Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
50 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, xongsmith (3 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,438 Year: 1,084/14,102 Month: 76/411 Week: 97/168 Day: 14/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conversations with God
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4432
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 91 of 126 (884481)
02-21-2021 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
02-21-2021 1:47 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Seriously, if you recommend a video but refuse to summarize what it says or even identify which part of it warrants your recommendation so that we can pay particular attention to that part of it, then you're basically informing us of your intent to deceive us. And why should we waste our time on something that you won't even represent with any degree of honesty?

Which does still inform us of all we need to know about your religion.

And besides, no bare naked links! Isn't that the policy on this forum? Plus bare links just plain violates standards of common decency. You have so much disregard for us, so how should you expect us to regard you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 02-21-2021 1:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16735
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 92 of 126 (884482)
02-21-2021 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phat
02-20-2021 3:57 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat, whenever I look at the videos you link to, I find problems and you refuse to discuss them.

Why should I think that this one is any better? Your refusal to say anything makes me think it’s more rubbish, and that you know it’s rubbish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 02-20-2021 3:57 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 02-22-2021 12:08 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5654
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 93 of 126 (884484)
02-21-2021 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
02-21-2021 2:05 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Reality will show you what all of the "evidence" that you worship has failed to do.

Just a little hint -- youtube videos are not reality.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-21-2021 2:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18878
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 94 of 126 (884490)
02-22-2021 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
02-21-2021 2:05 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:

professing yourselves wise, you are but fools.


Romans 22. That applies to everybody, though, doesn't it? Three fingers pointing back at yourself.

It isn't up to YOU to declare who is wise and who is foolish. Especially when your posting history is full of so much foolishness.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-21-2021 2:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4432
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 95 of 126 (884492)
02-22-2021 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
02-21-2021 3:55 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat, whenever I look at the videos you link to, I find problems and you refuse to discuss them.

That matches my experience with creationists, one in particular with whom I had an extended email correspondence.

In the experience, he would throw claims and "unanswerable question" challenges for me (basically, demanding that I provide him the entire chain of descent from "bacteria to blue whales" all while standing on one foot). However, in all that time he completely avoided my attempts to discuss his claims with him. Instead he would always change the subject, often by throwing yet another "unanswerable question" at me but also he would just simply run away.

Obviously, he didn't understand his own claims, which is why he was unable to even begin to discuss his own claims. He would hear a new claim which superficially seemed convincing so he would snatch it up and use it without any understanding. Then when anyone would try to discuss that "convincing sounding" claim with him, he was completely unable to do so.

That is a very common trait among creationists and believers in general. Another creationist on another forum I was on (until all the moderators had left except for one single creationist moderator who immediately became a tin-plated dictator) gave me an epiphany about that. After demonstrating to him what was wrong with his "ocean sodium" claim, I asked him why creationists continually use such unconvincing claims. He replied, "The only reason you find them unconvincing is because you are not yet convinced." Wow! So all they want is something that sounds convincing to them because it appears to support what they are already convinced about. Pure confirmation bias.

I used that to present a comparison between science and "creation science" and had since started to develop it into a page which is not yet completed: DWise1's Creation/Evolution Pages: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists .

So, obviously Phat chooses his videos because they superficially appear to support what he's already convinced of, even though he obviously does not understand them. So the reason why Phat refuses to discuss any of his videos is because he is incapable, because he doesn't understand them. That is obviously also why he refuses to tell us anything of what they say, because he does not understand it himself.

Which is truly sad for him, since discussion a subject is an ideal way to learn more about that subject and to give it much deeper thought. And like his golden opportunities to understand what atheists actually think, he's just pissing away this golden opportunity too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2021 3:55 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 02-23-2021 2:52 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4034
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 96 of 126 (884532)
02-23-2021 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
02-21-2021 2:05 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:

Reality will show you what all of the "evidence" that you worship has failed to do.

That's the power of evidence, though.

If Reality does actually show us... then at that moment it will become "evidence." Because that's what evidence is: Reality showing us what's real.

And then the "evidence" will show us we've been wrong...
...and those of us who follow the evidence will change and adapt.
...and those of us who do not follow the evidence but "believe" in the old-ways, will become just as ostracized as you're feeling right now.

