News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Present Evidence Here II

Started by Fidel_Castronaut, February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 23, 2019, 02:54:20 AM
Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.

When the brain lacks stimulation, all sorts of off things occur in it.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:22:59 AM
When the brain lacks stimulation, all sorts of off things occur in it.

And when stimulated, the brain provides a simulation of what is sensed.  The sight in your head is a stitch up based on external data, it isn't the data itself.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 02:01:24 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" ... Winston Churchill (in other words, a dialectic not a deduction)

This is why I say, for ordinary conversation involving people, if it doesn't start from psychology, it didn't start at all.

Because of convergent evolution, the eye of the octopus is a lot like the eye of the human, but I bet the processing and subsequent cogitation is different.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 02:01:24 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.

I've read that intelligence is the way the universe understands itself.  Note that I did not say that myself.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:30:54 PM
I've read that intelligence is the way the universe understands itself.  Note that I did not say that myself.

Correct.  I could say that.  You did not say that.  It would violate your materialist metaphysics.  For you the atoms are almost eternal, they whirl around (see pre-Socratic philosophers).  How non-living atoms live, how non-mental atoms cogitate, is a mystery.

Or are atoms, a concept developed and used by humans?  Are humans prior to atoms?  Not if you are Plato.  Per Plato, to see people as people is ignorant caveman stuff.  To see people as atoms, that is woke.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 08:03:16 PM
Correct.  I could say that.  You did not say that.  It would violate your materialist metaphysics.  For you the atoms are almost eternal, they whirl around (see pre-Socratic philosophers).  How non-living atoms live, how non-mental atoms cogitate, is a mystery.

Or are atoms, a concept developed and used by humans?  Are humans prior to atoms?  Not if you are Plato.  Per Plato, to see people as people is ignorant caveman stuff.  To see people as atoms, that is woke.

I've said before that I consider Plato an idiot. (though I do allow for the times he lived in).  If we stand on the shoulders of giants, Plato is not one of them to me.

But I'm mostly Kantish with some Hume. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:16:37 PM
I've said before that I consider Plato an idiot. (though I do allow for the times he lived in).  If we stand on the shoulders of giants, Plato is not one of them to me.

But I'm mostly Kantish with some Hume.

Kant follows Plato.  Most philosophers don't.  Hume is his own man, a real skeptic.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 10:26:47 PM
Kant follows Plato.  Most philosophers don't.  Hume is his own man, a real skeptic.

"The basic features of Kant’s moral philosophy are these; it’s deontological (i.e. rule based) and normative (concerned with establishing the difference between right and wrong and creating moral rules, as opposed to, for instance, practical ethics which looks at individual moral dilemmas and tries to figure out what the ethically correct response might be), values autonomy (so everyone should arrive at his conclusions by exercising their own reason, rather than simply taking his word for it), holds that people can never be used as means to an end (i.e. you can’t kill or manipulate people “for the greater good”), and holds that rationality is the key to making the right decisions in ethical situations. It is often praised for the fact that it provides people with a relatively simple decision-making procedure that they can use when an ethical decision needs to be made, and criticized for its rigidity and lack of emotion.

By contrast, Plato’s ethics are virtue-based and eudaimonistic,"

And no I don't have the slightest idea what some of those terms mean.   I don't actually care.  I just know that when questioned in onsite tests, I turn out to be 100% Kantian and 75% Hume.  Have fun with that.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 25, 2019, 12:09:59 AM
"The basic features of Kant’s moral philosophy are these; it’s deontological (i.e. rule based) and normative (concerned with establishing the difference between right and wrong and creating moral rules, as opposed to, for instance, practical ethics which looks at individual moral dilemmas and tries to figure out what the ethically correct response might be), values autonomy (so everyone should arrive at his conclusions by exercising their own reason, rather than simply taking his word for it), holds that people can never be used as means to an end (i.e. you can’t kill or manipulate people “for the greater good”), and holds that rationality is the key to making the right decisions in ethical situations. It is often praised for the fact that it provides people with a relatively simple decision-making procedure that they can use when an ethical decision needs to be made, and criticized for its rigidity and lack of emotion.

By contrast, Plato’s ethics are virtue-based and eudaimonistic,"

And no I don't have the slightest idea what some of those terms mean.   I don't actually care.  I just know that when questioned in onsite tests, I turn out to be 100% Kantian and 75% Hume.  Have fun with that.

"I don't actually care." ,,, so why should I?  OK, short school session.  Kant supports both "a priori" and "a posteriori" epistemology (theory of knowledge).  Plato was all "a priori" and Hume would be all "a posteriori".  Because Plato was all about dogma, and Hume was all about skepticism.  One .. claims to be rational usually aren't.  And claims to evidence usually aren't.  But claims to evidence are more easily checked.  So Kant is "half-Plato".  Kant's "a priori" failed as soon as non-Euclidean geometry was discovered.  I totally respect Hume.  Myself, I am "a posteriori" all the way.  I love a girl's ass ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 25, 2019, 01:09:42 AM
"I don't actually care." ,,, so why should I?  OK, short school session.  Kant supports both "a priori" and "a posteriori" epistemology (theory of knowledge).  Plato was all "a priori" and Hume would be all "a posteriori".  Because Plato was all about dogma, and Hume was all about skepticism.  One .. claims to be rational usually aren't.  And claims to evidence usually aren't.  But claims to evidence are more easily checked.  So Kant is "half-Plato".  Kant's "a priori" failed as soon as non-Euclidean geometry was discovered.  I totally respect Hume.  Myself, I am "a posteriori" all the way.  I love a girl's ass ;-)

Interesting thoughts.  I look at Kant as arguing for general laws of nature, that human reason itself gives itself moral (which I call ethical laws to distinguish from religious "moral -from mores- law" of theism), which is our basis for scientific and rational thought.  So science and ethics are consistent because they arise from inherent human reasoning.

I have a tendency toward Hume in that he considers the psychological basis of human nature and that passion is important to understanding human nature.   And I know that is accurate.  So I'm mostly Kant and somewhat Hume.

You might not understand Kant as well as you think.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2019, 03:43:21 AM
Interesting thoughts.  I look at Kant as arguing for general laws of nature, that human reason itself gives itself moral (which I call ethical laws to distinguish from religious "moral -from mores- law" of theism), which is our basis for scientific and rational thought.  So science and ethics are consistent because they arise from inherent human reasoning.

I have a tendency toward Hume in that he considers the psychological basis of human nature and that passion is important to understanding human nature.   And I know that is accurate.  So I'm mostly Kant and somewhat Hume.

You might not understand Kant as well as you think.

These thinkers have many angles.  I have pointed out one angle I see as obsolete.  What about the rest?  Not taking time to comprehensively analyze him.  For others interested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsgAsw4XGvU
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2019, 07:46:42 AM
These thinkers have many angles.  I have pointed out one angle I see as obsolete.  What about the rest?  Not taking time to comprehensively analyze him.  For others interested ...

That was very good!  I have some objections to the narrative.  The narrative assumes that religion is the source of most ethics.  In my view, sensible and practical beliefs like "Don't steal and don't murder" long proceed religion and come from older human experience in how to live among neighbors.  Other than that, I was quite impressed.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Really?  Now I will have to watch it again.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 12:34:51 AM
Really?  Now I will have to watch it again.

I think it was about 1/4 to 1/3 the way through...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!