Addiction By Definition

I think the difference is making a decision vs. a reaction.Instinctual reaction = something you do as an impulse, something you don't use your brain in order to "choose" to do.
Decision = something you use your brain to choose to do. Although decisions may be 'impulsive' (made on little information) or 'fantasy based' (made on information that is not factual) - they are all still decisions that we choose - and we also choose when to make that decision... whether it's done on little information, or on information we know may not be verified against reality.That is, if you decide to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - it's still a 'rational decision' you're making... that is, you want to make this decision right away for whatever-reason-here (greed of short-term gain, desire of big-pay-out possibility...)If you are not deciding to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - then, obviously, it's not a decision - it's an instinctual reaction - a reflex.If "the Beast" is used to represent anything above an instinctual reaction (reflex) - then it's being used as a scapegoat for the decisions you're making. I think you're attempting to define "rational" to mean "every aspect of the decision is rational from beginning to end."
But that's not what a "rational decision" is meant to define - such a decision may not exist anywhere, anytime, on the entire planet.A "rational decision" is one where you choose one thing over another for a specific reason.Just because that reason is "greed" or "the possibility of a big pay out" doesn't mean you didn't "make the decision rationally."
It just means that you rationally-chose an irrational possibility.
It was still a choice - there's no such thing as a human reflex to put money in a one-armed-bandit and pull the lever.

That makes sense, Stile.

I asked the question, How can you lie if you're not rational?It's the rational mind that's doing the lying. The irrational mind doesn't necessarily enter into it at all.

There you go. "The Beast' is a rational voice.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Is it rational to get drunk often? Is it rational to gamble money that belongs in a retirement account or to give out as spare change? Is it rational to pursue a relationship with a beautiful stranger when you know that you only like her for how she makes you feel?We can rationalize anything. Rationalizing something does NOT make it rational or sound. Facts are facts. You may never be able to rationalize God (If God exists) and you may claim time and time again that without evidence it is impossible to prove God, but IF GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS Period. No evidence needed. As to why some people feel Him and some don't, I have no answer. Perhaps you could successfully argue that belief in God is not rational. I would have no argument there. (And why did I suddenly start talking about God again? Oh yeah...it is because you insisted that every well thought-out
argument contrary to rationality is itself rational. Edited by Phat, : added spiritual dynamicsEdited by Phat, : Beast Mode

Yes! Or an impulsive reaction, to be precise. I brought up religion. I want to focus on religion specifically as an addiction. I also want to discuss other addictions in our lives and elaborate on what you mention as decisions vs impulsive reactions.
Can You Be Addicted To Carbs? Scientists Are Checking That Out Two examples:

Going to the kitchen and grabbing a bag of chips or your favorite comfort food with no rational regard as to the caloric value, nutritional value, or actual need for such food at that point in time.

Attending a Billy Graham crusade and being emotionally swayed by the message and then impulsively choosing to step forward and receive the free gift from Jesus Christ.

Stile writes:

​

Decision = something you use your brain to choose to do. Although decisions may be 'impulsive' (made on little information) or 'fantasy based' (made on information that is not factual) - they are all still decisions that we choose - and we also choose when to make that decision... whether it's done on little information, or on information we know may not be verified against reality.

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has a magazine with the title of Decision. Some of you could successfully argue that the true name of that magazine should be called Impulse .

Stile writes:

​

That is, if you decide to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - it's still a 'rational decision' you're making... that is, you want to make this decision right away for whatever-reason-here (greed of short-term gain, desire of big-pay-out possibility...)

​

If you are not deciding to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - then, obviously, it's not a decision - it's an instinctual reaction - a reflex.

And yet in matters of faith, we may NEVER have enough information to make a rational decision.

...- such a decision may not exist anywhere, anytime, on the entire planet.

So we agree.

​

If "the Beast" is used to represent anything above an instinctual reaction (reflex) - then it's being used as a scapegoat for the decisions you're making.

I agree, and would even argue that "The Beast" by definition is impulse driven and not the calm patient approach employed by the NeoCortex.

​

A "rational decision" is one where you choose one thing over another for a specific reason.

Which is how I chose God rather than run the ship myself.

​

stile writes:

​

Just because that reason is "greed" or "the possibility of a big payout" doesn't mean you didn't "make the decision rationally."
It just means that you rationally-chose an irrational possibility.

Hence why I agreed that belief is irrational from a scientific perspective.

It was still a choice - there's no such thing as a human reflex to put money in a one-armed-bandit and pull the lever.

In the case of the bandit, it was more of an impulse based on Brainlock. Why would anyone ever willingly give a bandit any money?

---

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

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

Decisions are rational. OF COURSE it does. Rationalizing something doesn't make it right, or good. That's WHY we rationalize it. But the only way to rationalize anything is rationally. It's right there in the word. I can rationalize God... or leprechauns or Martians or ghosts or unicorns or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.Don't confuse rational with real. I think belief can be rational. But see above: Don't confuse rational with real. I don't think I did. First, a rational argument doesn't have to be "well" thought out; it just has to be thought out. Second, an argument can be rational without giving the right answer.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Correct. One does not require evidence in order to rationalize a strong internal feeling. The question then becomes whether or not that spark of divinity is the result of a decision or the "bad burrito" effects of an impulsive moment. I would cautiously agree except to say that reality needs to require evidence. I suppose that technically one could fall in love with unicorns. I have seen several people who collect the little iconic figures! Falling in love with a ghost requires a bit more mindful rationale. As to whether the Ghost (note the capital G) is real or not, we may never know on a societal objective level. Then again, it may have been meant to be that way.
One side says that without Faith it is impossible to please God. The other side may say that without evidence it is impossible to prove God. One may ask why we continue to debate and argue what is for many a foregone conclusion one way or another.(either pro or con) Why might you imagine that this is an ongoing subject amongst e old codgers? ThugpreachaThat's my brand. I trademarked it this morning and plan on making many videos.