Following the evidence will always lead to the correct answer.
It just may take some time.

Following beliefs will almost never lead to the correct answer.
It's just a lot faster.

When trying to identify reality... each situation will have it's own priorities on when we can be wrong, and when we need to take a reckless-chance and be fast.
It's up to our personal judgment abilities to pick and choose when we should use each one.

But that requires knowing the difference, and attempting to honestly judge when we should and should not use each method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-21-2021 2:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2021 3:55 PM Stile has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14967
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 97 of 126 (884541)
02-23-2021 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by dwise1
02-22-2021 12:08 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I have a friend who is, like you, very intelligent. He works at Ball Aerospace and designs various outer space stuff. (He helped design and build the Mars Global Surveyor) and one thing he likes to do with his spare time is argue with irrational people. Lately he has been having arguments with the flat-earthers. Yesterday we were talking about the arguments that his unlearned opponents make. You and he would likely see eye to eye.

I keep trying to convince him to become a believer in God and I will say that if he ever did consider it, it would be because of my credibility with him as much as any objective evidence which would be confirmed.

I get mad at you when you become irrational and I guess what Im mad at is that you don't agree. I never get mad at him, though. Perhaps I need to treat you more like i treat him.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 02-22-2021 12:08 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5589
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 98 of 126 (884542)
02-23-2021 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Stile
02-23-2021 11:17 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
But that requires knowing the difference, and attempting to honestly judge when we should and should not use each method.

So we can know quickly and most probably be wrong or we can get it right eventually.

What’s missing is the nuance of each choice.

On a short term basis where the stakes are minimal one can go stupid and wrong without too much hurt. The longer the term to decide then there is plenty of opportunity to let evidence guide us in the direction of reality.

The religious rub comes in those instances where the decisions are imminent and the consequences are fatal. Stupid and wrong doesn’t seem a viable option as history has already shown. Where hurt is concerned, even snap decisions must be evidence-based to the best of our incomplete understanding. Some priest saying some god is pointing to the promised land is no basis for decision-making when harm is concerned.

So, unless the decision to be made is as mundane as “what’s for lunch?” there actually is only one choice.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Stile, posted 02-23-2021 11:17 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4034
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 99 of 126 (884557)
02-24-2021 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by AZPaul3
02-23-2021 3:55 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
AZPaul3 writes:

So, unless the decision to be made is as mundane as “what’s for lunch?” there actually is only one choice.

Scenario #1: Think of a man in a cell who has lived his entire life in this cell.
There are no windows, but there is a door, and there's no lock.
Food is delivered, and all the man's needs are met.

Scientifically, how does the man leave the cell?
-there could be wonderful things to learn outside the cell
-there could be terrible danger awaiting outside the cell
-but, there is no need to leave the cell.

Without any data, the man can never, scientifically, learn or guess of "a need" for him to leave the cell.
Therefore, scientifically, the man awaits "more data."
Maybe this never comes.

But, using a belief-based method - the man could leave the cell at any time, for almost any imagined reason, even - believing it's "for the better."
Maybe he'll die.
Maybe not.

But - it is a much faster decision then waiting around for "more data."

I don't find this to be as mundane as "what's for lunch?"
To me - this is the decision for the man to be free - a very important, and life-changing choice (for me.)

We all judge things differently.
I find it better to make some decisions based on feelings (unscientifically.)
I find it better to make some decisions based on data and experience (scientifically.)

Many of my decisions based on feelings are more important than "what's for lunch?"
Some of the most important decisions in my life are based on my feelings -> like who I chose to pursue for a wife.
Other, very important decisions in my life, are based on science -> like who I get my mortgage for my house from, and what kind of rate I select.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2021 3:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 02-24-2021 1:34 PM Stile has responded
 Message 101 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2021 2:06 PM Stile has responded
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 02-25-2021 6:32 AM Stile has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 100 of 126 (884561)
02-24-2021 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
02-24-2021 12:26 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I don't see how that is a workable thought experiment. Are you saying that this person "believes" that he is better off leaving the cell? What is the basis for that belief? Aside from that, history is full of people that decide not to leave their comfort zone right along with people that venture out and take risks. Some for rational reasons, some irrational. Some are religious, some are not.

and all the man's needs are met

So I assume this cell also full of a society of other people? Human interaction is a pretty significant need. I am trying to think of an alternative scenario in which ones needs are met entirely but am coming up short atm. The only things that spring to mind are ancestral tales of early hominids that ventured into the unknown but even then, there was more than likely some sort of need to do so.

