|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613419 - 04/20/02 12:39 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
'My intuition has not failed me because no intuition was involved in that analogy. it was quite cearly contrived (although i thought it was clever nonetheless).'
Whether your statement was intuition or contrived, it was way off the mark. You don't understand me, I do not have blind faith in science. Human understanding of the universe is quite incomplete. Some scientific theories currently generally recognized as being true will most certainly be superseded or proven false in the future, of this I have little doubt. This is why they are called theories. I will restate, the scientific establishment is often as dogmatic as any religion. Do you disagree with this?
'"Again, you are coming up with ideas based on your preconceived notions of how a person who tries to use the power of reason thinks" -evolving
i find this statement very hypocritical.'
How is this hypocritical?
'Later in the same segment you mention putting things into context, however there is no context for existence.'
What do you mean, 'there is no context for existence'? I was referring to the context of how experiences are aquired. Context can mean, your state of mind, including but not limited to: fatigue, anger, fear, joy, sorrow, intoxication (degree and type), neurological damage, hypoxia, desire, denial, etc. Context also refers to the physical circumstance, including but not limited to: amount and type of light, haze, smoke, reflections, refractions, noise, distance of observed phenomena, physical or chemical irritation to your sense organs, wind, physical barriers between you and the observed phenomena (such as a window, trees or a screen), etc.
'also the statement "...if they contradict one's understanding of the universe" isnt our understanding of the universe the very thing that is in question? trying to "fit things in" to our imposed "context" is the root of most of our misunderstanding of this world.'
I don't know about 'imposed' context, it doesn't matter if a context is imposed or not, what matters is how context affects our perceptions (see previous point). Please read a little more carefully, I will restate for you: 'If there is a contradiction, there are two possiblities. One, your perception is somehow incomplete or incorrect. Two, your current model of the universe is incorrect and needs adjustment.' (emphasis added)
'A model of the universe? I'd sure like to see one sometime. but i think you are talking about context.'
Well, you probably missed this class in school because they didn't have it. The world that you experience is modeled within your mind, you see it every conscious moment of your life. Part of this model is very basic and doesn't vary much from person to person, perceptions of colors and sounds being an example. Another aspect of the model is your ideas about how the world works. When waiting to cross the street and observing cars travelling toward the intersection you make certain assumptions based upon your model so as to help you navigate through life without becoming a big red splat on the pavement. If your model is incorrect (say you're under the influence of shrooms and the cars appear to be travelling very slowly), it could mean your death.
'emotion and rational thikning are the same because they are both functions of our "model of the universe" we react to the world emotionally and rationaly on the same terms and these terms (as i have said) are whats to be questioned. '
How can two things that differ in qualities and function be the same? To use another analogy. I have a model airplane, the paint job is not the same as the motor. They both are parts of a model airplane, this is true. But that does not make them the same. How can you say that emotion and rational thinking are the same? If they were, why do we distinguish between the two? People do not react to the world emotionally and rationally on the same terms. This is utter nonsense.
To be rational and to rationalize are two different things as well;
rational - showing reason; not foolish or silly; sensible; as a rational argument.
rationalize - to devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 4 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613446 - 04/20/02 01:28 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i am frustrated and i hardly have the energy to respond to all of this. i would be saying the same things a different way anyway......
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613457 - 04/20/02 01:37 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you all for responding.
from InfidelGod:
Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic.
from Webster:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Let's try one more time to see if the light bulb goes on. A definition should be able to be substituted for a word and retain about the same meaning.
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just not consitent.
All I did in this thread was to show that that statement was incongruous, yet not one believer jumped on InfidelGod - in fact shroomism welcomed him to the flock with open arms. It was he, and not the Swami who insulted believers with this ludicrous statement. It seems that many "believers" invoke emotion wherever possible and have trouble grasping simple concepts.
Am I being insulting yet again? Even with the very clear caveat , they most certainly are not (at least in the area of belief). many still went ballistic.
