Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[lemurien]

No, I won't.

 

[Aepervius]

Human intelligence is working along the same Darwinian principle as is the biosphere in general. That is basically why biosphere's workings appear 'intelligent'. A closer look at our intelligence reveals that the process with which it functions is not intelligent at all. The result is.

Human feelings have been treated like avoidable artefacts even in neurosciences. This is changing now. It is impossible to model the human mentation if feelings are not taken to account.

Throughout the animal kingdom we can observe emotional states.
Attraction and avoidance. Calm or excitement.
We cannot explain animal behavior without emotions.

Feelings are emotions that have become available to our consciousness. They govern our whys. Calling them artefacts is a type II error. (Accepting a null hypothesis when it is false)
Not artefacts.

You misinterpreted what I said, or made a strawman. Whatever.

I enver said that emotion are meaningless aretefact, I said that the "why are we here ?" "has life a meaning" and "what is the goal of having human in the universe" are all meanignless artefact of human nature.

So , no, no type II error. It is not as if somebody had any evidence of "why" are human here, as in "What's the goal" (beside spreading their DNA).

 

[Sideroxylon]

Call it intuition if you like. I think it is a misnomer. The latin origin means something like looking inside and the term has become to mean 'knowing something without reflection'.

Mammals have been thriving for millions of years before the scientific method was available. They must have been doing something right without knowing it.
Could say that they have been using their intuition? I don't think so.

The unconscious processes are going on in our heads as well. The human consciousness is a recent contributor to the success of Sapiens Sapiens. It is only small part of what our brain is producing. We do not normally pay attention to our automatic functions. It is only when something does not go as expected that the situation becomes available to consciousness or awareness, in short, to be rationally processed.

The filtration takes place 'in the dark', outside of the light beam of our attention.
This explains blind spots, fixed ideas and various forms of confabulations that we come up with when facing an unexpected situation, especially if it is because of our own stupidity.

I am not contesting the value of the scientific method. I would not be able to discuss the role of emotions in our thinking if nobody would have found out about it using recent methods of data acquisition and processing.

What I am trying to do is to point out that the animal automatisms have served our ancestors very well and they are still serving us. Trying to pretend that they do not exist or that our everyday life is not affected by them is a serious mistake.

Now, why do you think that people cannot read other people's messages on this forum but create straw men, see things that aren't there and refuse to acknowledge their mistakes? Rational human beings would not do that. Real ones do.

I agree that these mechanisms have served us well in day to day survival, but how does this way of knowing answer the why questions? Remember that you introduced this as an alternative way of knowing that can do such a thing.

 

[lemurien]

I agree that these mechanisms have served us well in day to day survival, but how does this way of knowing answer the why questions? Remember that you introduced this as an alternative way of knowing that can do such a thing.

You probably noticed that knowing becomes a diffuse term in this context.

We can observe behavior that is compatible with a situation that is carried out unknowingly.
This indicates that our body-brain 'knows' things that we are not conscious about. Acting as if knowing without knowing.

In most everyday situations, knowing of the conscious kind comes after acting.
The source of the 'knowledge' that is included in the automatisms is evolution.

Philosophically, I cannot really tell at which stage you can reliably differentiate between 'acting as if knowing' and 'knowing'.
I guess the latter presumes consciousness with introspection.

 

[lemurien]

The why questions have been solved remarkably well in the animal kingdom, man being about the only one ever doubting his right to exist. Easy to understand how such a primary value would become embedded in a replicator once the complexity allows for it. Again an individual of a species can sacrifice its life for the good of the genome. All ants of an anthill that has only one queen are sisters.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You probably noticed that knowing becomes a diffuse term in this context.

We can observe behavior that is compatible with a situation that is carried out unknowingly.
This indicates that our body-brain 'knows' things that we are not conscious about. Acting as if knowing without knowing.

In most everyday situations, knowing of the conscious kind comes after acting.
The source of the 'knowledge' that is included in the automatisms is evolution.

Philosophically, I cannot really tell at which stage you can reliably differentiate between 'acting as if knowing' and 'knowing'.
I guess the latter presumes consciousness with introspection.

Again, yes. We agree that processes of the unconscious are invaluable in everyday situations. But it can't answer any of the why questions you mentioned earlier, can it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The why questions have been solved remarkably well in the animal kingdom, man being about the only one ever doubting his right to exist. Easy to understand how such a primary value would become embedded in a replicator once the complexity allows for it.

You seem to be saying that why questions are pointless.

 

[joobz]

I don't understand the point behind this derail.
Now that we've established that the "self" is and of a material origin, what does "science can't help why" have to do with anything?
Science is an intellectual tool. It is typically poor at helping with moral choices. But Science isn't the only tool of the materialist. You still have rational thought and empathy.

 

[lemurien]

You seem to be saying that why questions are pointless.

No I am not.
I am saying that the whys such as why we should stay alive, get offspring and care for it, be accepted in a social environment and avoid getting rejected are such strong factors in evolution that there is a useful set of answers programmed in our mentation before the consciousness with introspective self appeared on the scene.

The why questions are far from pointless. Man is the only one questioning the self-evident answers all the other animals seem to possess.
This is because of the abstractions he has developed to organize social systems far superior in complexity compared to any other animal.

 

[lemurien]

I don't understand the point behind this derail.
Now that we've established that the "self" is and of a material origin, what does "science can't help why" have to do with anything?
Science is an intellectual tool. It is typically poor at helping with moral choices. But Science isn't the only tool of the materialist. You still have rational thought and empathy.