Stile writes:

Scientifically, how does the man leave the cell?

Why does he need to leave the cell if all his needs are met?

Stile writes:

Without any data, the man can never, scientifically, learn or guess of "a need" for him to leave the cell.
Therefore, scientifically, the man awaits "more data."
Maybe this never comes.

But, using a belief-based method - the man could leave the cell at any time, for almost any imagined reason, even - believing it's "for the better."
Maybe he'll die.
Maybe not.

It seems like you are saying there is no rational way to weigh pros and cons of relatively unknown actions and that the only way to do so is via blind faith or "belief". Is that accurate?

Stile writes:

But - it is a much faster decision then waiting around for "more data."

If this hypothetical person has all their needs met, what is the rush? If needs are a nonissue, therefor making time a nonissue, why do you suggest that it is better to rush to a hasty conclusion based on some belief than it is to wait for more data or some other outside factor that forces your hand?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:17 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5589
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 101 of 126 (884562)
02-24-2021 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
02-24-2021 12:26 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I don't like the analogy. No one lives in a cell free to leave but refuses to do so unless there is a damn good reason.

But I'll give it to you.

For whatever reason our poor monk decides to finally have an adventure, whether from curiosity or boredom, you can be sure he won't be barging through the door at full tilt. He's been in that cell forever. He has no idea how to conceive of anything outside his cell, outside his life's experience. He will step carefully, looking, listening, feeling, gathering info and forming an idea about what may be ahead

We're dealing with human beings here not robots. In situations of the unknown humans are afraid of their own shadow. He will not close his eyes, imagine himself protected by the shield of god, and rush out to see what awaits, unless he's already a demented religious moron with no critical thinking skills. Again the analogy fails.

He will slowly explore, acquire data and assess what he has found.

Evidence-based information has already given him the idea that there is a "beyond" the door. Evidence-based information has already informed him that there is someplace outside his cell where his food comes from. Either curiosity or boredom, neither of which are faith-based phenom, will send him onward to explore, not some god voice.

He will decide whether to stay or go based on the reality of the evidence around him, that he knows there is something beyond and he has the curiosity (not a belief-based phenom) to go see ... or not.

Some of the most important decisions in my life are based on my feelings -> like who I chose to pursue for a wife.

While your emotions are certainly strong and seem front and center in your decision making, if you look at the details you'll find that the emotion is conjured by the reality. You may not have noticed it but I assure you there was a whole lot of evidence gathering and fact assessment that went into that choice.

A for instance of the subtlety involved from my own wife-selecting experience. One of the big evidence-based facts that helped me decide was the fact that she was female. That helped a lot.

I assure you the same fact-based assessment, along with thousands of other small evidences, are the actual basis for your emotion and your decision.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4034
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 102 of 126 (884564)
02-24-2021 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by hooah212002
02-24-2021 1:34 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
hooah212002 writes:

Are you saying that this person "believes" that he is better off leaving the cell?

No.

I am saying there is no scientific reason for him to leave the cell.
There are, however, belief-based reasons (if he is so inclined.)

So I assume this cell also full of a society of other people? Human interaction is a pretty significant need.

Not for everyone. Some people prefer to be alone.
For the purposes of this thought-experiment, consider that he has no "need" to leave the cell.

He may "want" to - but this is not scientific.
He may not want to - which is fine, too.

But if he did want to - then it would not be scientific to do so.

He may find wonders beyond his imagination outside.
Or he may die immediately.

The point isn't that "belief is better."
The point is that "choices based on belief can be for things more profound than 'what's for lunch?'"

Why does he need to leave the cell if all his needs are met?

He does not need to leave the cell.

But, if he wanted to - that decision would not be scientific. That's the point.