But that is not the question we're discussing here. Whatever may cause that impulse, it is not the only influence on the rational mind. The rational mind often disagrees with itself, which is what I'm trying to tell you.

So then my next question would be:

Should the rational mind behave in such a manner? Would not evolution and the human quest for enlightenment seek to minimize such internal discord?
Would not our better impulses and long-range decisions tend to improve our cognitive development? In general, that is.

​

Is there a general consensus as to what constitutes rationality?

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

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

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

That's like asking, "Should humans be eight feet tall with x-ray vision?" Why not just stick with what is and not speculate about what "should" be? Certainly not. Evolution "chooses" what works. Having a variety of options is an advantage for survival. If Columbus had thought the "only way" to get to India was to swim the Atlantic, he would have been weeded out of the gene pool. Looking at history, it doesn't seem to work that way. With the President that you guys have now - and the people who voted for him - it looks like you (we) might well be headed backwards to another Dark Age. I think there is.And let me repeat, since you seem resistant to the idea, that rational does not mean right. Even Trump's supporters are rational, for the most part. It's hard to even say that their reasoning is wrong. It's their values that are messed up.

I think we're still very far apart on agreeing what "rational" means. I don't agree with either of these examples as an instinctual reaction.
An instinctual reaction, to me, is something that happens without choosing to do so - like pulling your hand back when it touches something hot. Or jumping up when someone pops a balloon behind you.But going to the kitchen and grabbing a bag of chips?
How is that done without choosing to do so?You may do it without regarding caloric value or what it may do to your body.
But you're still deciding to walk to the kitchen, get a bag of chips, and begin to eat them - no?Perhaps you do it "because I'm hungry and it's there" or "because I like the salty taste."
-These are rational decisions based on these desires.If you're hungry - why isn't it rational to eat what's there?
If you want salt - why isn't it rational to eat something that's salty?They are rational within their own context.They are also "not good for you."
But just because there's a negative aspect involved does not make the edecision "irrational."
It only makes the decision "irrational if you hold being healthy over eating-whats-there or eating-something-salty."
The decision being rational/irrational is judged depending on exactly why the decision was made and how it was made.That is, if "eating what's there" or "eating something salty" is a higher priority to you then "eating something healthy."
-Then it's entirely rational to eat a bag of chips.To push this point to the limit, try this:If you walk around your house 5 times in order to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster - this can be seen as "unproductive." And I'm sure some would even call it "irrational." - But what they mean is that this is "irrational in order to protect your house because fluffy jiggle monsters do not exist."But what if you didn't know that fluffy jiggle monsters didn't exist?
If you think there actually is such a thing as a fluffy jiggle monster, and that walking around your house 5 times actually will ward it off... Then it is a "rational decision" to walk around your house 5 times to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster. - Based on the information and experiences you have available to you (feelings count as "information.")It may not be rational to think a fluffy jiggle monster exists.
It may not be rational to think that walking around your house 5 times will ward one off.But if you do think/accept such axioms (regardless of the reason) - then, based on that information - it is a rational decision to decide to walk around your house 5 times to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster.Same thing with your Billy Graham example.Being emotionally swayed (or following peer-pressure) is a rational decision.
It may be based on false/incorrect/irrational information when regarding something else as a higher priority - but if you accept that information (the emotional power, or the peer-pressure power), and you decide to act on it regardless of other priorities - that is a rational decision.Neither of these can be considered "instinctual reactions." I think you're implying that "rational/irrational" is defined by being able to be verified/contradicted by factual reality.
But that's not what the word means.
It may be the "default context" used most of the time - but it is still only referring to a single context.
When used in such context - most people just leave off the ending in order to save time and everyone knows what they mean.That is, "rational" is sometimes used to short-form "rational when identifying factual validation."
But "rational" itself means: Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.Notice that there is no mention of "validated against factual reality" - because that is not actually mandatory in order for a decision to be "rational."
The "reason or logic" isn't necessarily factual with reality - like the fluffy jiggle monster - as long as it's reasonable and logical based on the available/accepted information - it's "rational." Again - not an impulse in the sense of an instinctual reaction.
This is a rational decision.People willingly give a bandit money in the hopes of a large payout.
This idea itself (if done over and over) can cause the brain lock - but it's still all rational decisions based on the reasoning of the accepted information ("I will win the big payout!")

I would argue that not all decisions are rational. Some are impulsive. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I would tend to label an animal brauin as impulsive and short sighted whereas a rational brain looks at the consequences both long range and in relationship to others.A child can rationalize having candy before dinner. So can an adult, but adults usually have more experience with such decisions and adjust their rationale accordingly. Anyone can want (or think they need) a drink of alcohol...but given the information available concerning the long range effects on the individual, the rational mind adjusts its choices accordingly whereas the animal brain plugs its ears.

I think you are oversimplifying things.Please understand that the following words all have their own definitions and do not necessarily overlap (although it happens on occasionRational
Instinct
Right
Wrong
True
FalseOnce you understand that a similar experience: "Feeling thirsty and choosing to drink some water" can easily be instinctual one time, yet a rational decision another... then you can proceed in this vein of thought.Without understanding that... you're simply a bull in an antique shop crashing towards the conclusion you've (somehow) already decided is correct.