Addiction By Definition

We? *Looks Around* There is only I in the room.

This is not rocket science. If the rational mind can override the repltillian brain - or not - then the rational mind is of two minds.

If that was true, you'd be talking to yourself. Since you're not, don't try to be cute.

Hi Phat. I'm not surprised u began such a thread I always saw u as the wisest and most open person in here.
How have u been anyway? Thought I'd just say hi.Thought ud be interested to here I'm no longer agnostic.
I'm a theist now I guess but without the bible though I still adhere to its morals.
It's complicated. LoLIn to they say that God is undefinable which is what I kinda think.
I don't know about bible stories and their literal applications.
I just feel there is a greater power.Psychedelic drugs like DMT, shooms and Ketamine gives a person much to think about if they have enough of it to break into this other dimension. Quite easy to blow off as "drugs" and dismiss these vision's to those who haven't experienced it.But drug addiction is very much like mental illness. Our knowledge is so limited. I see drugs on campus daily and try my best to stay away.
I have a sweet spot for these mind expanding psychedelics that take u to places your mind cannot possibly conceive. Then make us return like Greek philosophers.DMT and Kay has been used on mentally ill patients interestingly. Also interesting to look at what Portugal did in their radical approach to drug addiction.Actually I'm a lot like Jordan Peterson now.
A large umbrella on the subject of God and morals as not to fall into dogma. I can see how Sam Harris and some others find him frustrating cos his illmatic. Not fixed. Especially seeing Sam is up for a fair discussion.I'm still at school. Love physics as applied on earth. Isaac Newton number 1 genius man forever in my book. Da Vinci and Tesla make up my top 3. Karl Popper i still love with his no bullshit approach. Einstein would be 5th.Astrophysics I'm afraid is lost in space but and has regressed in to the same kind of story telling rhetoric as other theoretical sciences have with this multiverse theory or hypothesis taken out of Darwinism.So ye even less respect for the theoretic sciences I have now. They don't represent the applied sciences I work in. We, along with other practical branches in science, including Biology are moving to branch away from theoretical science at my school.
We don't want to be associated with such bs artists.
If u can replicate the universe in a jar then uv got something. If u can create life from nothing then uv got something. Till then just keep spinning.I still love thinking about philosophy and religion but and it's visible impact on society.Anyway. Plenty there for the atheists to cry about still... lolHere is a question. Why do Christians pray to humans like St Peter and the Virgin Mary when it's defying the first 2 commandments.And wassup with Mary? Won't love her husband and won't allow her husband to love her while he works and supports for her and this child that isn't his. It actually goes against the Christian concept of a family for anyone to remain a virgin. She is supposed to submit to her husband the bible says. True?Anyway Phat man keep on punching.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Thre are two of us in the room. I and It. *Tag*...YOU are It! Seriously though, the addictive voice theory has a lot of common sense attached to it. The question is whether my rational mind adopts the role of I or whether my addictive voice seizes "it" as another easy cure.

The problem is that your rational mind has two opinions - it may or may not listen to your addictive voice.

I believe that you meant to say options rather than opinions. My rational mind has but one opinion.

Either way will do. I hope that isn't true. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

"It" is my addictive voice.

That seems to contradict what you've been saying all along. You've been drawing a false dichotomy of "rational" mind versus "animal" mind. I've been trying to point out that your rational mind often has - and SHOULD have - two or more opinions of its own.

Let's think about this for a moment.I perused the internet (often addicted thinking as opposed to rational) with the hope that I could find a source that could corroborate what I am trying to say. The Reptilian Brain could never hope to do this!
Rational Thinking As A Process

quote:

---

...When we see a juggler effortlessly tossing oranges in the air, we fail to appreciate the first stumbling efforts and the hours of practice that laid the groundwork for that proficiency. The same holds true for expert critical thinkers. All experts started as novices”struggling with basic concepts, questions, and issues”as they developed the thought processes that would help them make sense of things. The problem is that by the time they have achieved their expertise, many of those thought processes have become so automatic, internalized, and implicit that the experts have difficulty explaining explicitly how they think.
Imagine learning to drive without guidance. What if you didn't know what constituted good driving? What if you had no model for how to drive, how to start a car, how to put the car in gear, and how and when to brake? How many of you would put your 16-year-old behind the wheel without providing any driving instruction, either formally or informally? Yet a similar situation occurs when our children are expected to think rationally. Furthermore, who taught us the basics of rational thinking? Where did we learn to arrive at sound conclusions? How will our children learn?

