|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
DeepaManjusha | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What Benefits Are Only Available Through God? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
What if your furnace doesn't come on when it's minus 40? It's a sign that it isn't working properly. I get twinges of conscience about things that probably weren't "bad' at all. The "purpose" of conscience is to prevent bad behaviour. If mine wasn't working I'd be worried.
I'll call the University and tell them they can shut down the Psychology Department.
Again... short-term versus long-term. You can't consciously decide to hold your breath for three years. Your body will send you little hints that it needs oxygen, just like your conscious should send you little hints about good behaviour. Conscious decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They have to operate on inputs and many of those inputs are unconscious. So claiming that you just do something because of a conscious decision doesn't explain anything. You might as well say, "God did it."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Who says I'm not worried? The idea we're talking about is why I do good things. Being worried about my conscience "working as ringo wants it to" is a concern... but really has nothing to do with why I do good things. Maybe I choose to do it this way because my conscience doesn't work as you would like. Maybe not. But it still seems irrelevant.
So, no answer. As I expected.
And again... regardless of how much my body wants to breathe in the long term, why I choose to hold my breath when I fully consciously choose to do so is of my own reasoning, and I am the best person to say why that happens. You seem to be running off down rabbit holes that have no effect on the topic we're discussing. I agree that I can't hold my breath for 3 years. I agree that I can sometimes get a long term twang in my conscience.
Just because unconscious inputs are a part of the equation does not mean they are the most significant factor, or even a significant factor. If you want to argue such a thing, you'll have to provide some support for it. Academics has been trying to determine such a thing for years now... their efforts are still inconclusive. If you have insight, please bring it forward. All such studies have concluded into the same general vagueness... that such things do not seem to be describable (yet) as well, what small insights we are able to describe seems to vary significantly from person to person. Some people rely more on unconscious behavior... others rely more on conscious behavior. Everyone seems to have their own varying levels. You can sit here and say otherwise all you want. Without showing something to support your statements... in the face of all the support I keep throwing at you that says otherwise... your statements continue to carry no weight.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
How do you decide what is "help" and what is "hurt"? If somebody asks me for spare change, I feel better if I give it to him than if I don't. Short-term I might think I'd rather spend it at Tim Hortons but long-term I feel better for giving it away. I've been told by people on this very forum that I'm not "helping" the person at all. So, if my conscious mind was working "as Stile wants it to", how should I decide what is help and what is hurt?
The answer that you missed was, "Every psychologist on earth is better equipped than you to figure out how your mind works."
And that statement is still just as empty as it always has been. "God did it."
How can you know it's irrelevant?
I'm just saying they're not "totally irrelevant".
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
I don't. I let the person-being-affected-by-my-actions decide.
The person asked for spare change. I would find it safe to assume they'll be happy if you give them spare change.
Then why is there no answer to the questions we've put forth here yet?
Ha ha. If "because I want to help people instead of hurt people" is the same as "God did it" to you... then I don't think I can convince you otherwise. I can't even imagine the thought process that would lead to such a strange conclusion.
Like I said, I can't. I don't know everything, and no studies in this area seem to come to any conclusions. Maybe the unconscious ways are controlling my every move, thought and "choice" and I just don't know it. And unless something starts to point in the direction of it becoming relevant... I think it's fairly safe to assume it isn't. I'm not trying to give an explanation for "everyone." I'm just giving an explanation for me.
I would agree with such a statement.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Huh? How is that you making a conscious decision?
Again, how is that me making a conscious decision? It's just, "Yes sir, sure sir, three bags full sir."
Tell that to the people on this forum who think I'm just fueling the panhandler's drug habit. In the short term I give them spare change because I know I will feel bad if I don't. In the long term, I rationalize that I'm giving them their dignity by not assuming they're liars.
