Not that you have noticed, it's true.

Nothing to offer but difficulties for your position. You can lead a hoar to culture, but you can't make him think.

I don't know about you, but my brain can't see itself at all. :cry:

And apparently your brain (or is it your brain's brain?) can't tell the difference between an argument and a question.

O, the tragedy of a brain that doesn't understand itself...

That wasn't intended to be an argument; it was a question.

No you are your brain; you (the brain referred to as Mww) did it. :rofl:

What if the 'folk' models produced by the brain(s) are more adaptively fit than the speculative interpretation of neuroscience which says that we are nothing more than our brains? Should we discard them nonetheless and suffer accordingly?

I'm here to discuss this with you, not to be directed to read articles of a kind I've already looked at, and have no argument with, as far as they go.

So please answer the question: do thoughts as neural processes temporally precede thoughts as consciously entertained? You do agree that we are not aware of neural processes in the brain as neural processes in the brain I presume?

If you can't, or won't answer that, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I was being a little hyperbolic. Of course there have been other intelligent comments, yours included.

Finally...an intelligent comment!

Yes, they call that executive dysfunctionality. — Garrett Travers

Dysfunctionailty is not all or nothing. We are all, more or less, dysfunctional.

His mental illness was not of the neurological kind, but of the emotional. And no, that's not a generalization. — Garrett Travers

What's the difference? Is the emotional kind not caused by neurological function?

Do you make a distinction between the neural process and the subjective awareness of thinking? If so, in regard to any process of thought, which, if either, is temporally prior?

But, not here where natural processes give rise to self-correcting behavior and perpetual data integration that generat concepts. No, that's not what you're being told. You just want to believe it no matter what you're shown. — Garrett Travers

This is a gross generalization. Some brains may be what we might call normatively functional and others not. If a brain is normatively dysfunctional then what to do? What is the person who has or is that brain to do about their normative dysfunctionality?

You haven't provide any argument for your position or any cogent explanation of it, that I can see. And now you're resorting to insults; always a bad sign.

The point is that if you are nothing but your brain then you are entirely limited by its capacities and proclivities. Your brain does what it does and what it causes your body to do may be, on a normative view, morally sound or unsound, but either way it cannot be helped because the brain is what it is with whatever capacities and proclivities it has to become what it becomes. It is, on your view, however you want to spin it, merely a natural process, and hence it makes as much sense to hold it morally responsible as it does to hold any other natural process morally responsible; i.e. none at all.

I'll put it another way; on this view of yours you have no control over whether your brain's "executive function" causes you to do good or evil, as they are normatively understood. The brain you've got, is the brain you've got (or the brain you are is the brain you are).

Yes, we don't know what will happen.
I do think that how we think about it is important. — Paine

For you, how you and others think about it is important, if it is important for you, obviously. How the decision-makers think about it is obviously important. Anyway I was just highlighting the fact that how we think about it is not important to the outcome, because it will not contribute to that, unless you get out on the street and try to start a movement in whatever direction you might think would be the way to go.

This is because your neural processes are able to produce "high-level cognitive functions that foster goal-directed behavior and are a pre-requisite for sustained focusing, regulation of attention resources and automatic responses, and rapid and flexible adjustment to the changeable requests of the environment." However, that's not all. — Garrett Travers

There is no "you" over and above ""high-level cognitive functions that foster goal-directed behavior and are a pre-requisite for sustained focusing, regulation of attention resources and automatic responses, and rapid and flexible adjustment to the changeable requests of the environment." to be responsible for their well or ill-functioning, on you view, so I still see no rational sense in your position, I'm afraid.

You're wrong to think I'm attempting a "Gotcha"; I'm just telling you I can't make sense of your view and why. If you can't handle that without taking it personally or being able to explain yourself more convincingly the problem lies with you. It has nothing to do with science; it tells us nothing about moral responsibility. You're getting your categories mixed up, apparently.

Russia is holding a people hostage and daring anybody to do something about it. — Paine

At the moment, something is being done about it; mostly imposing sanctions on Russia and supplying 'humanitarian' aid and weapons to Ukraine. Anyway it doesn't matter what we think; we'll see how it plays out.

