Go where the heart is

Is the 'heart' devoid of reason?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Go where the heart is

#41  Postby jamest » Jul 01, 2018 10:38 pm

Fallible wrote:
jamest wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Emotions are just another part of the cognitive package. You ignore them at your own peril

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the emotional aspect of ourselves. I'm just wondering how far detached the emotions are from reasoning and what drives these desires (our innate needs/nature? If so, can we say something universal about our innate needs/nature?).

There's plenty to explore here if anyone's interested. I know that I am.

Eta: I'm also wondering just how difficult it is for 'us' to be Spock-like and be perfectly reasonable given our emotional nature. Has anyone ever managed to be Spock (so to speak), ever?

Eta2: I'm even wondering whether we're wholly emotional in essence and that reasoning is something we've merely learnt to do, like science? Again, just chewing the fat. No conclusions drawn atm.


We've evolved with both, suggesting that both are advantageous. No, no one's ever been Spock. My non-scientific understanding is that emotions, combined with reasoning, drive behaviour.

I'll just pass on your metaphysical assumption that 'we' are merely a product of physical causes/evolution, because metaphysical assumptions are (or definitely should be) utterly devoid of value to reasonable people who engage in philosophical discussions. I personally have not, yet, even tried to make any conclusions from the discussion. Yet here you are imposing yours upon me/us with no substance behind it. Thanks for fuck all.

As for Spock and whether anyone has ever been close to being like him, I'm not sure. If anyone has, it's mathematicians and philosophers. Kant certainly comes to mind, from what I've read about him.

That 'we' are both emotional and reasonable isn't essentially in dispute. That reason and emotions both have value isn't in dispute atm either. Whether they are utterly distinct (and therefore opposing) ways of thinking/reacting is my immediate concern.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Go where the heart is

#42  Postby Thommo » Jul 01, 2018 10:59 pm

Evolution is not a metapysical assumption, it's an observed process backed by evidence. It may also be worth pointing out that a) You're not replying to a post that says anything about humans "merely" being anything and b) you're in no position to say that "metaphysical assumptions are utterly devoid of value to reasonable people".
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#43  Postby jamest » Jul 01, 2018 11:20 pm

Thommo wrote:Evolution is not a metapysical assumption, it's an observed process backed by evidence.

Any evolutionary theory which advocates that 'we' are who/what we are as a consequence of physical causes is by default a metaphysical theory as it posits that we are who/what we are as a consequence of physical origins.

I personally don't deny that there is evidence of multiple physical changes amidst physical life. What I do deny or object to is that physical things cause this. Therefore, it's frozen badger time for anyone who insists that 'we' are the product of physical causes as far as I'm concerned, unless someone here establishes that 'we' are mere physical things.

It may also be worth pointing out that a) You're not replying to a post that says anything about humans "merely" being anything and b) you're in no position to say that "metaphysical assumptions are utterly devoid of value to reasonable people".

a) She definitely implied that physical causes explain 'us' and our behaviour. I won't be wasting my time with anyone who denies this.
b) Any cunt with a modicum of reasoning power is qualified to inform you that assumptions are devoid of value with someone who seeks answers from reasoning. :nono:

Don't waste my time in this thread any more with your fucking political approaches. Address the problem, not the contributors.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#44  Postby Thommo » Jul 01, 2018 11:28 pm

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Evolution is not a metapysical assumption, it's an observed process backed by evidence.

Any evolutionary theory which advocates that 'we' are who/what we are as a consequence of physical causes is by default a metaphysical theory as it posits that we are who/what we are as a copsequence of physical origins.


Manifestly untrue. If humans can be mental representations and animals can be mental representations, as idealism would posit for example, then the evolution of one to the other would also be a mental representation and still compatible with idealism. Or solipsism, or dualism or any other metaphysic.

The point is that evolution isn't an assumption, it's derived from careful study of observations. It's a well developed and evidence based theory.

jamest wrote:I personally don't deny that there is evidence of multiple physical changes amidst physical life. What I do deny or object to is that physical things cause this. Therefore, it's frozen badger time for anyone who insists that 'we' are the product of physical causes as far as I'm concerned, unless someone here establishes that there's more to 'us' than being a physical thing.