It seems like you are saying there is no rational way to weigh pros and cons of relatively unknown actions and that the only way to do so is via blind faith or "belief". Is that accurate?

I'm at least saying I can't think of another way.

If the pros and cons are relatively unknown - how can you make a rational decision?
My point is that this is an irrational decision, and it is for something (according to me) more profound than "what's for lunch?"

If this hypothetical person has all their needs met, what is the rush?

There is none.
But, if he wants to go outside, and waits for a rational reason to do so - then he will be waiting for a very, very long time.
If he wants to go outside, and does so because he feels like it - then he can leave immediately, it's just not a scientific decision.

why do you suggest that it is better to rush to a hasty conclusion based on some belief than it is to wait for more data or some other outside factor that forces your hand?

In an objective sense - I tried not to suggest it at all.
In my own personal sense (that I would not want to be in a cell) - I find it very important to choose to leave, unscientifically.

My point isn't that belief-based-decisions are important.
My point is that belief-based-decisions can be for important things.

Just as scientific-based-decisions can be for stupid things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 02-24-2021 1:34 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by hooah212002, posted 02-24-2021 4:20 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4034
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 103 of 126 (884565)
02-24-2021 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AZPaul3
02-24-2021 2:06 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
AZPaul3 writes:

He will slowly explore, acquire data and assess what he has found.

I completely agree.
And this completely proves my point.

If all belief-based decisions are no more important than "what should I have for lunch?" then the expansion of our knowledge cannot begin from "curiosity's sake."
Because curiosity is belief-based (a feeling.) It is not scientific.

Either curiosity or boredom, neither of which are faith-based phenom, will send him onward to explore, not some god voice.

1. Perhaps not.
Some people would not be curious or bored in such a situation. Some people would be perfectly content, perhaps even happy, and never-ever even want to go through the door.

2. I do agree with this statement.
Which leads me to believe we are both dealing with a false dichotomy.

Boredom and curiosity are not faith-based ("religious") ideas.
Neither are they scientific.

They are feelings.
Some of us will have them, others will not. And there will be a spectrum of them occurring at varying degrees.

My main point was the issue of saying "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" This is, easily, not true.
I will happily concede that "religious" decisions are not the other-side of this coin.
But perhaps the other-side is decisions based on feelings/instincts? Which I think "religious-decisions" could easily fit into the "based on feelings" pile.

And there are, certainly, decisions based on feelings that are very, very important.

Of course "importance" is in the eye of the beholder - but, in general, it should be fairly easy for someone to identify a decision-based-on-feelings (for most people) that would be very important. Like who to choose to spend time with during leisure-hours. I'm not saying such decisions "must be" based on feelings and "must be" important... but it should be easy to see how they "can be" based on feelings and "can be" important.

Which is enough to show that "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" is a silly position to hold on to.

He will decide whether to stay or go based on the reality of the evidence around him

Maybe.
Maybe he will decide whether to stay or go based on a feeling of panic or insecurity.

But, it doesn't matter... even if all the decisions he makes after opening the door are scientific... the decision to open the door itself is not scientific. And it's important (or, at least, I think it is.)

While your emotions are certainly strong and seem front and center in your decision making, if you look at the details you'll find that the emotion is conjured by the reality. You may not have noticed it but I assure you there was a whole lot of evidence gathering and fact assessment that went into that choice.

Decisions-based-on-feelings can coincidentally agree with a decision-based-on-factual-evidence.

However, they are two different things.
The decision-based-on-factual-evidence is always the same - for everyone.
The decision-based-on-feelings is (possibly) different for each person.

It is possible to determine what kind of decision we are making.

I think there are important decisions that should be made scientifically.
I think there are important decisions that should be made based-on-feelings.
Therefore, I think it's important to be able to determine the difference and identify what we're doing, and when.

Personal mileage may vary.

AZPaul3 writes:

I assure you the same fact-based assessment, along with thousands of other small evidences, are the actual basis for your emotion and your decision.

My wife is also female.
Although, I assure you, for me, I did not choose my wife because she is female.
I chose my wife because of how I feel when I'm around her. Her being female was not part of the decision.
If a male made me feel the way my wife makes me feel... and my wife happened to make me feel the way most males make me feel... then I would not have chosen to pursue my wife.