This was a test in reading comprehension and knee-jerk reaction. Most of you failed miserably by substituting what you think I meant instead of what I wrote.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613505 - 04/20/02 02:56 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical. "
?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
How did you get that from:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic."
So now you are ACTUALLY CHANGING MY WORDS to prove a point.
It is one thing to be logical
it is another thing to be ruled by logic
If you are ruled by logic, you are incapable of seeing things in any other way.
Why is it impossible to be a logical person and yet not allow logic to limit (rule) me.
When you changed my words, you assumed that being logical is the same as being limited by logic. Well Swami, I see logic as a foundation, not a ceiling to understanding.
To rephrase:
Believers are actually rational beings, but we do not let logic limit us"
I'm sorry but I don't see the incongruity. Please enlighten me.
You only see the incongruity after changing the meaning of the original statement.
You're fond of quoting people and picking apart their logic, sometimes you quote out of context... But actually changing the meaning ??
"This was a test in reading comprehension and knee-jerk reaction. Most of you failed miserably by substituting what you think I meant instead of what I wrote."
the irony....
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613516 - 04/20/02 03:18 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If, while under the influence of 5 grams of p. cubensis, I were to have experienced meeting a space alien who told me he was Jesus Christ and he and his brethren were to be coming in 7 days to save the world I would take the ingestion of hallucinogens into account when attempting to integrate the experience into my understanding of the universe. To not do otherwise would be foolish.
Doesn't our perception of everything basically just boil down to chemical reactions in our brains? And while under the influence of shrooms there's just a different set of chemical reactions going on isn't there? So to the functioning body what is it exactly that makes one experience any more real than another?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613528 - 04/20/02 04:00 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
Violating every known rule of punctuation. Emotion above all, social norms be damned.
That's right. Ignore the caveat underscoring the reading comprehension difficulty.
One more time with the caveat added at the end of the statement for utmost clarity:
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical in the area of belief. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just not consistent in the area of belief.
Or as you prefer, we can add the totally superfluous "ruled by":
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not ruled by logic in the area of belief. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just constrained by consitency in the area of belief.
I fail to understand how a logical being can be illogical or a consistent being can be inconsistent.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613567 - 04/20/02 05:47 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
sigh..
see how convoluted logic can get?
"Or as you prefer, we can add the totally superfluous "ruled by":"
totally superfluous?
It is not superfluous, it was the point of my earlier post - that not being ruled by logic is not the same as being illogical.
When I say that I am not ruled by logic, I mean that I don't let the conventions of logic prevent me from believing that something exists. I can believe in things that can never be proven logically. Does that make me illogical?
You should know that logic can never say for certain that something does not exist. It can only prove a positive. So logic can never be a limit to knowledge, it is a foundation to knowledge. Logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so why is it illogical to believe in God? It isn't logical to believe, but it isn't illogical either. Some things exist completely outside the realm of logic.
Is it absolutely impossible to be logical and still have an open mind?
"I fail to understand how a logical being can be illogical or a consistent being can be inconsistent."
I never said either of these things yet you still insist on putting words in my mouth.
For clarification, my original statement:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic."
Or as you prefer:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic in the area of belief."
Or as I prefer using the above definition:
"Believers are actually rational beings, but we don't let the conventions of logic prevent us from believing that something exists"
Can I get a straight answer as to why any of these statements contain a contradiction?
You can disagree if you want but please abstain from substituting words, take them at face value.
|
Tannis
ZoneTrooper
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 508
Loc: MD.USA
Last seen: 21 years, 10 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613641 - 04/20/02 08:21 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We should do lunch sometime........I enjoyed your post.......
I am a "believer" if the only other choice is "skeptic". As a believer, I can experience the benefits of things in life without having completely mapped them out logically or scientifically.
The other side of this coin though is that as a believer, I don't have to be an idiot who just excepts everything that happens or that I experience. I question everything as to its origins and I think that this makes me different than the person who just swallows anything. Like I said, I'm a believer but only if the only other choice is skeptic.