Thus far you're the only one making any insistences about physical things or metaphysics. It is precisely your assumption that evolution means physicalism and physicalism means assumption that makes you so poorly placed to tell other people that metaphysical assumptions are devoid of value. The only one castigated by your charge is you.

jamest wrote:

It may also be worth pointing out that a) You're not replying to a post that says anything about humans "merely" being anything and b) you're in no position to say that "metaphysical assumptions are utterly devoid of value to reasonable people".

a) She definitely implied that physical causes explain 'us' and our behaviour. I won't be wasting my time with anyone who denies this.


I suggest you just try reading that again. It appears to me that I'm pointing out she didn't say humans are "merely" anything, and it also appears to me that on rereading her post she didn't.

jamest wrote:b) Any cunt with a modicum of reasoning power is qualified to inform you that assumptions are devoid of value with someone who seek answers from reasoning. :nono:


Whilst I won't bother to disagree, my point was that evolution is not, in fact, an assumption but a well evidenced theory, and that you - in assuming that evolution necessitates physicalism were the one making assumptions and thus you are the only one who needs to understand your lesson.

jamest wrote:Don't waste my time in this thread any more with your fucking political approaches. Address the problem, not the contributors.


I did, and I am. :thumbup:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#45  Postby jamest » Jul 01, 2018 11:37 pm

Can you please amend that response to the edited version of my post, thanks.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#46  Postby Thommo » Jul 01, 2018 11:53 pm

Since your errors make zero difference to my response, I can, and don't need to. The spelling of "copsequence" and change of the attempt to make other people assume a burden of proof for either proving or disproving that there is nothing more to humans than the physical is a complete irrelevance since nobody (other than you, which is why you should be heeding your own warning) has said anything on the matter one way or the other.

Anyway, the general rule is that you should use the preview function and correct your own mistakes, there's no pressure on people responding to mistakes to correct them on someone else's behalf. If it eases your worry I'm not going to proceed on the basis that you are so sure of physicalism that you're arbitrarily challenging everyone to accept a burden of proof and disprove it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#47  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2018 12:02 am

I edited my post BEFORE seeing your response (otherwise there would be data to dispute this fact), so ALL mistakes therein were recognised by me devoid of any cosideration of your post. I really wouldn't have had the gall to edit my post after seeing your response, so spare yourself that pat on the back.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Go where the heart is

#48  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2018 12:08 am

jamest wrote:I edited my post BEFORE seeing your response, so ALL mistakes therein were recognised by me devoid of any cosideration of your post. I really wouldn't have had the gall to edit my post after seeing your response, so spare yourself that pat on the back.


What pat on the back? There's literally nothing for me to change, I didn't respond to the typo or the reversed burden of proof anyway.

Seriously, it doesn't matter in the slightest, I don't think anyone even noticed.

What might matter is that you're suggesting we all should think a person who has used the word physicalism all of once in tens of thousands of posts over the best part of a decade is making assumptions and assertions about physicalism, when it's incredibly implausible. And what else might matter is that you've asserted both that:

a) Metaphysical assumptions are worthless, and
b) The metaphysical assumption that evolution can only be true if physicalism is true is worthwhile.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#49  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2018 12:27 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:I edited my post BEFORE seeing your response, so ALL mistakes therein were recognised by me devoid of any cosideration of your post. I really wouldn't have had the gall to edit my post after seeing your response, so spare yourself that pat on the back.


What pat on the back? There's literally nothing for me to change, I didn't respond to the typo or the reversed burden of proof anyway.

Seriously, it doesn't matter in the slightest, I don't think anyone even noticed.

What might matter is that you're suggesting we all should think a person who has used the word physicalism all of once in tens of thousands of posts over the best part of a decade is making assumptions and assertions about physicalism, when it's incredibly implausible.