Among those data computing processes is executive functions, judgement, and value placement. — Garrett Travers

All rigidly determined by nothing but the brain according to you. High-sounding talk about "executive functions" doesn't change the entailments of the deterministic physicalist view. I'm not arguing about the soundness of the view itself, I am taking no stand on its truth or falsity; I'm just laying out what the view entails. On that view there is no "you" that could be responsible: it is an illusion.

No, that's just my emotions talking. — Garrett Travers

Oh well, according to your own view, that cannot be helped.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. NATO could make an executive decision to refrain from further intervention and sanctions and let the Russia/ Ukraine war unfold as it will, or capitulate and try to renegotiate on the basis of the promise to refuse to include Ukraine in NATO.

But, no. Human's generate new conceptualizations of their own behavior in accordance with data that is acrrued in a recurrent manner at almost all times. — Garrett Travers

No, on the physicalist presumption those "new conceptualizations" are just further neural processes caused by prior neural processes. The brain is not a moral agent. If the brain is responsible for all thought, speech and action then there is no rationally supportable moral responsibility.

I will say, though, I made no argument for punishing anyone. I made an argument for selective distribution of compassion, — Garrett Travers

Sure, but it is compassion (in this case based on the realization of the determinist than on that view no one is morally culpable) that would lead to refraining from believing that punishment is deserved.

You said you wished there was a hell so that Hitler could get the eternal punishment he deserves. Do you think that sentiment is rationally justified?

If the message is that he is willing to use a strategic weapon for tactical goals, it does not change the standoff. Once you have a little bit of nuclear war, there is no limit to the response. — Paine

Of course. But then the question would be whether he ought to be allowed to have his way in Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, which would be the end for everyone. I'm not saying he ought to be allowed to have his way, but this seems to be the dilemma.

If all that would be required is a guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, would that be too great a price to pay to avoid nuclear war?

You say that we are our brains. We have no awareness of the neural processes going on in our brains which determine all our thoughts. words and actions. It seems to follow from this deterministic view that we are no more morally responsible for any of our actions than the tiger, the lightning or the tsunami are for theirs.

So, on the physicalist assumption of determinism there is no rational justification for punishing (as opposed to restraining) anyone. whether mentally ill or not, for their actions, any more than there is rational justification for wanting to punish the tiger for killing your family.

I am relating this to the idea that compassion would be the rational realization that no one deserves punishment (on the assumption of your kind of determinism, that is ).

For Putin to wave it around like a stick is odd. It does not change the calculations of his oppositions. — Paine

Not unless they took it seriously.

That is what the Ukraine ambassador to the U.N. was referring to by suggesting Putin cut to the chase and shoot himself like "that guy in Berlin, you know, in 45." — Paine

Perhaps his ego is so great that he would not be willing to go down alone, but willing to go down if he takes the world with him. Who knows what he's really thinking? Maybe, hopefully, he's not that crazy, but is betting on the possibility that NATO may think he just might be. Hopefully, even if he were that crazy, there are sufficient Russian checks and balances to prevent him following through on it.

So, the nukes come with attached diplomacy and networking to make sure everyone does not become trigger happy. Putin included.

All countries with nukes are licensed to kill. But being licensed to kill does not mean your nuclear ambition and decision are your decision only. — L'éléphant

I think the likelihood of nuclear deployment is small. But if Putin didn't think it would be considered even remotely as a serious threat, then why would he bother issuing it?

In any case, when it comes to these kinds of highly volatile situataions there are never any guarantees; since humans are by no means rational to the core.

Let's hope he is rational enough to see it as you say.

I just wanted to say, the push-button knee jerk reaction on nuclear weapons is a fiction. — L'éléphant

It does seem unlikely. Likely only to be a coercive threat. But there is no guarantee of that, obviously.

Obviously this means diplomacy. IF that works, then we can argue about history and who is or is not a maniac or who is evil or whatever. — Manuel

The appropriate political response is diplomacy, to be sure. But we are not politicians. In the context of the world stage, what we say on here is of little consequence. And, I would argue, our understanding, even that of the most politically and historically savvy of us, of the factors in play is peanuts. Probably only Putin, if anyone, knows what really motivates Putin.

What I meant to say is that Putin's actions and threats deserve universal condemnation and economic sanctions right now (which is pretty much what he has been getting) but, to be sure, if universal condemnation and economic sanctions seem likely to push him over the edge to deploy nuclear weapons, then another strategy, if one can be worked out, should be implemented. Escalation into nuclear war is too horrific to contemplate. It could mean the end of human civilization as we know it. Better for it to end with a whimper than with a bang!

Why should someone in, say, Latin America or India care about this history?

So, I see your angle, but, by at this stage, too much is at stake. — Manuel

There is no history that justifies this. It is a reckless destabilizing act of a maniac, and should be recognized as such, putting aside all the supposed political subtleties, which are no doubt so buried in propaganda from both sides as to be irrelevant.

Putting aside all the historical and political subtleties, it is the instigator of war between one nation and another, the aggressor, that is to be condemned here. Which is to say it is Putin that is to be condemned, not Russia. There seems to be no doubt that there are many in Russia who also condemn him for this unjustifiable act of war.

It's counter intuitive, but that is the result yielded by the "two slit experiment". No one claims to be able to understand it, just as no one claims to be able to visualize the curvature of three dimensional spacetime that happens in proximity to objects; the more mass the greater the curvature. Must reality fit our intuitions?

I feel you; I know it can be intimidating to present your ideas and face criticism. But that is how we learn and develop our thinking. Wittgenstein said "Don't for heaven's sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense.“

Kant said we can only know the world as it appears to us. But how it appears to us may tell us something about how the world is. There is no certainty there, In any case learning about how the world appears to be is a large enough task for many lifetimes; no one individual could grasp more than a fraction of modern scientific knowledge.

And then there are the other worlds of logic, phenomenology, religion and the arts; if you have an inquiring mind you won't be bored, and if you can reconcile yourself to inevitable uncertainty and not always being able to get what you want in general, then you won't be miserable.

Again that's just the way I ('ve come to) see things; I understand the yearning for certainty (and security, lack of suffering and eternal life). Things we all have to face one way or another and humans are very adept at devising different strategies.

Thanks for your kind words. Science tells us about the world as it appears to us. Phenomenology tells us about ourselves and the ways we experience things. Philosophy of language tells us how we use language. Logic tells us what is valid and invalid in thinking.

The arts and religion show us how we can transform ourselves and our imaginative understanding of our experience. For what it's worth that's a very rough and ready guide to how I see things. Anyway welcome to the forum.

Perhaps we may add it with the idea that Nothing can lead to something greater than itself. — IP060903

How do you know that is true? It's possible that life and then consciousness emerged from nothing more than physical complexity. We just don't know, and probably never will. Logic cannot tell you it is impossible because there is no logical contradiction in the idea. On the other hand think of quantum physics; logic might seem to tell us that light cannot be both a wave and particle, and this does appear to be a contradiction, and yet it appears that light is both wave and particle. Logic cannot tell you what the nature of things is; it cannot tell you anything about the actual world.

To be metaphysical means to be outside the realms of the senses. — Joe Mello

The original meaning was "after physics" as that was Aristotle's book after his book Physics. Since then metaphysics as traditionally understood has been the "science" inquiring into the nature of reality, as opposed to the appearances studied by science. Logic is the study of valid thinking; so the two should not be conflated.

The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they? — Garrett Travers

Is it necessary to know what the brain is doing, neurally speaking, in order to know what we think and to assess whether or not it is rational? No amount of examination of neural processes, even if you could reliably equate them with specific trains of thought, would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert. Well, at least it doesn't seem possible to imagine any way that could be done, in any case. One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now. Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make.

A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would. — Hanover

Well, the difference there is that one is a matter of personal faith and the other is an example of bigotry. For a Mormon to threaten your job because you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet might be seen by a Mormon as being justified because that position is anti Mormon, but that conclusion would be unjustified unless you showed some signs of actually being against Mormonism, in which case you would be fired for bigotry, which I think would be justified, especially if the job in question were an administrative position in the Mormon church.

You’re trolling me.

The relationship between Metaphysics and Epistemology is a fine distinction.

Equating Metaphysics with Revelation is idiotic. — Joe Mello

I'm not trolling you. I gave you an argument and you return to me with an ad hominem and an unjustified rhetorical assertion, I assume because you cannot find a counterargument.

By the way, when I say "revelation" I am not referring specifically to biblical revelation, but to the kind of allusive revelation found in great poetry (of which the Bible is a sterling example).

Great poetry reveals ideas in ways that appeal to the aesthetic sensibility and the intuitive imagination, not to the discursive propositional intellect. That's what I'm talking about.

It seems that numbers are generalized extrapolations from ( mostly visually ) encountered objects of the senses. Over there to the right I see two lamps together and over there to the left I see one lamp by itself. And there further left I see one wood heater. What does it have in common with the lamps? There is only one woodheater just as there is only one lamp to the left of where I sit.

In my fruit bowl I see three oranges. What do they have in common with the lamps? Taken all together there are three lamps just as there are three oranges. We see number everywhere in the environment. We don't see numbers, we don't see abstract ones or twos anywhere. We have developed a system of symbolic numerals to represent numbers; our recognition of those symbols and their relation to the number that is everywhere in the environment is the closest we can get to seeing an abstract number.

I came here writing about a metaphysical principle and not about revelation

Haven't you realized yet that metaphysical principles do not find justification in logic or empirical investigation, and that they therefore have to appeal to revelation, that is they rely on rhetorical power to persuade?

To claim to have critical thinking skills is the first claim of every skeptic, not a proven reality from simply dismissing everything that can’t be mathematically or visually confirmed.

It has nothing to do with "proven reality". Metaphysical principles have to do with faith and groundless presupposition. If your critical thinking skills were up to par you would know that.

Qanon’s mantra is “do the research”.

Yes but it should be "do the "research"".

You have gravitated towards revelation in my posts for personal reasons, not because your critical thinking skills demanded it.

You know nothing about me and yet you impute "personal reasons". Again poor thinking skills are on display.

A basic metaphysical principle would be that “No two contradictory statements in the same sentence can both be true”.

Scientists couldn’t function without it.

No that's a basic logical principle; you're getting your categories mixed up.

But there are many more logical principles of ever-increasing elegance. A truly disciplined and talented intellect would be on the search for them, and would step by step from the most basic to the most elegant discover them.

You give no examples, so this is merely empty rhetoric.

When G. K. Chesterton became a scholastically trained academic, he said that doing so did not teach him what to think but how to think.

Today’s thinkers don’t even know the difference.

The irony! Here you are trying to tell us what to think. It seems you have not learned GK's lesson.

You are probably not going to convince anyone here of any metaphysical principles by argument. You would be better served to hone your poetical skills if you want to win converts. That's what really does the job in the metaphysical arena.

How convincing do you think G K Chesterton's works would be if he were not such a wonderful colourful wordsmith?

It astounds you that posters here are trying to analyze the situation from an objective perspective? Daring to look at both sides of what has been a complex ongoing issue for years? — Baden

I don't think the issue is all that complex; it's just the usual territorial wrangling. Of course there are two sides to look at. So what, I'm not partisan in this; both sides are wrong, but more so the initiator of actual war as opposed to merely the war of words and propaganda.

Sure there may be somewhat complex economic, cultural and historical factors underlying what's going on, but basically I see it as being just the same old stew, reheated, with a few different spices thrown in. And there is so much propaganda on both sides that opinions as to what is "really" going on regarding the detailed political subtleties, as opposed to the obvious actual events, are inevitably underdetermined in my view. Mostly it has to do merely with greed and ego on all sides, and big-headed politicians dragging their people into wars they don't want.

That underdetermination of reliable information is precisely why there are so many conflicting opinions about it. "They did this first". "No, they did". That's what it amounts to. But if you enjoy it, and it makes you feel good to think your opinion is of any consequence, have at it. I've expressed my opinion that it deserves little more attention than mere condemnation of both sides, which probably doesn't matter to you, but who cares, eh? Certainly not I. What the protesters around the world are doing is infinitely more important than what our little group of "know it all opinionisters" and their suites of competing "just so" stories about it are doing here in regard to this.

Or, threaten your job because you won't accept Joseph Smith as prophet? There is nothing different between any paradigm. — Garrett Travers

Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter.

:up: Yep, what astounds me in all this outpouring of (probably mostly poorly informed) opinion about moral culpability on one side or the other in this issue, is that the most salient point; namely that nearly all proactive military aggression ought to be unconditionally condemned, gets lost in the empty billows of hot air.