I went through many times of doubt and skeptism. They were the darkest times of my life and the times where I made my greatest and most hurtful mistakes.
With me though, if I get enough evidence that I can jump off the cliff and there will be water deep enough below to cushion my fall......I will jump......not only in the physical world but also in the psychic and the spiritual. I don't have to have it all figured out in order to enjoy myself. I go with my intuitive feelings and they have never disappointed me. Life is an adventure for me. I love speed and always try to see how fast I can go and how high I can fly. Following my intuitive feelings makes me alive and positive. When I didn't follow them I started to get cynical, I was suspicous and carried weapons, and used drugs in a suicidal manner. In fact I was suicidal for a long time.
For me, not being a believer is to be a real "bad assed fucking bastard" of a person, who would just as soon kill you as look at you. As a believer, I heal and help others.
I am also the investigator. Not a skeptic, but not the person who believes everything I am told. When I work with people, I only want to hear what is troubling them and not the whole story as they understand it. I often refuse to have contact with the person and have another member of my team interview them, then I walk in cold to the house or situation and see what I pick up. I always look for natural cause first and have told people that their situation is "natural" not "supernatural".
One example of this was a family who stated that their son saw a demon in his room. The boy was about 5yrs old and would scream and cry nearly every night and report seeing a demon. It turned out that the family was involved in a church that believed demons did just about everything from causing headaches to giving bad TV reception. I told the family that there was no demonic problem and that their 5 yr old was playing them for attention. They were not impressed and would have been happier if I had created some elaborate staged production but the truth was that it was a 5 yr old was out smarting them for attention.
Like I said, I am a believer but I'm not stupid! Many people want to squirm out of their responsibilities and blame something else.
There is another side to this as well. This is where believer and skeptic part ways...... Even though I stay grounded and question situations around me.....I don't know everything....and when my intuition kicks in and tells me this or that is happening.....then I jump....the leap of faith....which any skeptic is truely appalled with.
But then I look to my track record......leaping works for me!
Maybe believers are the grasshoppers, and frogs in life and the skeptics are the lizards, and ants.........we both get where we are going but by different means.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613649 - 04/20/02 08:33 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This appears to me to be a very simple correlary without any twisting on my part. Please help me to see the error of my ways.
from Webster:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Is this an acceptable definition? Yes or no.
Does rational equate to logical? Yes or no.
Does rational equate to consistent? Yes or no.
Original: "Believers are actually rational beings..."
I should be able to snip the sentence here without any distortion. Is this a problem? Yes or No.
Correlary: Believers make rational decisions.
So far so good? Yes or No.
Substitution: Believers make decisions based on logic and consistency.
Does this still follow? Yes or no.
Do believers sometimes make decisions based on faith or belief? Yes or No.
from Webster:
illogical: not observing the principles of logic
A person making a decision not using the rules of logic is making an illogical decision.
True or false?
A person making an illogical decision cannot be considered rational (at that moment.)
True or false?
Please add your rant after you point out which line of reasoning is faulty.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613653 - 04/20/02 08:38 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This is not a debating zone...
Yes it is!
Spirituality and Philosophy:
For discussion of the spirituality surrounding mushrooms and our everyday lives.
Webster:
discussion: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613760 - 04/20/02 11:08 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't know one big truth about me. I always thought that I'm not actually "believer".
We all believe in many things and newer question them.
If I experience telepathy. and say : "Yes, I think it exist"...... am I believer?
I never saw someone levitating or someone who is telekinetic.
But I don't say that is bullshit. And I don't say I believe... I just don't know.
I call that open mind.
When I don't know I try to learn.
I don't have proof for or against so I don't know and I like to hear others.
I love you all people.
I love CACA because he thought me how fanatic look... and I will never become one.
I love Swami because he show me that he is similar to CACA in some things ( no offence Swami you are not CACA ) and that many things that look different are similar in origin.
I think they both want to "sell" their truth.
I don't agree with Shroomism in many things but I like to read his posts.
