The self, sleep and infancy

[nightbringer]

“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.” - Søren Kirkegaard

That's one difficult sentence.

[seer]

I hold beliefs because they are likely to be true (of course I could also make mistakes, but so can you) and because I'm determined to do so. You seem to believe that that its either-or for some reason you've never defended.

This isn't making sense. Why would their "likely" truth have anything to do with why you believe them? Do the underlying physical processes that determined your conclusions care about truth?

[Leonhard]

Do the underlying physical processes that determined your conclusions care about truth?

They don't have to "care" in order for them to be more likely to lead to true beliefs than other methods, anymore than arsenic has to "care" about death of human beings in order to be lethal. These methods 'reasoning', are better at arriving at true beliefs than irrational methods. This I don't think you'll disagree with.

[nightbringer]

This isn't making sense. Why would their "likely" truth have anything to do with why you believe them? Do the underlying physical processes that determined your conclusions care about truth?

A machine can take in data from the external world and based on its programming construct a "map" of what the external world is like. Now if the programming doesn't allow for infallible reality mapping, it might still be true that it constructs a map of how the world most probably is, based on the information given. This machine, while operating deterministically, constructs reality-maps ("beliefs") that are most likely to be true.

I don't think there is any problem with physicalism/determinism here (even if there is elsewhere).

[seer]

They don't have to "care" in order for them to be more likely to lead to true beliefs than other methods, anymore than arsenic has to "care" about death of human beings in order to be lethal. These methods 'reasoning', are better at arriving at true beliefs than irrational methods. This I don't think you'll disagree with.

Really? So you agree that you hold your beliefs not because they are true but because that is what the underlying non-rational process cause you to believe. Your beliefs are ultimately the result of non-rational processes. So these non-rational processes cause you to believe both true and false things - how do you know which is which?

[Leonhard]

So you agree that you hold your beliefs not because they are true but because that is what the underlying non-rational process cause you to believe.

No, I've already explicitly denied this. I even went to the trouble of formalizing your argument to show you where I think you're going wrong. Exercise that contra-causal free will you have and start arguing reasonable, instead of attributing things to me that I don't believe.

[Leonhard]

So these non-rational processes cause you to believe both true and false things - how do you know which is which?

Ideally they only cause me to believe false things, if I have bad information, or that I've made an accidental mistake. Its hard to come to the right conclusion from bad information, and accidents are unavoildable. And as for your question, if I interpret you right you're asking "Why is reasoning better than other methods of knowing", and I'd just refer you to the extant literature criticizing the postmodernism movement. And furthermore it'd be moving the goal post to start to argue about that. I'm dealing with the specific accusation you made about determinism making reasoning impossible. I've defeated it, you're attempting to rebut it, and I'm not gonna start discussing something else until you either agree (which you can, its something you can choose), or agree to disagree without argument, or give an argument that actually interacts with anything I've said rather than (ironically) mechanically restating the same things over and over in a predictable fashion.

[JimL]

Well no, I think thoughts, ideas, mental pictures, moral choices etc... are in the mind, they are the mind. They can't be separated - they are one in the same. It is in the end - what makes you, you and me, me. See Jim, I will go back to my original point - something is clearly going on here that can't be reduced to the physical. When I picture my dear mother you (or others) can see or map the active neurons - the physical. But the actual image only exists to me (non-physical).

But the mind for you is not just the thoughts, ideas, mental images etc. that emerge from the brain, the mind for you, if I am understanding you rightly, the mind for you is a thinking thing unto itself. So what is the mind, how do you distinguish it from these things that you believe to comprise it? If it emerges from the brain such as do thoughts, ideas mental images etc. how does it become an entity unto itself, how does it think?

[pancreasman]

But the mind for you is not just the thoughts, ideas, mental images etc. that emerge from the brain, the mind for you, if I am understanding you rightly, the mind for you is a thinking thing unto itself. So what is the mind, how do you distinguish it from these things that you believe to comprise it? If it emerges from the brain such as do thoughts, ideas mental images etc. how does it become an entity unto itself, how does it think?

And what does it think WITH? And how do these immaterial thoughts cause physical activity? Wouldn't this violate conservation laws of energy and momentum ... all the time?

