn't mean, necessarily that you are an idiot, just that I think you're an idiot.

Your idiot-hood would be a part of me. Not a part of you.

If everyone thinks you're an idiot, you're an idiot. Your self-concept does not define yourself, as unsettling as that may be.

No you're not.

Ok, let's try an easier one - a physical characteristic - if everyone thinks you're black, but you're white, does that make you black?

No. Your genes define your skin pigmentation. Not the labels other people decide to place on you.

Like wise, your personality is defined by how your brain works, not what other people think of you.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.

The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.

The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.

That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.

If I could remember, out of the hundreds I've read, exactly which books I'd tell you.

But, sorry, I get my knowledge from books, not this new fangled internet.

I incorporate my knowledge from various different sources into my general store of knowledge. Don't lean on some book you can't come up with for support - if you really understand and incorporate what you read you don't need to rely on the source because you can make the argument as well as any book.

You're the one that asked for sources.

Because I won't accept a response from a source that you aren't telling me about. Define your argument with logos or real ethos, don't make up some bullshit to add ethos.

Well, sorry, I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every word in every book I've ever read.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

But their impression of you is not you.

You have a physical reality.

That is you.

Not an abstract concept held in someone else's head.

Your physical reality is meaningless. It is a worthless lump of carbon. You are your impact on the world, as actively implemented by yourself or through your impression on others.

Your physical reality is all there is.

Again, if I believe 'you' to be an idiot, that does not make you an idiot.

Care to explain the physical manifestation of a thought? Of intuition?

Thoughts and intuition are patterns of bio-electrical interaction between neurons.

What do you think they are?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah k, see how hard it is to make even 20 people change their definition.

I believe I got 1/5th of the way without even asking...

Of course, because getting a few followers that have just as much to gain as you is as hard as getting the majority.

Also, lol @ the quote pyramid bug.

Meh. Don't really have anything to 'gain' as such.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Ok, let's try an easier one - a physical characteristic - if everyone thinks you're black, but you're white, does that make you black?

No. Your genes define your skin pigmentation. Not the labels other people decide to place on you.

Like wise, your personality is defined by how your brain works, not what other people think of you.

You are black. The problem with that example is no one would be stupid enough to randomly give you a functionally useless label. Saying you are an idiot however, even despite your intense disagreement, still makes you an idiot.

No you are not black. Ones blackness, or whiteness, is not a product of other peoples opinion it is an inherent trait.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Well, sorry, I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every word in every book I've ever read.

Then don't use them to back you up.

What???

I shouldn't use learnt knowledge to support my arguments?

Then what should I use?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Thoughts and intuition are patterns of bio-electrical interaction between neurons.

What do you think they are?

Abstract ideas substantiated by other people's thoughts.

But, where do those abstract ideas reside?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Any scientific reason to believe yours is any more right than mine? You going to tell me they figured out the human brain last weekend? lol

Sorry, I don't believe these things. I hold them to be true based on learnt knowledge.

And, no they haven't figured out the entire workings of the brain, yet, but they're learning new stuff all the time.

Like, did you know that they can induce OOBs by sticking electrodes into your brain and stimulating the relevant neural pathway(s)?

Anyhoo... If you want to know where I got this learnt knowledge, like I said, my memory of my sources is not encyclopaedic, but, a few names you should look up are:

Susan Greenfield
Susan Blackmore
Steven Pinker
Robert Sapolsky
John Ratey

Jrdeacs wrote:

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

No

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE

yes

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

yes

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Yes i did


that didnt make my brain hurt one bit

you arent thinking about it hard enough.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1. Should we kill a perfectly healthy person so that 5 others might have a chance at living, after having surgery, recovering, very possibly still being sick, etc.? No, because you don't know you are saving those people. It is only a chance. The only thing you are sure of is depriving one person of a healthy life. In the analogy given you're dealing with a criminal - how can he be trusted? Pull the trigger yourself in hopes that the criminal will keep his word?