Discussion is one thing arguing is another.
Many good treads at some point start to "loop"......
I'm not believer and I'm not skeptic...Can I be just human with opinion and not to worry that someone is gonna dissect my thoughts and take them out of context just to prove nothing?
Are believers rational?
Yes...We are all rational...that's my opinion.
I just want to say that all above is my opinion and that I don't say its truth.
------weird------
-------------------- ----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
raytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Insomniac]
#613790 - 04/20/02 11:31 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
your perceptions may indicate you that you are dead, while at the same time a doctor examining you finds you perfectly well. trying to convice your life insurance company about the reality of your death, because reality boils down to chemical reactions, and ask for money, since the contract doesn't mention resurrection, won't do you any good.
there is a need for objectivity to enable interaction between people. reality has to do with objectivity. anything experienced by someone alone is subjective, and can be a halucination until confirmed by others. the model of reality is built by the various intersecting subjective perceptions that form an objective model.
i don't understand "something is real for observer A and not for observer B". reality cannot be relative, it is a convention for people to avoid relativity in order to interact.
accepting something you perceived, while in a state of altered brain chemistry, as real, is risky, as such experiences tend to be highly subjective.
of course someone may perceive things that don't belong to the model of reality as is now. the model of our reality evolves and some day these things may be incorporated if validated, or they may never be accepted.
please, anyone, correct me
Edited by raytrace (04/20/02 11:33 AM)
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: Swami]
#613839 - 04/20/02 12:43 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
How convenient to ignore my "rants" in favor of your "logic"
Alright let's start with the truncated version:
"Belivers are rational beings"
This statement can only be cantradictory if you assume that belief and logic are mutually exclusive. I don't think that - that's why I made the statement. If you think differently, that is your interpretation.
"Do believers sometimes make decisions based on faith or belief? Yes or No."
Yeah I sometimes make decisions based on faith.
If that makes me an irrational being than every single human being on Earth is an irrational being. If I solve a math problem using intuition (sometimes), is the answer irrational and invalid?
"from Webster:
illogical: not observing the principles of logic"
Like I said, it is not illogical to believe in something than logic can neither prove nor disprove. Therefor logic and belief are not mutually exclusive.
"A person making an illogical decision cannot be considered rational (at that moment.)
True or false?"
"at that monent"? Can I consider everyone to be irrational becuase we were all irrational beings at birth.
My statement "Believers are rational beings" refers to the entire being. It does not say that we have never made an irrational decision. By adhering to your strict definition of being a rational being, only a person who follows logic 100% of the time can be considered a "rational being"
By your own definition, you are not a rational being, nobody is.
Believers follow logic most of the time and when logic fails, we follow intuition. That does not make us irrational. That makes us human.
It is not an illogical decision to believe in something beyond logic.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: infidelGOD]
#613896 - 04/20/02 02:00 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
raytrace-
it is a convention for people to avoid relativity in order to interact.
Nice and neat.
Really, logic is only about interaction between people. When it comes to imagination, relativity reigns supreme. However, it is when the imagination/ interaction line is blurred that we get conflict between people. If the unprovable topics are chosen to be discussed, there should be a caveat explaining that the topics cannot be proven and so forth...
However, when your interaction is somewhat dependent on your particular unprovable dogma, we run into problems. True, nobody is perfect, but basing your interaction (even loosely) on logic allows for LESS misinterpretation and better feedback (you're posting here for feedback, right?). So, if we want feedback from people with different perspectives on the world, then we have to interact in a somewhat ordered fashion (so as to not offend or annoy... this keeps the emotional outbursts to a minimum as feelings have not been hurt).
So, a rational being doesn't have to be rational 100% of the time... they should only have to try (I know it is hard sometimes) to be as rational as possible when INTERACTING with those people with different points of view.
So, unless we are all agreed on a certain issue (like say, the War on Drugs... you'll notice, we never argue to the death about this. Why? Because we all agree- the WOD is bullshit.), I think logic should govern our relations in this forum.
