User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 55 of 55

  1. #51
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That seems likely, since we all have different standards that have to be met and have little to go on otherwise except experience.
    Little? I wonder: what *else* do we have to go on, in your idea?

    It just makes conversation and truth-sharing difficult.

    We might as well be from different planets sometimes.
    In a way, we are. From different worlds at least, as in "every man is his own world".

    After all, the astrologist lays the same sort of claims, as inscrutable as these discussions of the soul, but I'm not going to give her credibility just because she claims "something has been proven to her" that has not been proven to me.
    Credibility is quite an elastic complex in my mind.

  2. #52
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    594 sx/sp
    LII Ne


    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    Little? I wonder: what *else* do we have to go on, in your idea?
    Well, while we can all access various forms of "knowing" something, essentially we each claim that certain authorities are more credible than others.

    And experience is a form of knowing that is still parsed through our list of credible authorities, in order of priority. [Logic; emotion; mentor/teacher; cultural institution; religious tenets; etc.]

    So unless we are discussing the raw sensory experience, it's already been filtered through our natural preferences. We have to make a conscious effort to re-parse our experience and view it from alternate perspectives.

    (I'm sorry, I'm probably wandering off-topic here since I'm not sure where I was going with everything...)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #53
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, you're right about that... I can't fault your logic.

    All right. The classic Freudian approach to the mind is outmoded in a hundred ways, but it has one important strength at least: It recognizes cognition. Cognition provides a coherent explanation for altruism, even altruism to the point of self-sacrifice.

    Can behaviorist theory provide an alternative explanation for altruistic self-sacrifice?

    EDIT: I hope this isn't considered a derail. It pertains to the OP, I think, in that I'm critiquing the method that dissonance used to arrive at his conclusion.
    well i honestly didn't mean to get myself in a position where i was defending strict behaviorism, with no internal states. that isn't what i originally tried to say, although i let myself go in that direction for a post or two.

    i think my original point was that every human concept exists in physical form, so 'faith' must be in the brain somewhere. because where else would 'faith' be?

    (then we were talking about 'justice', which the same logic applies to)

    and then you were questioning my premise that everything is physical.

    basically, i have nothing much to say to that. if you don't agree that everything is physical, my argument doesn't hold. i shouldn't have tried to defend behaviorism in the first place. i should have defended the specific behaviorist stance that includes mental states.

    but if you do disagree (you don't believe everything is physical), why? and how do you explain things that aren't physical affecting things that are physical?

  4. #54
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    but if you do disagree (you don't believe everything is physical), why? and how do you explain things that aren't physical affecting things that are physical?
    I think people who believe that not everything is physical have no reason for doing so except a leap of faith. They'd probably confess not understanding the nature of things, and to having given up questioning at that point in order to accept things on faith. The only way to have faith is to stop asking questions and believe without understanding.

    I personally could never do that. Sometimes I think it would be easier, but... I just can't bend that way. It just doesn't work for me somehow.

  5. #55
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Is the brain the source of faith?

    Can brain imaging prove or disprove that the brain is the source of faith?

    Related article:
    What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith - TIME
    Faith is a store.
    Yesterday does not cognite.

    What do you know of yesterday?

    When do you know?
    You know now.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2013, 02:36 PM
  2. human ego is the source of paradox
    By foolish heart in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-03-2010, 07:36 AM
  3. What is the source of class distinction?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 11:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO