Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Secular Morality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
    Thinking something through, considering options, does not require language.
    So your mind is blank? How do you think without language? You think of nothing?

    If I'm considering a course of action for something else, say a move in a game, a martial arts move in a sparring practice, whether I have space to make a turn in my car, or any number of other things I am reasoning, but absolutely not using language to do so.
    Yes, some things are instinctual or intuitive. Or just second nature.


    Why is our being in first place relevant?
    It points to the fact that we are different.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer
      So your mind is blank? How do you think without language? You think of nothing?
      It's not blank. It's processing the data from my senses and coming to a conclusion on a course of action. This doesn't require language. For an extreme example, think of feral children who never learned language. They are still able to problem solve.

      Originally posted by seer
      Yes, some things are instinctual or intuitive. Or just second nature.
      I don't have any sort of Kung Fu instinct, let alone one about driving which I only started to do within the last year. Everything I listed is an example of activities where complex actions need to be decided upon very quickly and contain a varying level of uniqueness in a given set of circumstances.

      Originally posted by seer
      It points to the fact that we are different.
      In a word, duh. Why is it relevant?
      Last edited by Jaecp; 05-29-2015, 12:49 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
        It's not blank. It's processing the data from my senses and coming to a conclusion on a course of action. This doesn't require language. For an extreme example, think of feral children who never learned language. They are still able to problem solve.
        Sure, my dogs problem solve. But this looks like simple instinct or intuitive behavior. But if your mind is not thinking in language then what is it thinking with? If it is not blank, then what is in it?

        In a word, duh. Why is it relevant?
        Good, so you agree that we are different.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          . . . if your mind is not thinking in language then what is it thinking with? If it is not blank, then what is in it?
          I tried to think back of what my thoughts were when I was engaged in playing chess. I had a mental image of a knight making a jump to the left and forward, then examining the effect that had on the chess game. Unless I misunderstood what you, seer, mean by language, I think I was thinking logically using only mental "video"--no language.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Sure, my dogs problem solve. But this looks like simple instinct or intuitive behavior. But if your mind is not thinking in language then what is it thinking with? If it is not blank, then what is in it?
            Truthseeker has it in one. Even if we don't count the unconscious mind (different from instinct) and stick completely to frontal lobe stuff its entirely possibly to think visually or with other senses.


            Originally posted by Seer
            Good, so you agree that we are different.
            Everyone is different. Everything is different. Why is that relevant?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Jim, I still don't know what you mean by "reason." When I reason I think through a problem, and that takes language. We all can act instinctively or by intuition, giving little or not thought to act. But actual reasoning is something else.
              Apparently you were taught this, but if you actually think it through then you will see that language is not a necessary ingredient to reason. For example, the raven in the experiment that I linked to, assuming for the sake of argument that he can reason, does not need to know the names of the objects involved in order to understand the relationships between them in order to solve the problem. Language in this case would be secondary, though unnecessary to a reasoned solution.




              If by evolution you mean that it all came about by random chance with no intelligent guiding - then no.
              Well, that is a different question which science, so far as it goes, answers in the affirmative. You can believe that the science is wrong of course, and there is always the possibility that you are right, but unlike science such a conclusion is based on presupposed belief, not on evidence.



              I will ask again Jim, do you know how the raven goes mentally from A to B to C to get to the desired end? And do you "think" without language? Tell me what that is like.
              We don't know exactly seer, we don't even know exactly how our own brains function, but we have a good idea that what we call reason is exactly what the raven is doing by examining his behavior. And as I and others have explained, you don't need language in order to make logical judgements. The raven doesn't need to know that a rope is called a rope in order to recognise how he can utilise it.
              Let me quote from Tass' link again, which presents an inherent problem, that I believe is insurmountable:



              That is why the mind of any animal will remain a black box.
              True, animals can't report their level of intelligence, which is why we observe their behavior. Dolphins as well as other animals can't report to us their self awarness either, but by watching their behavior in the mirror test we are able to see it for ourselves. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post


                If by evolution you mean that it all came about by random chance with no intelligent guiding - then no.
                Unless you accept the reality of evolution and natural selection, for which there is overwhelming evidence, then you’ll fail to understand the argument.

                Evolution is defined as (in biology) “a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them. See also natural selection.”

                Nothing about “intelligent guiding”, what’s your evidence of this?

                Let me quote from Tass' link again, which presents an inherent problem, that I believe is insurmountable:
                More cherry-picked quoting. Please link back to the link in question so it can be assessed in proper context.

                Originally posted by Jaecp View Post

                Everyone is different. Everything is different. Why is that relevant?/QUOTE]
                In seer's world humans are “different” because they’re made in God's image and unique…with dominion over all creatures. Therefore no amount of evidence, regardless of how conclusive, will convince him that we are merely highly intelligent evolved primates.

                Originally posted by JimL View Post

                True, animals can't report their level of intelligence, which is why we observe their behavior. Dolphins as well as other animals can't report to us their self awarness either, but by watching their behavior in the mirror test we are able to see it for ourselves. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat!
                Exactly right. We can infer from observation and induction that it is overwhelmingly probable that many creatures, especially among our fellow primates, are capable of abstract reasoning and arriving at goal-directed conclusions.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Apparently you were taught this, but if you actually think it through then you will see that language is not a necessary ingredient to reason. For example, the raven in the experiment that I linked to, assuming for the sake of argument that he can reason, does not need to know the names of the objects involved in order to understand the relationships between them in order to solve the problem. Language in this case would be secondary, though unnecessary to a reasoned solution.
                  Jim, then what the Raven is doing is merely intuitive or instinctual. Listen, my two year old granddaughter can put the round peg in the round hole and the square peg in the square hole. She is not processing that by language. I don't consider that abstract thinking according to the two accepted definitions that I posted. Like we have seen with bees and ants intuitive or instinctual behavior can be quote advanced and complicated.