Correct
But don't you think that the source of our morals would be easier to identify with scientific research rather than introspection or tradition?

 

[lemurien]

Just an aside.
My friend is working as a company doctor for an international telecommunications giant.
He told me that the typical patient he is facing is suffering from feelings of worthlessness, lack of motivation and self respect, depression and social problems.

His patients are IT engineers who live in a world where emotions are a nuisance and spotting mistakes the highest priority.

The excessively focused rational mind loses its emotional 'why' and falls ill.
A bit like the Japanese kids who struggle for success at the age of 4 and commit suicide at 16.

 

[joobz]

Correct
But don't you think that the source of our morals would be easier to identify with scientific research rather than introspection or tradition?

I'm not sure what you mean by "source of our morals".

 

[lemurien]

I'm not sure what you mean by "source of our morals".

I refuse to accept any supernatural being as the source of our morals nor do I believe that they have come about randomly, for no reason at all.
Rather, I would look at the evolution and specifically at the codes that regulate the life of social animals. Altruistic behavior is visible in all social animals despite the common misunderstanding about what the survival of the fittest may mean.

It is clear that a part of our social behavior is genetically if not determined, at least affected. The other part is cultural. In man the two are inseparable. Our genetic heritage gives preference to certain behaviors. Also, there are windows in the course of development that close after a certain age. The regulation of genes is a highly complex issue.

Neuroimaging studies have identified brain areas that are activated concomitantly with certain social feelings (shame, pride, appreciation) and the activation patterns seem to vary in different subjects. Curiously, psychopaths do not seem to differ from 'normal' controls in any recognizable manner.

You probably got my point already.
The source of our morals is the value based (or emotionally directed) animal system that we share with various species that is fine tuned according to the demands of the culture we are born in.

This happens with abstract concepts and words that carry emotional charges.
The emotional system is very similar to other social animals, the major difference being our ability to create logical constructions of the value charged abstractions. (Logical and "logical")

These constructions stand on our shared inborn emotions.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Neuroimaging studies have identified brain areas that are activated concomitantly with certain social feelings (shame, pride, appreciation) and the activation patterns seem to vary in different subjects. Curiously, psychopaths do not seem to differ from 'normal' controls in any recognizable manner.

You probably got my point already.

I've been reading this for quite some time, and I have absolutely no clue what your point is throughout the entire diatribe. In fact, every time I think I understand what your point is, you say something completely the opposite.

I for one am lost. Could you please explain, very clearly, who you are objecting to, what exactly is it that they said that you hold objection to, and what your objection is?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've been reading this for quite some time, and I have absolutely no clue what your point is throughout the entire diatribe. In fact, every time I think I understand what your point is, you say something completely the opposite.

I for one am lost. Could you please explain, very clearly, who you are objecting to, what exactly is it that they said that you hold objection to, and what your objection is?

If it's any comfort, you most certainly aren't alone.

 

[joobz]

I refuse to accept any supernatural being as the source of our morals nor do I believe that they have come about randomly, for no reason at all.

OK. you gave a reasonable explanation as to why the moral code humans have adopted exists. And if this is what you mean by "source of our morals", than I will accept that. I don't think you'll have many (if anyone) here who would disagree with this.

now, as such, I do agree that one can use science to identify the links between human animal behavior and moral code.

However, as I said, science doesn't really tell us what our moral code should be. That's where rational thought and empathy come in. Science doesn't tell us if slavery is immoral. However, our rational thought can easily see that a society that accepts slavery could also accept me as a slave. As I do not desire to be a slave, I do not desire a society which enslaves others.

 

[Dancing David]

and if you feel nothing, you don't give a damn

Uh huh, and so why is emotional confused with irrational story telling, there are many emotions, they are not monolithic. They are context dependant every time.

Why ask why?

Some answers have no questions.

 

[Dancing David]

I refuse to accept any supernatural being as the source of our morals nor do I believe that they have come about randomly, for no reason at all.

Duh, except you make a huge mistake, emotions are learned, they are not inborn, they are conditioned and associative. There are no instinctual emotions in humans.

All emotions are learned in humans, there is no instinct to eat, it is learned, as are almost all human behaviors. Even adult humans are crappy at identifing emotions, it takes training and context.

Now social mirroring and reciprocity has a huge payoff for small human groups, game theory can show you that.

 

[Foster Zygote]

OK. you gave a reasonable explanation as to why the moral code humans have adopted exists. And if this is what you mean by "source of our morals", than I will accept that. I don't think you'll have many (if anyone) here who would disagree with this.

now, as such, I do agree that one can use science to identify the links between human animal behavior and moral code.

However, as I said, science doesn't really tell us what our moral code should be. That's where rational thought and empathy come in. Science doesn't tell us if slavery is immoral. However, our rational thought can easily see that a society that accepts slavery could also accept me as a slave. As I do not desire to be a slave, I do not desire a society which enslaves others.

Quite right. We can use science to help us understand why we choose moral codes, but we can't really use science to make moral judgements for us.

 

[Robin]

Just an aside.
My friend is working as a company doctor for an international telecommunications giant.
He told me that the typical patient he is facing is suffering from feelings of worthlessness, lack of motivation and self respect, depression and social problems.

His patients are IT engineers who live in a world where emotions are a nuisance and spotting mistakes the highest priority.

The excessively focused rational mind loses its emotional 'why' and falls ill.

I think your friend is suffering from a bit of confirmation bias.

I have been hearing the myth for decades that techies are not emotionally rounded people - I have seen no evidence for it.