"God" means... *inflammatory*

[Fist and Faith]

Well in all seriousness, doesn't emotion defy logic? If I sacrifice my life for someone I love, is that logical, in its purest form?

For ease of understanding each other, we define things. And the definitions of some things often contradict each other. However, I think those contradictions often lose meaning within human beings. Facts are not what drive humanity. How people feel about the facts is the reason for nearly everything everyone has ever done. Whether I can explain it or not, love is a part - the very best part - of me. The logic of giving up my life to save my child's is self-evident, and iron-clad.

[Kinslaughterer]

see the existance of God as the only logical outcome I can come to. I don't find my belief in God to be any less logical than the belief that my wife loves me, or any other theory of how the universe came into existance.

The difference being your wife has shown you love in the past and you are aware of it. Their is a difference between trust and faith. I trust my wife loves me from her actions and history. Emotion can be seen and observed by chemical actions and reactions in the brain.

Whether I can explain it or not, love is a part - the very best part - of me. The logic of giving up my life to save my child's is self-evident, and iron-clad.

Love is a chemcial reaction that makes you feel good. That's why we "like" love. We like the idea of sacrifice because we think it determines love. It is easy to do something you love it is much harder to do something logical that you don't like. That is why so many people choose to believe in god or gods. The chemical reactions are addictive. I am not trying to dismiss the idea or convictions of your emotions but emotions and faith both cause people to do extremely illogical things. Problem is, most reject the cold light of reason for the warm bliss of ignorace. Again, I'm not attacking anyones emotions are feelings. How many times have you felt something you are certain no one else could really understand? You may have feelings that tell you something is going to happen or you know the outcome of an event. This is illogical despite making near perfect sense to you.

[Marv]

Logic is just probability based on assumptions. Life is absurd in that it is a priori meaningless, but by creating our own meanings we can, in effect, shun this meaninglessness.

[Loredoctor]

Life is absurd in that it is a priori meaningless.

What do you mean by meaningless? And how does that make life absurd? Existence is cause and effect, so how is that absurd?

[Marv]

simply that existance comes first and essence is whatever we make of it. man is the only thing without meaning and when we add meaning through an external agent (religion, science, society) we are simply looking for an excuse to not take responsibility for our own actions.

so, to go back to Fist's point, if he defines his life through love then that is his meaning. logic, in so far as guiding ones life is an oxymoronic concept.




(imho )

[Loredoctor]

simply that existance comes first and essence is whatever we make of it. man is the only thing without meaning and when we add meaning through an external agent (religion, science, society) we are simply looking for an excuse to not take responsibility for our own actions.

so, to go back to Fist's point, if he defines his life through love then that is his meaning. logic, in so far as guiding ones life is an oxymoronic concept.




(imho )

Perhaps we are arguing about different things here, but my belief is that the universe is built on laws - for instance, strength of gravity - and that cause preceeds effect. Meaning is therefore inherent in the universe.

[Marv]

certainly i think there is an important definition between things that experience das sein (us) and everything else.

however, i am interested to know if you believe in free will Lore? how much do you believe causality encroaches(not sure if thats the right word) onto our existance?

[Loredoctor]

certainly i think there is an important definition between things that experience das sein (us) and everything else.

however, i am interested to know if you believe in free will Lore? how much do you believe causality encroaches(not sure if thats the right word) onto our existance?

I do not believe in free will.

[Marv]

certainly i think there is an important definition between things that experience das sein (us) and everything else.

however, i am interested to know if you believe in free will Lore? how much do you believe causality encroaches(not sure if thats the right word) onto our existance?

I do not believe in free will.

aahhh....then we understand one another.

[Loredoctor]

certainly i think there is an important definition between things that experience das sein (us) and everything else.

however, i am interested to know if you believe in free will Lore? how much do you believe causality encroaches(not sure if thats the right word) onto our existance?

I do not believe in free will.

aahhh....then we understand one another.

[Fist and Faith]

This is reminding me of an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space 9:

Odo: "Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you believe the Founders are gods is because that's what they want you to believe? That they built it into your genetic code?"

Weyoun: "Of course they did. That's what gods do. Why be a god if there's no one to worship you?"

Whether I can explain it or not, love is a part - the very best part - of me. The logic of giving up my life to save my child's is self-evident, and iron-clad.

Love is a chemcial reaction that makes you feel good. That's why we "like" love. We like the idea of sacrifice because we think it determines love. It is easy to do something you love it is much harder to do something logical that you don't like. That is why so many people choose to believe in god or gods. The chemical reactions are addictive. I am not trying to dismiss the idea or convictions of your emotions but emotions and faith both cause people to do extremely illogical things. Problem is, most reject the cold light of reason for the warm bliss of ignorace. Again, I'm not attacking anyones emotions are feelings. How many times have you felt something you are certain no one else could really understand? You may have feelings that tell you something is going to happen or you know the outcome of an event. This is illogical despite making near perfect sense to you.

Whether it's there because of evolution or because a creator put it there, emotion is a gigantic part of us. As I said, we act on our feelings, not our knowledge. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we use our feelings to determine how we will use our knowledge. Is it possible that our emotions have played a role in our survival? Or have we survived in spite of our emotions?

[Loredoctor]

I disagree. Our knowledge is a store of information for helping us make decisions. Hence, we act on the knowledge not to sleep on train tracks, or to not walk in the middle of a road during peak hour traffic.