​

The main reason that rational thinking is not addressed in the same way as learning to drive, write, or play a sport is that it has been treated primarily as an invisible process. It hasn't been regarded as something that can be broken down into a series of actionable steps. The focus in a thinking situation is typically on gathering the inputs”information, data, and opinions”not on how to organize and analyze them. Consequently, rational thinking has been an invisible process. People arrive at conclusions, but they don't know too much about how they get there. What are the unintended but real consequences of allowing thinking to be an invisible process? Here are a few:

​

We are forced to learn about thinking through trial and error”an inefficient and often costly way to learn. Without an understanding of what constitutes good thinking, we cannot proactively critique and improve own thinking. We are forced to assess our success after the fact.
We are limited in our ability to teach others to think rationally. If we do not clearly understand the process of thinking, how can we help others improve their thinking? What do we teach?

---

Now, the RR people claim that a rational mind stems from essentially the neocortex and that an addictive voice and tricky deceptive survivalist type of thinking (sex addict, for example) stems from the "Reptile Brain" or the Limbic System, or the Old Brain. They have precise terms for it in their course, but Jack Trimpety is hardly the final word on it. I'm no scientist so perhaps some of you could help me clarify my point or elaborate as you board my train of thought and chug through the canyon.

It need not be. A Theist is basically a believer. Belief eliminates (or can eliminate)the need for evidence. Most atheists, secular humanists, and agnostics do not classify themselves as believers because they have chosen to require evidence for any spiritual claims, spaghetti monsters, leprechauns or Men claiming that God talks to them. Does this feeling come from your rational mind or is it simply a warm fuzzy addiction? I used to do shrooms with my buddies back in the day. (Thankfully 30 years + I fondly recall the effects. Not that I would experiment today! I have enough challenges eating healthy, avoiding pornography, and staying away from that funny machine where you pull the lever! Sometimes I think I'm evolved from Pavlov's Dog! In addition, keep in mind that Plato and Aristotle never had the internet! I think that giving them a smartphone would dull their intelligence rapidly, however. Quick question. No offense, P&C, but do you google this stuff when you are stoned? I recall that when I ingested LSD or Shrooms I couldn't even watch TV much less understand my brain. I was my own guinea pig. I've seen the name pop up here and there but am unfamiliar with him. Does he know anything about addictions? My current favorite is Matt Dillahunty. Faith rolls her eyes and grabs a crucifix whenever I dare to question the Calvinistic Tablets brought down from the Mountain (near Kentucky). I refuse to be addicted to religion, though my addictive voice often speaks for Him and I plug my ears whenever jar tells me (used to tell me) to Throw God Away. Me too! ringo is today's guest lecturer. If he starts spinning, I might look over at you and ask if someone spiked the water cooler! Top 5? What are these names the top of? We were discussing religion and addictions. On a side note, notice how occasionally our brains are all over the map. Follow my train of thought regarding addictions. We? Am I or the class here at EvC part of this group construct? And which brain is talking right now? Our rabbit just ran off the trail. Why did I use to trick myself into saying that I never spent money on gambling? I just invested it in a dream. God was supposed to somehow magically chain the inner workings of the random number generator that printed the tickets!My Addictive Voice never learns! Edited by Phat, : added video

I don't see where you've addressed this point at all.Have you heard of the Supreme Court? They can deliver a dissenting opinion along with the majority opinion. Hopefully, both opinions are rational.

Perhaps that's why God has both Jesus and The Holy Spirit on the committee.
The majority opinion always wins, but there is always a third opinion that may see it from a different angle.

That's a good thought. It may explain why God's mind could be changed from time to time in the Old Testament.