What if that person was going to be killed anyway? In countries with the death penalty why not use it as a source of organs for donation?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are black. The problem with that example is no one would be stupid enough to randomly give you a functionally useless label. Saying you are an idiot however, even despite your intense disagreement, still makes you an idiot.

No you are not black. Ones blackness, or whiteness, is not a product of other peoples opinion it is an inherent trait.

Unless you're talking about how quickly you're going to get a sunburn the only thing that matters is what other people think of you. Is a blind black man in the KKK white or black?

This is philosophy remember...

He is black. His skin is black, therefore he is black.

That is part of his internal identity. That (his internal identity) is who he 'is'.

Even if all his KKK-mates all see and think of him as white, it would not matter. Those things are external. They are not part of his internal identity and therefore not part of him.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Then don't use them to back you up.

What???

I shouldn't use learnt knowledge to support my arguments?

Then what should I use?

You should use theories you can back up with your own reason. If facts can corroborate your opinion fine, but just saying other people agree but can't source it? lol

I am using reason to back up my arguments. It just so happens, that unlike yours appears to me to be, my argument is also corroborated by facts. Facts that, as I say, I read at some time in the past. Arguing about philosophy is not something I do for a living. Therefore I don't keep a meticulous record of these facts and the various sources in which they will be found. If it that was my job, I would. Suffice to say, those facts and sources do exist. And I provided you with some names - these are as close as I can get you to my original sources - they are all people who's books I've read, lectures I've viewed, tv programs I've watched, and so on - I do apologise for not being the walking encyclopaedia that I would need to be to tell you exactly which book/lecturer/program by which person you should refer.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Abstract ideas substantiated by other people's thoughts.

But, where do those abstract ideas reside?

They are abstract. They don't need to have a concrete structure.

In order for a thought to 'exist'. It must be manifested in 'reality'.

How, in your opinion, are the actual thoughts that I am thinking as I type this, manifested in reality?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Any scientific reason to believe yours is any more right than mine? You going to tell me they figured out the human brain last weekend? lol

Sorry, I don't believe these things. I hold them to be true based on learnt knowledge.

And, no they haven't figured out the entire workings of the brain, yet, but they're learning new stuff all the time.

Like, did you know that they can induce OOBs by sticking electrodes into your brain and stimulating the relevant neural pathway(s)?

You don't believe them, but they aren't proven. Nice.

I hold them to be true based on the evidence I have seen.

That is all any of us can do.

If some evidence to the contrary should happen across my reality tunnel then I shall re-assess my position.

What you seem to be describing, FM, is some kind of anti-solipsism ('anti' as in 'the exact opposite', not 'against'), which, as far as I'm aware, has no name, nor basis, in any school of philosophy.

But I could be wrong.

Can you provide sources to corroborate your stated hypothesis?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-11-22 08:28:58)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are black. The problem with that example is no one would be stupid enough to randomly give you a functionally useless label. Saying you are an idiot however, even despite your intense disagreement, still makes you an idiot.

No you are not black. Ones blackness, or whiteness, is not a product of other peoples opinion it is an inherent trait.

Unless you're talking about how quickly you're going to get a sunburn the only thing that matters is what other people think of you. Is a blind black man in the KKK white or black?

This is philosophy remember...

He is black. His skin is black, therefore he is black.

That is part of his internal identity. That (his internal identity) is who he 'is'.

Even if all his KKK-mates all see and think of him as white, it would not matter. Those things are external. They are not part of his internal identity and therefore not part of him.

Then you are saying your self-concept defines you. What if you truly believe you are white when your skin is clearly black?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Then don't use them to back you up.

What???

I shouldn't use learnt knowledge to support my arguments?

Then what should I use?

You should use theories you can back up with your own reason. If facts can corroborate your opinion fine, but just saying other people agree but can't source it? lol

I am using reason to back up my arguments. It just so happens, that unlike yours appears to me to be, my argument is also corroborated by facts. Facts that, as I say, I read at some time in the past. Arguing about philosophy is not something I do for a living. Therefore I don't keep a meticulous record of these facts and the various sources in which they will be found. If it that was my job, I would. Suffice to say, those facts and sources do exist. And I provided you with some names - these are as close as I can get you to my original sources - they are all people who's books I've read, lectures I've viewed, tv programs I've watched, and so on - I do apologise for not being the walking encyclopaedia that I would need to be to tell you exactly which book/lecturer/program by which person you should refer.