Emotion, on the other hand, affects how we process the information. It gives context to our background, or can filter what we remember. Hence, a depressed person will act on their knowledge differently to what a person who doesn't suffer from depression acts like. Feeling invulnerable, or in love, may indeed mean that dangerous things are less dangerous (such as knowing you have little money and spend your savings on a romantic trip) or, the opposite: they may think things are more dangerous ('don't go down that dark path, honey - you may get assaulted and I dont to lose you').

[Kinslaughterer]

We have survived on our instincts which are often supported by our emotions but not for greater good but usually individual good. We get angry or jealous and take things or harm others to protect ourselves or our interests. Children are a prime example of our interests. Many people would take things from other children to give to their own. I think you may be correct in saying that our emotions can dictate how we use our knowledge. Consider how many people are Christians yet know virtually nothing about the culture, geography, or history of that period of time. As we've discussed before, binary oppositions think good to us. Arguments are plainer when they are either or rather than logical.

[Fist and Faith]

Loremaster:
And yet, wars shape the world, and they are fought for love, hate, greed, and other emotions. Did Gandhi and MLK act as they did because of cold intellect? Did Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed? (Of course, for those of us who do not believe in them as religious figures, I'm speaking of the historical persons that inspired the religions.)

Was it pure logic that drove people to cure polio, and rid the world of smallpox? Was empathy for the suffering involved? Maybe a love of mankind? Even greed, hoping they would make money somehow? For some, logic says that the easiest way to rid the world of many diseases and conditions is to do things like let the victims die, and/or not let them breed. The species might be a lot stronger if we acted that way, rather than letting emotion get the better of us, and insisting that our children be kept alive.

I'm not saying emotion is the only consideration in any of these cases. I'm just saying it has played a huge role in shaping the world.

Kins: I'm curious what you think about this, from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living.

I know it's getting things a bit off topic, since it doesn't address the role of emotion. Still, it has some bearing on what you said.

[Loredoctor]

I'm not saying emotion is the only consideration in any of these cases. I'm just saying it has played a huge role in shaping the world.

Of course it has. But all I am saying is that our knowledge base a huge influence (I would say dominant).

[Kinslaughterer]

Quote:

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living.

I'm not really sure how to respond other than to say this is utter nonsense. Man became "man" by having the most advanced self-preservation instincts. These instincts allowed for our intelligence to develop. Remember natural selection? Those best suited for survival in a given environment will. Those who aren't won't. Only through intense, perhaps more than other animals, self preservation could we come to dominate the planet.

[Fist and Faith]

My feeling is that Rand meant something different than you're thinking. Perhaps the best example I can think of is the spider. A spider spins a web and catches food with it. It is not taught how to do this, and may spin its first web without having ever seen another.

There must be plenty of examples of animals that, without ever seeing another of its species eat, know which food they can eat. It has no idea why it eats that one, and no idea why it simply doesn't eat those that are poisonous to it. Why does a predator not eat animal X, which, though it could easily catch, would give the predator a lethal case of poisoning? How does the king snake know it is immune to rattlesnake venom, and eat them, while another snake knows rattlesnakes are off limits?

I know that bears and killer whales learn a lot from their parents, although I don't know what absolutely essential knowledge they may have later in life that is not learned. However, I know that no human being would survive a week if, after they were old enough to walk and pick berries or fruit from bushes and trees, they were left alone in an area with a climate that was perfect for survival, surrounded by some plants that could safely feed them, but also some that would kill them. Every human must be taught everything in order to survive.

[Kinslaughterer]

Humans being taught is a new phenomenon however. When our intelligence developed it led to the near elimination of our instincts (that which many now call sin). Its a very chicken and egg argument otherwise. Evolution is integral to the process. The gestation, maturation, and lifespan of humans and their ancestors has expanded greatly. We were very basic primates at one point with an instinctual genetic knowledge base that lacked problem solving. The problem solving was eventually developed and all hell has broken loose since then. Creativity, abstract thinking, and other higher order brain functions ensued. We traded our instinctual self-preservation for an advanced problem solving self preservation. Essentially instead of starting from say 10 and being capable of 15 we start from 0 and are capable of 100 now.

[Fist and Faith]

Is there any evidence for that aspect of evolution? Or are we assuming that we must have had all the necessary instincts at one time, and that we didn't have the necessary intelligence at one time, and that, since the reverse is now the case, we must have lost the former as the latter developed? I mean, we can't see evidence of instinct in fossils, and any communities you might find in a dig are obviously from an intelligent species.

What I'm getting at is going back to the thread I started long ago, wondering why evolution would take away things that were essential at one point, simply because they are no longer essential. Just because we no longer need an instinctual knowledge of which fruits and vegetables will kill us, why was it an advantage to natural selection to lose all such knowledge?

[Loredoctor]

I don't think evolution took away anything, Fist. In fact, what evolution did was add something to inhibit. The difference between humans and higher apes is that we have a massive frontal lobe. The difference between humans and reptiles, snakes and birds is that they really don't have much of a frontal lobe. Most of the frontal lobe is inhibitory - that is, it's millions of neurons spread out across the brain and basically inhibit actions of neuronal networks. This is evident in the way people with frontal lobe disorder exhibit uninhibited behaviour (impulsive, sexually explicit, swearing, lack of understanding context for behaviours). However, the deeper nuclei and deeper parts of the brain still exist - and they are remarkably similar to 'lower-species' brains; thus, neuropsychologists refer to the reptile brain (the parts around and including the brain stem), the mammalian (the nuclei - thalamus, basal nuclei and limbic system), and the higher parts (cortical structures and expanded lobes). The frontal lobe may indeed inhibit these 'reptile' and 'mammalian' parts with their more instinctive behaviours.