It's a pretty simple thought process. You say yourself that sometimes the answer is, "Because." You're leaving a big empty space in the middle of the equation with, "Insert conscious decision here," but you're not explaining how that conscious decision is made. Hence, you're not explaining at all. We have the same problem with creationists all the time. They say, "That's just an assumption," but they don't understand that assumptions are based on something. You can't make conscious decisions in a vacuum. They have to be based on something. You're trying to tell us that it's just conscious decisions all the way down. You remind me of the Christians I know who are always saying, "God is leading me to...." God did it. Insert conscious decision here. You seem to be rationalizing about "helping" but you can't explain what helping is.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
I don't think you understand. Situation: A beggar asks me for extra money. Conscious decision: I want to help the beggar instead of hurt him. In this situation, "help" and "hurt" are defined by the beggar. Since the beggar is asking me for money, it's highly likely that the beggar will be happy if I give him some money. Therefore, I try to help the beggar by giving him money. Possible Result #1 - Beggar takes money, smiles, buys a sandwich and has a nice meal. He is thankful for me giving him money. Possible Result #2 - Beggar takes money, smiles, buys drugs, does drugs, wishes he didn't do the drugs, hates me for giving him the money. Possible Result #3 - Beggar takes money, smiles, buys drugs, does drugs, was happy he did the drugs, likes me for giving him the money. I think about these ideas in my head, consider them... consider the situation, take a look around, use whatever information is available to me at the time to make a fully conscious decision. Just because I do what someone wants doesn't mean I didn't make a fully conscious decision to do so. Perhaps if I got a bad feeling, or saw some previous results with the same beggar... I decide not to give the beggar any money. Again, depending on if this hurts or helps the beggar (as defined by the beggar) it could result in being a good or a bad thing. You seem to have an issue where if something can be explained in a way you perceive... then you assume that's the only way it can be explained. Taking 3 lefts gives the same result as taking one right. Just because a result is the same does not mean the path to getting there is also the same. Or are you trying to say it's impossible for anyone to ever make a conscious decision to give a beggar money? I think such a position is deeply flawed.
Tell them to come here, or one of my other morality threads. I'll tell them.
Wow. We really do have a huge disconnect on what's going on. I said sometimes the answer is "Because" when you get down to questions like "Why do we have feelings at all?" and "Why do we have consciousness at all?" These are epistemological questions that simply do not have answer right now. No one has answers here... we must use the answer of "because" here. Even you do. However, I absolutely do not use the answer of "Because" when I make a fully conscious decision. To conflate the two only goes to show just how far away your understanding of my explanation seems to be.
I've explained it to you every single time you've asked. If that's not a "conscious decision" and that's what you're calling "God did it" or "Because"... then every decision anyone ever makes is "God did it." It simply doesn't make any sense.
Again, not true.
I don't care what I remind you of. Such things are common.
"Helping" is subjective. It's defined by each and every one of us differently. Anything less would be declaring that my own personal subjective judgments are better than others' where others are concerned. Such a thing feeds back to my initial observation... that we are all "the highest authority" on our own feelings, where we are concerned.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I don't think it's impossible. I just think it's unlikely that it's as Spock-like as you describe. There's a lot of unconscious baggage on every "conscious" decision.
There's no such thing as a fully conscious decision.
No. Every decision anyone ever makes is partly conscious and partly unconscious. The God-did-it miracle is the omniscient consciousness that you claim.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 10672 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You did a good job with your three possibilities scenarios. The marines have a saying: Kill em all and let God sort em out. We could argue that if we help em all with spare change, God can still sort them out.... My only argument is what constitutes "spare" change. I don't have enough money to feed the streets forever. And that is a fully conscious decision on my part. Edited by Phat, : added point Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
I think this is where we disagree. I think there is such a thing as a fully conscious decision. It is no wonder that we are so far apart when we have a difference of opinion at such a basic level. From what I can tell, psychology hasn't been able to determine such a thing yet. In fact, psychology doesn't tend to use the term "decision" or "choice" at all. They seem to prefer the term "motivation." Although they seem to be discussing the same idea. There are many studies that show that most of the time we do not make use of conscious motivation. For a simple example, in Europe there are many countries with a large majority opting for organ donation upon death. What's the big difference? The way the option is presented on the card. This seems to heavily imply that the majority of people (and, perhaps, the majority of our decisions) are simply "go with the flow"-ish type default, unconscious behavior. But, of course, the "majority" is never 100%. So what of the few who do think about it and make their choice? Is it possible to ad-hoc some unconscious behavior reasoning to say that everyone has made an unconscious decision? I'm sure it is. I think so. I would define a fully conscious decision as this: A decision where the decision-maker has multiple options. They review and consider the possible futures depending on the options they have available to them. Out of those options, they pick the one they want. I think this can happen. Perhaps I am wrong. You are unable to show one way or the other, just as I am unable to. So, if your entire opinion on why my ideas are false simply falls back to the opinion that you think fully conscious decisions do not exist.