If you are using reason then why do you need to source other people at all? Why can't you restate what you have learned from them in your own words?

People calling on sources that they can't call on just sucks when you're talking online. What is everyone else supposed to do, blindly believe you? We can't read/watch/listen to it ourselves and draw our own conclusions, so how does it help anything?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Abstract ideas substantiated by other people's thoughts.

But, where do those abstract ideas reside?

They are abstract. They don't need to have a concrete structure.

In order for a thought to 'exist'. It must be manifested in 'reality'.

How, in your opinion, are the actual thoughts that I am thinking as I type this, manifested in reality?

Why? If you come up with an idea but don't at on it, does that thought not exist? It certainly existed to you.

Through your body of course. That is the purpose of the body.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Sorry, I don't believe these things. I hold them to be true based on learnt knowledge.

And, no they haven't figured out the entire workings of the brain, yet, but they're learning new stuff all the time.

Like, did you know that they can induce OOBs by sticking electrodes into your brain and stimulating the relevant neural pathway(s)?

You don't believe them, but they aren't proven. Nice.

I hold them to be true based on the evidence I have seen.

That is all any of us can do.

If some evidence to the contrary should happen across my reality tunnel then I shall re-assess my position.

What you seem to be describing, FM, is some kind of anti-solipsism ('anti' as in 'the exact opposite', not 'against'), which, as far as I'm aware, has no name, nor basis, in any school of philosophy.

But I could be wrong.

Can you provide sources to corroborate your stated hypothesis?

No, that's all a scientist can do. the whole point of philosophy is to expand our understanding through pure reason. Evidence is immaterial, so long as philosophy can provide useful, insightful wisdom to situations.

These are my ideas. They are the product of my personality and examination of the subject.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are black. The problem with that example is no one would be stupid enough to randomly give you a functionally useless label. Saying you are an idiot however, even despite your intense disagreement, still makes you an idiot.

No you are not black. Ones blackness, or whiteness, is not a product of other peoples opinion it is an inherent trait.

Unless you're talking about how quickly you're going to get a sunburn the only thing that matters is what other people think of you. Is a blind black man in the KKK white or black?

This is philosophy remember...

He is black. His skin is black, therefore he is black.

That is part of his internal identity. That (his internal identity) is who he 'is'.

Even if all his KKK-mates all see and think of him as white, it would not matter. Those things are external. They are not part of his internal identity and therefore not part of him.

Then you are saying your self-concept defines you. What if you truly believe you are white when your skin is clearly black?

I'm saying your self-concept is part of who you are. If you have black skin, then you are black, even if you think you're white.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You should use theories you can back up with your own reason. If facts can corroborate your opinion fine, but just saying other people agree but can't source it? lol

I am using reason to back up my arguments. It just so happens, that unlike yours appears to me to be, my argument is also corroborated by facts. Facts that, as I say, I read at some time in the past. Arguing about philosophy is not something I do for a living. Therefore I don't keep a meticulous record of these facts and the various sources in which they will be found. If it that was my job, I would. Suffice to say, those facts and sources do exist. And I provided you with some names - these are as close as I can get you to my original sources - they are all people who's books I've read, lectures I've viewed, tv programs I've watched, and so on - I do apologise for not being the walking encyclopaedia that I would need to be to tell you exactly which book/lecturer/program by which person you should refer.

If you are using reason then why do you need to source other people at all? Why can't you restate what you have learned from them in your own words?

People calling on sources that they can't call on just sucks when you're talking online. What is everyone else supposed to do, blindly believe you? We can't read/watch/listen to it ourselves and draw our own conclusions, so how does it help anything?

You asked for sources. I explained what my sources are. I have not once 'called on' those sources. I am using reason and restating in my own words.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are abstract. They don't need to have a concrete structure.