[seer]

No, I've already explicitly denied this. I even went to the trouble of formalizing your argument to show you where I think you're going wrong. Exercise that contra-causal free will you have and start arguing reasonable, instead of attributing things to me that I don't believe.

Leonhard, let's keep this simple - for me. Do you have a choice in what you believe, or is it all determined?

[seer]

Ideally they only cause me to believe false things, if I have bad information, or that I've made an accidental mistake. Its hard to come to the right conclusion from bad information, and accidents are unavoildable. And as for your question, if I interpret you right you're asking "Why is reasoning better than other methods of knowing", and I'd just refer you to the extant literature criticizing the postmodernism movement. And furthermore it'd be moving the goal post to start to argue about that. I'm dealing with the specific accusation you made about determinism making reasoning impossible. I've defeated it, you're attempting to rebut it, and I'm not gonna start discussing something else until you either agree (which you can, its something you can choose), or agree to disagree without argument, or give an argument that actually interacts with anything I've said rather than (ironically) mechanically restating the same things over and over in a predictable fashion.

Well no Leonhard, I don't agree that a deterministic spitting out of information is "rational thinking" in any sense of the term - any more than I think that a computer spitting out 2+2=4 is genuine reasoning, perhaps you do.

Ideally they only cause me to believe false things, if I have bad information, or that I've made an accidental mistake. Its hard to come to the right conclusion from bad information, and accidents are unavoildable.

What is the "they?" What is causing you to have false or true beliefs? Do they care if you have true or false beliefs?

[seer]

But the mind for you is not just the thoughts, ideas, mental images etc. that emerge from the brain, the mind for you, if I am understanding you rightly, the mind for you is a thinking thing unto itself. So what is the mind, how do you distinguish it from these things that you believe to comprise it? If it emerges from the brain such as do thoughts, ideas mental images etc. how does it become an entity unto itself, how does it think?

Heck if I know Jim. I just know that something immaterial exists. If I knew all the answers it wouldn't be the mystery that it is.

[Leonhard]

Well no Leonhard, I don't agree that a deterministic spitting out of information is "rational thinking" in any sense of the term - any more than I think that a computer spitting out 2+2=4 is genuine reasoning, perhaps you do.

I know this is what you believe, you've stated multiple times before. I don't think you have good reasons for supposing this though, except a predisposition towards this kind of thinking. I also don't understand why you're not interacting with the arguments I've made. Which I've asked you to do several times. Are you a driveby poster Seer? You do seem to be a bit in a hurry. Perhaps you're a forum bot, you don't seem to be aware of anything I've written.

What is the "they?" What is causing you to have false or true beliefs?

Whatever underlying processes that constitute my thinking. And again you're assuming that they'll spit out random information, regardless of whether its true or not. The reasoning I employ, if given good information, is more likely to track less wrong beliefs (very few beliefs are 100% truth fitting). Its not a random thing. You're arguing against a strawman Seer.

Or do you believe that reason is less likely to produce true beliefs than other methods?

Do they care if you have true or false beliefs?

Again, why is this relevant? Does arsenic care if it kills a person? Does it have to 'care' to kill a person?

[Leonhard]

Leonhard, let's keep this simple - for me. Do you have a choice in what you believe, or is it all determined?

The answer would be yes (though not a contra-causal choice), and yes. Reasoning is deterministic (even if you have contra-causal free will), and it produces the right conclusions from the right premises. So there's no problems here. And in fact your question is a bit moot, I could in principle be a slave to reason. That would just mean that I didn't have the freedom of being wrong

[seer]

The answer would be yes (though not a contra-causal choice), and yes. Reasoning is deterministic (even if you have contra-causal free will), and it produces the right conclusions from the right premises. So there's no problems here. And in fact your question is a bit moot, I could in principle be a slave to reason. That would just mean that I didn't have the freedom of being wrong

Then that is not freedom in any sense of the word. You would in fact be a slave to the underlying physical processes that are NON-RATIONAL. So your "rationality" is ultimately based on, or produced by, the non-rational. Why on earth would we conclude that the non-rational could produce any thing but non-rationality?