According to the same current science, you can't possibly know this either.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
To me, this is a separation of priorities. And I sometimes personally make the same separation. As I described above... giving spare change to the beggar (if the beggar decides they're helped by the spare change) would be a good thing. However, I (like you) have limited resources. This is where the word "justification" comes in. The way I see it... if not giving change to the beggar (as decided by the beggar) is a bad thing... then it's a bad thing. The beggar is the be-all and end-all decider on this issue. However, I may justify to myself, that it's okay for me to do this bad thing (not give the beggar money) if my limited resources do not allow me to. This is prioritizing. This doesn't make "not giving money to the beggar" a good thing. Nothing can change that other than the beggar's own resulting attitude. It just means that I do a bad thing, but justify for whatever-reason. Which then leads us to the next question: I leave such a judgment up to whoever wants to comment on the situation. I'm sure some will find it acceptable, and some will not. But such subjective things will always be different from person to person. We need to accept that such differences exist... not ignore them and call them something they're not. The entire point to "getting together as a society and working together" is to see what limits we each have and live by and see if they're compatible or not. Getting to the bottom of questions like this is much easier if we actually talk about things in the same way.. rather than brushing over complex issues and making broad, unhelpful claims like "oh... that's just wrong. Right? Am I right? Who agrees with me? 2 people! Okay! That's good enough for me!!"
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I would call that a "typical" decision - i.e. one that is not fully conscious. I can "consciously" choose chocolate ice cream over forty other flavours without having any conscious knowledge of why I prefer chocolate. I don't call that "fully conscious". Of course conscious motivations exist - but they're not the whole story.
I said that FULLY conscious decisions don't exist.
As far as I know, science and logic can not prove a negative - i.e. they can not prove that there is NO unconscious component.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
All of the change in my pocket is spare. The twenty-dollar bills are not. And I don't write cheques to panhandlers. If they start asking for twenties or cheques, I'll be in a quandary. Otherwise, I'm not.
It's more of a rationalization - convincing yourself that the wrong thing was the right thing. I do make a "conscious" decision NOT to be selfish. Unconsciously I'm selfish in the short-term but I know that in the long term I'll have a guilty conscience if I don't help somebody. Short-term biology versus long-term socialization. A large part of consciousness is being conscious (to some extent) of your unconscious. Ironically, the less conscious you are, the more conscious you think you are. The less you know, the more you think you know.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Why do you think "why I prefer chocolate" is required to be a fully conscious decision? Isn't the only data you require, in order to make a conscious decision, that you do indeed "prefer chocolate?" I mean, let's take the following possibilities: -God made you that way ...regardless of why you are that way... the data you have at your disposal is that you do "prefer chocolate." So why can you not have a fully conscious decision to choose chocolate based on the fact that you prefer chocolate? This is what I mean when I use the term "fully conscious." Do we have all the information? Of course not. But it's not needed. Let's say God made you to prefer chocolate. Now, you can choose to have chocolate, or vanilla. I would say that if you don't think about it... and choose chocolate, then you're not doing so "fully consciously." However, if you do think about it, and think about the fact that God made you to prefer chocolate, and you accept this sort of thing... and you understand that you certainly could choose vanilla in order to "spite God" (or any other reason, and perhaps you've done this a few times in the past...). ...incorporating all this information... if you still choose chocolate... you do not think this is a "fully conscious" decision? Is it impossible to consciously agree with a non-conscious urge? Again, these are questions that are not answered either way by the science. You can have the opinion that you cannot. But you cannot say that I cannot... just as I cannot say that you must.
And the science is still not up to the point where you can say this. This can only be your opinion. Unless you have something to back it up with that has escaped current psychology to this point?
But the science openly says that they are unable to show if conscious (fully or otherwise) decisions exist or not. You saying you can know such a thing is a baseless claim. Unless you can provide your own science or data to the contrary?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 14516 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
That's like saying the only data I need to decide who to vote for is, "I like his tie."
I didn't say it was impossible. The fact that we all do things that are bad for us is an indication that it doesn't happen very often.
If you follow a non-conscious urge, what difference does it make if you rationalize it later as a "conscious decision"?
Can science ever prove that there is no unconscious component?
I'm saying that as far as I know science can not prove that there is no unconscious component in decision-making. Are you claiming that it can?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3144 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Exactly. Just as I'm saying "because I want to help people instead of hurt people" is my conscious reason. You can think helping people instead of hurting them is not an "acceptable reason" for ringo. Just as you can think that liking a tie is not an "acceptable reason" for ringo. I would agree with you about the tie being unacceptable.
I fully agree with you here.
Not much difference at all. I'm saying that I make a conscious decision, that's all.
As of yet, it's unknown (becase the science isn't there). However, theoretically, of course this is possible. It is quite possible for science to prove that there is no unconscious component required in order to make a conscious decision. That's what I've been talking about. I'm not trying to say anything in some absolute knowledge sense. Proving a negative is not the only thing impossible for us in an absolute knowledge sense.
Not at all. I'm claiming what I've been telling you all along... that the reason I do good things is because I make a conscious decision to try and help people instead of hurt people.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018