In order for a thought to 'exist'. It must be manifested in 'reality'.

How, in your opinion, are the actual thoughts that I am thinking as I type this, manifested in reality?

Why? If you come up with an idea but don't at on it, does that thought not exist? It certainly existed to you.

Through your body of course. That is the purpose of the body.

Exactly. Everything we are is contained 'within' our body and is not defined by anything external to that body.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You don't believe them, but they aren't proven. Nice.

I hold them to be true based on the evidence I have seen.

That is all any of us can do.

If some evidence to the contrary should happen across my reality tunnel then I shall re-assess my position.

What you seem to be describing, FM, is some kind of anti-solipsism ('anti' as in 'the exact opposite', not 'against'), which, as far as I'm aware, has no name, nor basis, in any school of philosophy.

But I could be wrong.

Can you provide sources to corroborate your stated hypothesis?

No, that's all a scientist can do. the whole point of philosophy is to expand our understanding through pure reason. Evidence is immaterial, so long as philosophy can provide useful, insightful wisdom to situations.

These are my ideas. They are the product of my personality and examination of the subject.

But unrestricted and unguided, 'reason' can prove anything. That black is white, right is wrong. Whatever. If we are questioning, as the article in the OP is, what it is to be this thing I call 'me', then we must look at the reality of what it is that this thing we call 'me' really is.

And, one thing it is not, as we've already explained, is the opinions of others. Those are part of them.


Also: on the fish thing - are you sure it's really so hard? All I did was issue the declaration that led to the challenge and change my sig. Not once have I had to directly ask anyone, and mez's thread he started himself with no input from me. And how many we up to now - I guestimate around a dozen - meme's are surprisingly potent drivers of human behaviour.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-11-22 20:36:05)

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1. Should we kill a perfectly healthy person so that 5 others might have a chance at living, after having surgery, recovering, very possibly still being sick, etc.? No, because you don't know you are saving those people. It is only a chance. The only thing you are sure of is depriving one person of a healthy life. In the analogy given you're dealing with a criminal - how can he be trusted? Pull the trigger yourself in hopes that the criminal will keep his word?

What if that person was going to be killed anyway? In countries with the death penalty why not use it as a source of organs for donation?

I've heard anecdotally that they do that in China.

In the US, prisoners can opt to donate their organs, but the most common form of execution (lethal injection) renders their organs unusable.

The human mind conceptualizes everything and tries to describe it in how "good" or "bad" it is. Understanding the inherent truth in reality isn't completely dependent on logical conclusions and rationality because there is far too much in this world that we can come to logical conclusions with. Sometimes gaining insight means being open and aware and understanding things for how they truly are rather than getting sucked in to the minds tendency to get lost in a storm of contradicting thoughts.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I'm saying your self-concept is part of who you are. If you have black skin, then you are black, even if you think you're white.

How does your self-concept effect the world around you? How can you possibly prove that your self-concept even exists?

I think. Therefore I am.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People can justify anything. If you think genocide is truly a good idea, are you a monster? You certainly don't think yourself one, but everyone else does.

Yes, which is why we need a moral code to base some of our thought processes on.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

You asked for sources. I explained what my sources are. I have not once 'called on' those sources. I am using reason and restating in my own words.

You brought up a series of examples that you could not explain the workings of yourself and used them in your reason. Begging the question.

Which examples?

I believe you assumed that I could not explain the workings and called for my sources without asking for said explanation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

But unrestricted and unguided, 'reason' can prove anything. That black is white, right is wrong. Whatever. If we are questioning, as the article in the OP is, what it is to be this thing I call 'me', then we must look at the reality of what it is that this thing we call 'me' really is.

And, one thing it is not, as we've already explained, is the opinions of others. Those are part of them.

Poor reason and rationalization can explain anything. Pure reason cannot lead to so many conclusions. Pure reason can take you to morally uncharted waters, but that only means that perhaps you should question your current value system.

Philosophy is all about questioning what you deem to be "reality", you can't use reality to justify reality. It's circular logic.