                  We don't know exactly seer, we don't even know exactly how our own brains function, but we have a good idea that what we call reason is exactly what the raven is doing by examining his behavior. And as I and others have explained, you don't need language in order to make logical judgements. The raven doesn't need to know that a rope is called a rope in order to recognise how he can utilise it.

                  True, animals can't report their level of intelligence, which is why we observe their behavior. Dolphins as well as other animals can't report to us their self awarness either, but by watching their behavior in the mirror test we are able to see it for ourselves. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat!
                  No since animals can not self report all you are left with is speculation. You can never know the actual process. We will never know how an ant "learns."
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                    Exactly right. We can infer from observation and induction that it is overwhelmingly probable that many creatures, especially among our fellow primates, are capable of abstract reasoning and arriving at goal-directed conclusions.
                    No Tass, you infer. So do you agree that only humans can reach a level 4 of self-awareness?

                    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post202670
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      I tried to think back of what my thoughts were when I was engaged in playing chess. I had a mental image of a knight making a jump to the left and forward, then examining the effect that had on the chess game. Unless I misunderstood what you, seer, mean by language, I think I was thinking logically using only mental "video"--no language.
                      Yes, you can (or we humans can) think pictorially. But remember you learned the game of chess through language. And I have no reason to assume that animals think pictorially. As a matter of fact the game of chess would not make any sense pictorially until you identified the pieces and rules via language.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Jim, then what the Raven is doing is merely intuitive or instinctual. Listen, my two year old granddaughter can put the round peg in the round hole and the square peg in the square hole. She is not processing that by language. I don't consider that abstract thinking according to the two accepted definitions that I posted. Like we have seen with bees and ants intuitive or instinctual behavior can be quote advanced and complicated.
                        If the raven's behavior is naught but the result of an inborn pattern of activity, i.e. intuitive or instinctual, rather than the result of reason, then human behavior also is naught but an inborn pattern of activity and not the result of reason. But we know from experience that not to be the case. You are trying desperately to make a complete distinction between raven and human intelligence, but all you are doing in the process is connecting them. You can no more solve a novel problem by instinct than a raven can, and neither can your 2 year old grandaughter.
                        Ants and bees do not solve novel problems. If you know of such a case, please provide a link.



                        No since animals can not self report all you are left with is speculation. You can never know the actual process. We will never know how an ant "learns."
                        The behavior of animals in these experiments is a kind of self reporting in that they are showing us in their behavior what they are incapable of communicating through speech. That is the whole point of the experiment. The dolphin can't communicate to us that they're self aware either, but it becomes abundantly clear to us in the mirror test that they are indeed self aware through their behavior. This is why you insist on focusing on the ants and the bees rather than the more highly evolved animals, because they don't exibit the the ability to reason through novel problems in the same way. They have no clue!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          If the raven's behavior is naught but the result of an inborn pattern of activity, i.e. intuitive or instinctual, rather than the result of reason, then human behavior also is naught but an inborn pattern of activity and not the result of reason.
                          I think you need to retake logic 101 before continuing this discussion because that's one of the most blatantly fallacious arguments I've seen in a while.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            I think you need to retake logic 101 before continuing this discussion because that's one of the most blatantly fallacious arguments I've seen in a while.
                            What is your argument? Do you actually have one? And you should resist the tactic of snipping posts in debate. The implication was that from seer's point of view, any behavior, including human behavior, could be viewed as intuitive or instinctive.
                            Last edited by JimL; 05-30-2015, 11:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              No Tass, you infer.
                              Correct. Inference based upon observation is commonplace in science. E.g. it has always been observed that the sun rises each day in the East, therefore we can infer that the sun always rises each day in the East. There’s no proof that it will but it’s highly probable that it will.

                              Thus, given the testing and observations of our primate relatives it is reasonable to infer that they are capable of abstract reasoning and arriving at goal-directed conclusions, just as we humans are. By contrast there is no good reason to believe that humans are unique, as per the bible stories. All the indications are that humans are simply highly intelligent primates. There’s no credible evidence to the contrary.

                              So do you agree that only humans can reach a level 4 of self-awareness?

                              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post202670
                              The author of this research, Philippe Rochat, is not a primatologist, nor an evolutionary biologist or ethologist. He’s a psychologist whose speciality is human development. Typically, you’re misusing scientific research to support an untenable position, in this instance that humans are different in kind to the other primates. They're not...no more than we Homos sapiens would be to earlier humans such as Australopithecus or Neanderthals among others.

                              The argument is not that humans are more intelligent than their fellow primates, they demonstrably are, just that the difference is one of degree not of kind. There is no science backed argument I’m aware of that says otherwise.

                              http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm
                              Last edited by Tassman; 05-30-2015, 11:25 PM.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                I think you need to retake logic 101 before continuing this discussion because that's one of the most blatantly fallacious arguments I've seen in a while.
                                Way to miss the Reductio ad absurdem there via quote mining. Good show, really.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X