My choice was based on my feelings.
Not the scientific fact that I'm a male and she's a female.

Is there a scientific reason for me to have those feelings?
Of course there is.
But there's no scientific reason for me to choose to make my decision based on those scientifically-derived feelings rather than going with the scientific decision.

This idea is muddy when talking about my wife - but clear when talking about the man-in-the-cell.

Let's say the man-in-the-cell feels boredom.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to feel boredom?
Of course there is.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.

1. Scientifically, the man will not have been bored the entire time he's in the cell.
Therefore - boredom has left him before.
Therefore, scientifically, he should do the same thing and the boredom will pass.

2. How is the man to know, scientifically, that opening the door will release his boredom?
It's just as likely that the door leads to a boredom-inducing-wall as it is that the door leads to a paradise of wonders.

Just because the feeling can be explained scientifically does not mean that deciding to do something based on the feeling makes it a scientific decision.

If that were true.. then all decisions would be "scientific" and you just made "licking your shoe" a very scientific thing to do when attempting to fly an airplane.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2021 2:06 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2021 9:55 PM Stile has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 104 of 126 (884566)
02-24-2021 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Stile
02-24-2021 3:17 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
For the purposes of this thought-experiment, consider that he has no "need" to leave the cell.

It seems as though neither of us can actually do that because obviously, his curiosity is a need that cannot be met else we wouldn't be discussing the prospect of his departure from this cell. And if it is his curiosity that is the driving factor for his departure, then that is precisely scientific. "I wonder what happens if I do this" is not a phrase I am inclined to associate more with a religious person or some other person that values belief to such a degree.

But if he did want to - then it would not be scientific to do so.

Everything is evidence to some degree so I'd posit that simply the act of being cognizant of your surroundings and using that information when coming to a decision automatically makes it a scientific approach. Does this person just suddenly get some mysterious urge yet is prohibited from investigating his surroundings? Does he never jiggle the door handle? Is there only complete silence? How does he get his food? Is he a vegan so he just has some grow lights and seeds? In the absence of EVERYTHING else, all these little things add up to some sort of evidence, albeit extremely circumstantial, and while I admit that I view faith and belief akin to putting on a blindfold and covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU", I doubt that you feel similarly. So the idea of some human person being completely isolated and locked in a cell while also having ALL their needs met is a completely foreign concept because to make it work, you need to assume supernatural shit. Or maybe I am just extraordinarily thick and terrible at thinking conceptually.

My point is that belief-based-decisions can be for important things.

I am not coming to that conclusion from this example. Further, I don't agree that it is evidence that just because you can make important decisions based on belief (or faith), you should. If this person is a loner and all his needs are met, of what importance is leaving this cell? is it important to him? Or is it important to us because, as outside agents, we know what he is missing out on?

I apologize for getting hung up on this hypothetical if it derails the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:17 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 8:56 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5589
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 105 of 126 (884570)
02-24-2021 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Stile
02-24-2021 3:40 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Because curiosity is belief-based (a feeling.) It is not scientific.

What is this scientific? You mean fact-based decision making?

Remember we're talking about decisions here. How do we decide?

No one is going to go through reams of paper drawing flowcharts of decision trees to decide whether to punch a nazi in the nose. Yes, you always punch the nazi in the nose. Besides, the smart kids these days use computers to draw those things.

If curiosity is in our monks brain then that is a fact that will impact his decision. If boredom is there then so that too will impact his decision. If sedentary rut is in his brain .. well you get the picture. Stir well.

He may not sit down and methodically mull each pro and con but he will be deciding based on the facts he knows already and the options open to him. Either that or he is just a brain-dead trappist monk and he isn't even thinking on the question.

My main point was the issue of saying "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" This is, easily, not true.

I hope that is not a point of contention. Important decisions should be based on the facts presently at hand. And that includes all attendant emotions, conflicting and reinforcing, that may have any impact.

Even though all emotions, all feelings, carry an actual factual stream of experience that created it, using that feeling as your decision guide is folly. Not only do facts differ between people, their reactions, their emotional responses can differ with known facts.