Now for sure we ALL know that you're playing politics, as the word 'physicalism' was not mentioned by me NOR is contingent to confirming her metaphysical bias. You're akin to a lawyer for Hitler saying that he only mentioned gas chambers a half-dozen times in a decade. Just piss off.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#50  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2018 12:48 am

I'm always mildly curious, when you have these little outbursts, do you actually think you're doing something clever, constructive or impressive? I can't help but wonder what it is you think you're doing, in your own mind, are you defending idealism? Taking down evolutionary theory? Sticking it to the people who quite clearly don't give a shit about physicalism?

It really feels like the idea that someone who wasn't talking about metaphysics, who has no history of talking about metaphysics (aside from the one post where she explained that some people don't care about physicalism that was linked) and made no metaphysical assumptions probably wasn't trying to turn the conversation to metaphysics just cannot be that hard to get.

It seems to me that you must be aware on some level that you know "just piss off" is a pretty impotent reaction to having it pointed out that there's some tension between calling metaphysical assumption worthless in one breath and making metaphysical assumptions in the next. It really does seem likely that you know it looks like you're just massively ducking the challenge you set for yourself in asserting that evolution is a metaphysical assumption at the very first sign of mild scrutiny.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#51  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jul 02, 2018 1:19 am

jamest, do you understand the difference between an observation and an assumption?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14257
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#52  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 02, 2018 3:46 am

jamest wrote:You're akin to a lawyer for Hitler saying that he only mentioned gas chambers a half-dozen times in a decade. Just piss off.


You probably should not be including your observations of Hitler and lawyers and gas chambers if you are arguing against the relevance of observations in establishing anything metaphysical. Yet you repeatedly do stuff like this as soon as you observe that your latest attempt at your argument starts to break down. I guess we can say that you observe that your argument has started to break down again. But never mind: You can go back to denying flatly that these are observations. Do you somehow experience Hitler differently from the way any other aspect of the Great All does? If you do, you should explain how you go about using your experience of Hitler exactly the same way anyone else would who is instead treating Hitler as some kind of observation.

Thommo wrote:It seems to me that you must be aware on some level that you know "just piss off" is a pretty impotent reaction to having it pointed out that there's some tension between calling metaphysical assumption worthless in one breath and making metaphysical assumptions in the next. It really does seem likely that you know it looks like you're just massively ducking the challenge you set for yourself in asserting that evolution is a metaphysical assumption at the very first sign of mild scrutiny.


Using Hitler as a rhetorical device, as jamest is doing, means that (in jamest's cosmology) Hitler has existed from the moment of creation for use as a rhetorical device.

jamest wrote:What I do deny or object to is that physical things cause this.


Well, that's fine, jamest. Your brand of 'idealism' treats anything and everything as nothing more than rhetorical devices, even metaphysical assumptions. I guess that is a variety of metaphysical assumption. However, even from your own perspective, it utterly disposes of your rhetorical devices as any sort of threat to anyone else's metaphysical assumptions. You will just have to do better.

jamest wrote:Now for sure we ALL know that you're playing politics...


Oooh, look! Another rhetorical device, arriving out of left field. Come on, jamest. Either take metaphysical argument seriously, or just stick to playing politics.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#53  Postby Fallible » Jul 02, 2018 6:50 pm

jamest wrote:
Fallible wrote:
jamest wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Emotions are just another part of the cognitive package. You ignore them at your own peril

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the emotional aspect of ourselves. I'm just wondering how far detached the emotions are from reasoning and what drives these desires (our innate needs/nature? If so, can we say something universal about our innate needs/nature?).

There's plenty to explore here if anyone's interested. I know that I am.

Eta: I'm also wondering just how difficult it is for 'us' to be Spock-like and be perfectly reasonable given our emotional nature. Has anyone ever managed to be Spock (so to speak), ever?

Eta2: I'm even wondering whether we're wholly emotional in essence and that reasoning is something we've merely learnt to do, like science? Again, just chewing the fat. No conclusions drawn atm.


We've evolved with both, suggesting that both are advantageous. No, no one's ever been Spock. My non-scientific understanding is that emotions, combined with reasoning, drive behaviour.