Does this make sense?
(I'll post this separately for those who might not read this thread.)
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 4 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613900 - 04/20/02 02:04 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
There is one thing I wish to address (now that i am well reseted) in evolving's response.
I will attempt to explain what it is I mean by "there is not context for reality" If you cannot immediately grasp this concept, it may be hard to understand, and it will certainly be hard for me to explain but i will try.
This is reality. You are reading this post. Itis the ultimate reality and absolutely nothin exists outside of it. The past and the future are contained within this one moment. You may think that we have accumulated knowledge of the past, but it is in books and memories and those are only real right now. Because of this THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Let me take your example of being under the influence. It does not matter because whn you are, say, drunk, you are DRUNK! there is no sober part of you that is saying, "well this experience is what it is because i am drunk and i know what it is to be sober" but you only know what it is to be sober as a drunk person! When you are drunk, the whoole world - your entire existence is drunk! You CANNOT put it into any context! And so it goes for any other mental state there is INCLUDING mind states that are considered straight or sober. I will repeat: there is no comparison because at that moment it is everything. INsomniac also made this point. Therefore (tthis ties into someone else's response too) the basis of existence is SUBJECTIVE.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613903 - 04/20/02 02:08 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
the basis of existence is SUBJECTIVE
Until we interact.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: raytrace]
#613916 - 04/20/02 02:33 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with the need for some sort of objectivity and all that, especially given the circumstances in which we live with one another.
I was just trying to point out that at the level of the functioning body there is no way to discern whether one experience is more real than another, and maybe there is something more to that, that could be worth investigating. Then again my knowledge of how the human body works is limited so I could be totally wrong.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 4 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Sclorch]
#613919 - 04/20/02 02:36 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
there is absolutely no reason why interaction would make existence objective. instead it forces us to come up with abstract concepts and symbols that have common meanings among people. this does not make the xperience of it objective. The BASIS of existence is subjective. It cannot possibly be objective. for me this ia a huge part of spirituality: discovering what lies behind all the ideas and concepts and dwells only on the plane of Pure Existence. And that is subjective.
An if i may go a little deeper with this. There is no cinstant or solid entity which composes the self. the self is a couple of things. On the abstract level it is our personality; how we think we do things, act and react etc. But in the presen moment - the only moment or Reality and Truth, we are an unfolding of sights sounds smells tastes physical sensations and mental activities. They are completely fleeting. there is noting solid about existence, and therefore nothing objective about it.
Peace
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Believers ARE Rational Beings. [Re: JPAtanat]
#613942 - 04/20/02 03:06 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"So, a rational being doesn't have to be rational 100% of the time... they should only have to try (I know it is hard sometimes) to be as rational as possible when INTERACTING with those people with different points of view."
I completely agree
"Really, logic is only about interaction between people. When it comes to imagination, relativity reigns supreme. However, it is when the imagination/ interaction line is blurred that we get conflict between people. If the unprovable topics are chosen to be discussed, there should be a caveat explaining that the topics cannot be proven and so forth... "
We are discussing unprovable topics in this forum.
I believe in things that logic cannot prove nor disprove.
That does not make me illogical.
I was only defending my beliefs in this thread which started with Swami quoting me out of context (if you want the full post that the statement was lifted from, see the thread titled "skeptic system")
"Are believers rational beings?"
I would have to say .... THIS believer is a rational being.
Most believers in this forum are rational beings.
Are we rational 100% of the time? No.
Does that make us irrational beings? No.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: Sclorch]
#613953 - 04/20/02 03:16 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So, unless we are all agreed on a certain issue (like say, the War on Drugs... you'll notice, we never argue to the death about this. Why? Because we all agree- the WOD is bullshit.), I think logic should govern our relations in this forum.
The WOD is to any logical mind an irrational stance. The WOD is perpetuated by "believers" in a certain religious moral code. WOD supporters are irrational beings (on that issue).
Why is everyone struggling with this concept?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
|