Emotions, feelings, are too different between people to be effectively used in group situations. Making group decisions on emotion and feelings has historically been not such a good idea. Understatement.

Like who to choose to spend time with during leisure-hours. I'm not saying such decisions "must be" based on feelings and "must be" important... but it should be easy to see how they "can be" based on feelings and "can be" important.

As far as it goes, yes, but you have already pre-decided in a very fact-based decision-making way, who and what and where are important to you. You don't get friends because you emoted one up. You get them by long term building of agreeable and pleasant interactions (facts) between you. Then you can drink beer together. Or wine. A nice chardonnay.

The same with the place and time when planned right. All the facts of past interactions manifested as feelings of "yeah, this is right."

However, they are two different things.
The decision-based-on-factual-evidence is always the same - for everyone.
The decision-based-on-feelings is (possibly) different for each person.

Uhh, no. For personal decisions the facts differ for each person in each situation. For larger more important decisions, especially those exposing great harm, the facts must be ascertained and separated from the feelings. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.

But it does provide him a fact (his boredom) to enter into his decision. How bored? Enough to walk out the door? No? That is a determination of fact. Now add in curiosity. How much of that is he feeling. Another fact.

Bring it all in, Stile.

He knows there is something there. Is he curious to see what? Is he bored stiff and wants to go do something? Is there anything important keeping him here? Not airline fare but the food's not bad so there is that.

He has no choice. He has no option. His brain, capable of curiosity and/or boredom, has a mental facility to think about what he knows and what he feels.

In this analogy both will enter his decision making. It is personal. It affects no one else and is of no consequence whether he comes or goes. Yet, still, all our poor monk has to go on are a miserly collection of facts clouded by emotion.

As you have said it is not the decision that is important here but the method used. I submit poor monk has little option, if contemplating walking, cautiously, out the door but to assess the facts including his own personal emotional headspace. Taking ALL the facts in evidence.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.

Yeah, there is. The fact of his boredom. That's all it takes to open a door.

2. How is the man to know, scientifically, that opening the door will release his boredom?
It's just as likely that the door leads to a boredom-inducing-wall as it is that the door leads to a paradise of wonders.

He doesn't know. That's where curiosity and the hermit "I like my food" instinct come in. Additional facts to add to the decision tree.

Yes, it would appear as if Brother Monk was deciding based solely on his emotions, his feelings. but in going through his factual analysis he finds that his curiosity is the most compelling reason to open the door.

And I will disagree that curiosity is an emotion or feeling. It is mental attribute of humans, like boredom, not an emotional feeling but a characteristic human trait.

Is there a scientific reason for me to have those feelings?
Of course there is.
But there's no scientific reason for me to choose to make my decision based on those scientifically-derived feelings rather than going with the scientific decision.

This idea is muddy when talking about my wife - but clear when talking about the man-in-the-cell.

Because it's a muddy concept all around. When we decide we decide based on the data with all the emotion built in. For personal innocuous decisions that is fine. For anything more, anything involving others or harm to others requires clearer (read unencumbered by personal emotions) adult level responsible thinking.

I'm not done with your wife. I like your wife.

If she is pleasant to be around, why is that so? It is because of the demonstrable fact that she responds to you and you to her, you both finding the interaction pleasant. The interactions are real, physical and emotional. Those are your facts in evidence.

No, you did not fall in love just because love was in the air and you had some emotional feeling. Like every other interface between humans your feelings are but the end product of a large stream of observations and interactions. You fall in love, Stile, because of the thousands of little reinforcing acts each adding up over time to manifest as togetherness, intimacy, love. These may be emotions but they did not arise from the aether. They arose from the facts.

You may think you fell in love because, well, love exists somewhere out there and you were lucky enough to have some of it sprinkle into your eyes, when in fact you fell in love because of a gazillion little factoids your subconscious mind has been tallying up like the Banana Boat song.

I disagree totally. You made a fact-based decision when you bent your knee to that girl. Congratulations.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : How many typos do I gotta get? Why can't I just not see them?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : ende. Kapoot.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:40 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:08 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021