It's not circular logic. It relies on a certain amount of 'faith', for the want of a better word. Faith in the idea that, again, I think, therefore I am, and if my senses are reliable (which I can assume they are, because they tell me that there are other entities like me, that all appear to interact with the world in the same way as I do), reality 'exists' and is 'reality' (and if none of that is true, we have nothing to base any ideas of 'reality' on, so forming them is pointless), and, so, by studying reality we can figure out how 'reality' works and answer those questions like "what am I?"

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Also: on the fish thing - are you sure it's really so hard? All I did was issue the declaration that led to the challenge and change my sig. Not once have I had to directly ask anyone, and mez's thread he started himself with no input from me. And how many we up to now - I guestimate around a dozen - meme's are surprisingly potent drivers of human behaviour.

Because it is generally worth it to see me lose the bet. Not that anyone is going to go ape shit over it, but it's all in good fun. A better test would be to see how many people you could get to put that in their sig just for kicks, without me doing anything. At the end of the day however this forum is just for fun, and I thought it would be more fun this way.

Yeah, I know.

And, yeah, memes that confer some perceived 'benefit' to the host (person) are generally more successful than those that don't. Even when said 'success' is measured in terms defined by the host's resident memeplex (belief system).

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-11-25 10:55:06)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

How does your self-concept effect the world around you? How can you possibly prove that your self-concept even exists?
I think. Therefore I am.

See this is what I'm talking about with the source stuff. You can't throw that shit out there without either 1) providing a source or more applicably in this case 2) backing it up with your own reason. I don't really care if you say something that seems as obvious to you as "the sky is blue", you have to do more than just throw out statements without propping them up a bit. You have not proved the self-concept exists, only that you think it does according to whatever that Descartes guy had to say on the issue.

If you know the source of "I think. Therefore I am" and understand his reasoning, then you also understand mine.

Now, if you do know and understand the reasoning, then you either agree with it, in which case, what's your point?

Or, you don't (agree with it), in which case, you can assume I know and understand the reasoning too, so just state your argument against it and I'll reply.

And, if you don't know and understand the reasoning, all you need to do is to ask for it to be explained.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People can justify anything. If you think genocide is truly a good idea, are you a monster? You certainly don't think yourself one, but everyone else does.

Yes, which is why we need a moral code to base some of our thought processes on.

Gee, I wonder where that moral code comes from? It must come from our biological personality somewhere, because it certainly doesn't come from societal imprinting.

Even still, you missed really the underlying point here. You don't think you're a monster, so are you a monster or not? According to your self-concept you aren't.

Sorry I thought the "Yes" was clear enough.

If you think genocide is a good idea, you are a monster.

No matter what you, or anyone else, thinks of you.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Which examples?

I believe you assumed that I could not explain the workings and called for my sources without asking for said explanation.

The biological examples towards the beginning.

I didn't assume that you couldn't, only that you didn't. I can't make an appropriate response to you without sufficient information on what you assume I know about.

OK, god this is difficult, which of the examples would like explaining and in what way do you need them explaining?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

It's not circular logic. It relies on a certain amount of 'faith', for the want of a better word. Faith in the idea that, again, I think, therefore I am, and if my senses are reliable (which I can assume they are, because they tell me that there are other entities like me, that all appear to interact with the world in the same way as I do), reality 'exists' and is 'reality' (and if none of that is true, we have nothing to base any ideas of 'reality' on, so forming them is pointless), and, so, by studying reality we can figure out how 'reality' works and answer those questions like "what am I?"

Quite the turn around, from scientifically provable material to "faith", with little reason to back it up.

Your senses cannot be trusted. Basing reason on how far it gets you instead of on sound principles is a really terrible way to go about things. Plato ftw.

If you can not trust your senses, what do you base your reasoning on?

All reasoned thought requires axioms.

Also, science requires 'faith' in the sense that the scientific process is itself an unprovable set of heuristics.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-11-25 17:31:21)

The only really interesting and controversial questions in that are determinism and the first ethical one yet they're pretty much ignored. Mostly I'd like to know why Flaming_Maniac thinks he exists (as a person or fish) if he rejects the cogito.