I'll just pass on your metaphysical assumption that 'we' are merely a product of physical causes/evolution,


Yes, do that, mainly because you just made it up.

because metaphysical assumptions are (or definitely should be) utterly devoid of value to reasonable people who engage in philosophical discussions.


Reasonable people like you, you mean?

I personally have not, yet, even tried to make any conclusions from the discussion. Yet here you are imposing yours upon me/us with no substance behind it. Thanks for fuck all.


Wow, how dickish. I don't have to pander to your ridiculous beliefs. I type my own views. I can't impose anything on you, stop whining. Maybe you shouldn't start any more threads; you don't seem cut out to cope with the most innocuous of responses.

As for Spock and whether anyone has ever been close to being like him, I'm not sure. If anyone has, it's mathematicians and philosophers. Kant certainly comes to mind, from what I've read about him.


No one has.

That 'we' are both emotional and reasonable isn't essentially in dispute. That reason and emotions both have value isn't in dispute atm either. Whether they are utterly distinct (and therefore opposing) ways of thinking/reacting is my immediate concern.


They're not.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#54  Postby surreptitious57 » Jul 02, 2018 7:26 pm

Emotion and logic may be treated as different domains but all compos mentis human beings use both so they cannot be entirely separated. Nor can one generalise too much about the relationship between the two because we are all unique
So some are more emotional whilst others are more logical and others still are neither predominantly one nor the other
I myself am way more logical than emotional but how representative that is within the general population I cannot say
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10194

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#55  Postby Fallible » Jul 02, 2018 7:54 pm

I also think I'd like to ask for a definition of 'emotion'. This is why.

All our behaviours emanate from a 'feeling', in the sense that we are motivated to behave, motivated to act or not act, according to the situation. The not-nice feeling of being hungry causes us to feel that things are not satisfactory in accordance with our intrinsic goal of staying alive, and so we are motivated to find food. The feeling of wanting to be nice to someone so that we can feel that we are greasing the wheels of society to ease our passage in accordance with our intrinsic goal of staying alive motivates us to help the old lady across the road. Motivated to act or not act in accordance with what we evaluate to be the 'best' thing. But 'best' is subjective. Subjectivity is the property of being based on personal feelings. Normally we are motivated to do that which sustains life, because sustaining our lives is 'good'...to us subjectively. 'Good' is a judgement based on subjective valuing, and we don't always act to sustain life. Sometimes we act to end life because that seems 'best'. Committing life-sustaining acts is rewarded by dopamine, which makes us feel good. We like to feel good, so we continue to commit such acts according to our subjective valuation. In these ways people propel themselves towards the continuance or the termination of their subjective lives. We may use reasoning to help us decide what is 'best', but that's engendered by a feeling that 'best' is 'best'.

It's easy to make word salad such as this without concrete definitions of terms.

I trust that's clear as mud.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Go where the heart is

#56  Postby surreptitious57 » Jul 03, 2018 1:37 am

Emotion is a psychological / neurological response to both real and perceived phenomena. One has some degree of free will wrt both the type of emotion experienced and the degree to which it is experienced. But this is not absolute. Because some
times states of mind specifically negative ones cannot be manipulated
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10194

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#57  Postby ElDiablo » Jul 03, 2018 2:35 am

I've heard the way to the heart is through the stomach.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#58  Postby Fallible » Jul 03, 2018 7:15 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Emotion is a psychological / neurological response to both real and perceived phenomena. One has some degree of free will wrt both the type of emotion experienced and the degree to which it is experienced. But this is not absolute. Because some
times states of mind specifically negative ones cannot be manipulated


They can't? Who told you that?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#59  Postby surreptitious57 » Jul 03, 2018 7:45 am

I was specifically thinking of extremely negative ones that are triggered by trauma for example
Rather than negative ones generally that are more susceptible to some degree of manipulation
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10194

Print view this post

Re: Go where the heart is

#60  Postby Fallible » Jul 03, 2018 8:13 am

I'm not sure what you mean by manipulated, to be honest.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest