The origins of reason.

[lifegazer]

I got the ideas for this topic from a question asked of me by somebody, in another thread, in another town, in another world...:-

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"
My response:-
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds. Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.
'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.
Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it.

Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.
Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.
From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason. And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.
The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Any chance of some sensible responses?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"
My response:-
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?". I hardly know where to begin...have you ever actually seen a child?

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds. Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.
'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.
Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it. reason has been shown by whom to have understood language (in a baby)? I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you here--language is what builds reason, and you are 180 degrees dead wrong.

Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.
Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.
From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason. And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.
The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Any chance of some sensible responses? I doubt it. Try again, only this time for every "statement of fact" that you make, try to back it up with a citation. We have been studying cognitive development for decades, linguistics and language acquisition as well, there are reams of sources out there that address this radical notion of yours. If there is any truth to it whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate that studies of language learning are consistent with your model. Problem is, no.

[Beleth]

It is the combination of an organ capable of reason (the brain) and input to that organ which is consistent over time (the interactive universe) which leads to reason. Infants learn language because they are presented with a consistent word (or handful of words) for identical concepts each time they are exposed to that concept. In a totally chaotic universe, reason would have no chance to develop.

So I'd say it's more a potential for reason, rather than reason itself, that is inherent in all normally-functioning newborn human brains. You use the word "ability" where I would use the word "potential", but it's more or less the same concept.

I'm not sure how the notion of a "Mind" separate from the brain helps, or springs from, this conclusion, though.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I hardly know where to begin...have you ever actually seen a child?

Amazingly, yes.

reason has been shown by whom to have understood language (in a baby)? I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you here--language is what builds reason, and you are 180 degrees dead wrong.

And your reasons for disagreeing with me, are?

I doubt it. Try again, only this time for every "statement of fact" that you make, try to back it up with a citation.

A citation? This is a reasoned argument about the origin of reason. Just asserting unsubstantiated facts isn't going to wash in this discussion.

We have been studying cognitive development for decades, linguistics and language acquisition as well, there are reams of sources out there that address this radical notion of yours. If there is any truth to it whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate that studies of language learning are consistent with your model. Problem is, no.
Perhaps you'd like to discuss the notion of a non-reasoning baby coming to understand the order and meaning of language.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
It is the combination of an organ capable of reason (the brain)

So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? I.e., the mind/brain can discern of order prior to relating to it. Agreed?

If the brain is an organ which has evolved to reason, then the question begs as to how? For the ability to comprehend the order of things cannot be given by those things.
Any comment?

[Yahweh]

Ultimate origins of "reason":
Trial and error, observation and experience.

That evolved into (Natural) Philosophy.

From Philosophy stemmed the roots of science (as well as the root's of Religion).

From science comes Technology and Medicine.

(I could continue the list if I felt like it...)

[c4ts]

Religion did not come from philosophy, though it has borrowed from it. Also, it isn't really that clear whether science came from philosophy, or the other way around. Beginning with Aristotle, the two were indistinguishable for the longest time.

[Zero]

Language isn't 'reasoned out'...the capacity for language is mostly hardwired into the brain, and the rest is based on external stimulus. I know you won't belive that, LG, because the brain is physical and you don't believe that physical things actually exist; and you don't believe in external stimulus.

What's up, LG? Get bored of being dead wrong on physics and philosophy, and you decided to branch out into being dead wrong in other fields as well?:D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Zero
Language isn't 'reasoned out'...the capacity for language is mostly hardwired into the brain, and the rest is based on external stimulus. I know you won't belive that, LG, because the brain is physical and you don't believe that physical things actually exist; and you don't believe in external stimulus.


I wonder what would happen if we pumped lg full of neurotoxins...

Nah, he'd probably think it was a spiritual encounter.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts
Religion did not come from philosophy, though it has borrowed from it. Also, it isn't really that clear whether science came from philosophy, or the other way around. Beginning with Aristotle, the two were indistinguishable for the longest time.
Oops!

I guess my timeline of events is off a bit...

It is hard to tell what comes from what, what evolved indepently, what evolved co-dependently, etc. etc. etc...

[Zero]

Originally posted by c4ts


I wonder what would happen if we pumped lg full of neurotoxins...

Nah, he'd probably think it was a spiritual encounter. Who says he hasn't already done it to himself? It would explain his neo-hippie worldview.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Oops!

I guess my timeline of events is off a bit...

It is hard to tell what comes from what, what evolved indepently, what evolved co-dependently, etc. etc. etc...

I hate timelines. Time may be linear, but history isn't so neat.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A citation? This is a reasoned argument about the origin of reason. Just asserting unsubstantiated facts isn't going to wash in this discussion.


hmm..I think the thread just washed away. All you did in the starting post is assert unsubstantiated facts.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Pattern-matching.

[Wudang]

Since lifegazer is in the UK he may have seen the program recently about feral children who were only exposed to language late in their development. One girl was interesting as she was extremely curious and wanted to learn the words for everything. BUT because she had not been exposed to language eraly enough, her brain did not just not develop, the language centres that would allow her to develop the ability to form sentences had withered so she was incapable of developing real language skills. I.e. she could learn words but could not structure them, graphic illustration on the role of stimulation on cognitive development.
I refer lifegazer to old works by Piaget on psychocognitive development, still quite a good model in some ways.

By the way, I hope this new thread doesn't distract you from answering Upchurch's question. It's been quite a while now and the evasions don't reflect well on you.

[Dancing David]

Depends on how you deine reason:

I would say that a baby has the ability to make associations, not all of which will be logical.

Maybe you should be the one trying to make reasonable responses.

Or is it your hamster that is the rude one?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? I.e., the mind/brain can discern of order prior to relating to it. Agreed?

If the brain is an organ which has evolved to reason, then the question begs as to how? For the ability to comprehend the order of things cannot be given by those things.
Any comment?

Again I would say that the brain has the ability to create associations, some of which will be illogical and opposed to the concept of reason.

I would counter that what the brain does is create associations between the events, some exist and some don't.

But 'reason' is a very high cortical function, depending on which form of reason you refer to it may come about quite late in life.

But I would say that the associations come first and the 'reason' comes later. So the ooposite of what you say here:

"So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? "


If you wish to discuss, I would point out that humans make many illogical associations and that it isn't until much later , if ever, that humans lern which associations have validity.

[Wudang]

Well whatever, but one thing is abundantly clear and that is:

any philosophical argument that neglects the simple fact that consistently physical damage or atrophy of specific parts of the human brain prevent reasoning or limit it, are intellectually, philosophically and morally bankrupt.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


hmm..I think the thread just washed away. All you did in the starting post is assert unsubstantiated facts.
No Russ. I think you'll find that I used reason to unveil facts.
Such as anything learnt does so via the prior ability to learn of things.

Can you not see that the base ability to reason is needed prior to discovering any concious knowledge? It's simply obvious and not a one of you seems to have the ability to see it. Either that, or denial is a permanent state of affairs.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No Russ. I think you'll find that I used reason to unveil facts.
Such as anything learnt does so via the prior ability to learn of things.

Can you not see that the base ability to reason is needed prior to discovering any concious knowledge? It's simply obvious and not a one of you seems to have the ability to see it. Either that, or denial is a permanent state of affairs. No, it is a circular definition. You are inferring a "prior ability to learn of things" only from the fact of having learned. Up to the point of learning something, you have no evidence for this "prior ability". The thing you say is responsible for X is only deduced from the presence of X. Circularity. Not logic. It is, as you say, simply obvious.

Yahweh suggested "trial and error" as an alternative to your view. I'd say that, simple as his suggestion is, it is a much better explanation than yours. Plus, it has the added advantage of agreeing with the evidence. (You remember evidence, don't you? Logic is not everything.)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No Russ. I think you'll find that I used reason to unveil facts.
Such as anything learnt does so via the prior ability to learn of things.

Can you not see that the base ability to reason is needed prior to discovering any concious knowledge? It's simply obvious and not a one of you seems to have the ability to see it. Either that, or denial is a permanent state of affairs.

Certainly, reason is not imprinted from birth, otherwise, you would have it. Basic reason is learned, and critical reasoning is even a step above that. What really strikes me about you is that you cannot even admit that you might be wrong about anything.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
No, it is a circular definition. You are inferring a "prior ability to learn of things" only from the fact of having learned.

You cannot do anything without first having the ability to do that thing.
How do you expect to learn something without first having the ability to discern of knowledge?

Up to the point of learning something, you have no evidence for this "prior ability".

True. But I'm struggling to see what you infer from this.

The thing you say is responsible for X is only deduced from the presence of X. Circularity. Not logic. It is, as you say, simply obvious.

Knowledge is not the same as having the ability to unveil knowledge. Neither is flying the same as having the ability to fly.

Yahweh suggested "trial and error" as an alternative to your view. I'd say that, simple as his suggestion is, it is a much better explanation than yours.

Yes, but how do we learn from trial and error except through judgement in relation to the things we experience? And making judgements means weighing up the facts and then choosing what's best. So, even learning via trial & error is a process which occurs in association with having the ability to reason.

Plus, it has the added advantage of agreeing with the evidence. (You remember evidence, don't you? Logic is not everything.)
Evidence is knowledge. Knowledge is discerned via reason. However, sometimes we use assumptions. Get my drift?

[Dancing David]

Well, generaly i am not a fan of the line by line critique of a post but Lifegazer just posted the "Hmph , no one understands me, so they must be stupid" post. Oh, believe me we understand you Lifegazer, and so i will try to dialouge with you. I remind you that you need to brush up on your refelctive listening skills, if you care to dialouge... I know wish full thinking on my part.


Originally posted by lifegazer
I got the ideas for this topic from a question asked of me by somebody, in another thread, in another town, in another world...:-

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"


It may have been in another lifetime, but I posed a similar question to you.

My response:-
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".

To which you posted a very similar response.

without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'
If you define reason as the ability to learn language then this would be a true statement. But the ability to learn language is many spearate things. So the ability to learn language does not indicate an ability to exercise reason. I have worked with adults and children, who had a very good grasp of language, but lacked most of the faculties associated with reason.

The baby has a reasoning-mind.
The baby has a mind that creates associations between sounds, facial movements and then later associates those with objects. through a major process involving repetition. So is reason the ability to form associations or the ability to learn language.

How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".

I would say through a process of associations , repetition and motor skills. None of which are the higher cognitive skills called 'reason'.

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds. Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.

Would not the ability to learn be comprised of many different things, some of which are called reason. But the main tool is association. through repetion of events and association, we learn. If we learned by reason alone then there would not be the phenomena called 'the school of hard knocks'. If we learned from our purely higher faculties that would be a great thing. But most people learn 'the hard way'. Which would seem to indicate something other than 'reason' as the basis for learning.

'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.

'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, association is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., association builds languages.

Languages don't build reason.

This statement shows that you really need to understand cultural anthroplogy, there is no absolute reason, it is all culturaly based and biased. Different culture vary widely in the definition of 'reason'.


Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it.


Clearly this is not the case. If we were born with the ability to reason then teen agers would not rebel and adults would never make mistakes.
The ability to comprehend order is nonsense, we have the ability to create associations, but different cultures percieve different forms of order, different individuals too.

I suggest you think about what the word reason might mean, most of the meanings are not innate skills they are very high cognitive skills that not all humans aquire.


Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.

Well if it is a birth right it is one that most human don't aquire until the age of twenty, the ability to reason is not something that most humans even do well.

Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.

Now there is a sentence worthy of it's own thread, I can learn fire burns with out reason. Do you mean something that involves science or some other form of higher cognition? What is knowlege? What a great thread that would be.

From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason.

When there is any evidence for mind without brain i will agree with you, until then I will wait.
And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.

I am aware that is your belief, it is not a belief that I share.


The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Any chance of some sensible responses?

I ask but one thing, who can we tell from behaviors what reason is?

There is good reason that i ask because it gets at the p-zombie thing.

Could there not be a creature appearing to have reason that does not? Which behaviors demostrate reason?

Thanks!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well, generaly i am not a fan of the line by line critique of a post

DD, when I present a reasoned argument with conclusions, then the way to refute that argument is to address it, line by line. So cheers. Some of the people here think that all they have to do is say that Mister X (the name of a famous scientist) asserts (this is a fact - no scientist can truly explain the mind via purely physical processes.) that reason evolved. Therefore, you (lifegazer) are wrong. Thus, evading my argument completely.

but Lifegazer just posted the "Hmph , no one understands me, so they must be stupid" post.

Nobody addressed my argument head-on.

If you define reason as the ability to learn language then this would be a true statement. But the ability to learn language is many spearate things. So the ability to learn language does not indicate an ability to exercise reason. I have worked with adults and children, who had a very good grasp of language, but lacked most of the faculties associated with reason.

Language is a system of sounds, ordered to relate things and concepts to one another, so that people may communicate the order of the environment to each other. Language is order. First you need to understand that specific sounds relate to specific things... and then you need to understand that a succession of sounds is a complex method of divulging ordered information to the recipient of those sounds.
I am absolutely sure that no child can actually learn a language without having the prior ability to reason what the language means.

The baby has a reasoning-mind.
The baby has a mind that creates associations between sounds, facial movements and then later associates those with objects. through a major process involving repetition. So is reason the ability to form associations or the ability to learn language.

Forming associations is an extension of reason. The association of things is a relation of things. Hence, to associate things requires having the ability to comprehend things... and also the ability to distinguish amongst those things, relating them one to the other.

Would not the ability to learn be comprised of many different things, some of which are called reason. But the main tool is association. through repetion of events and association,

This is similar to the trial & error thing I've already commented upon.

I'm tired and don't have the energy to respond to any more. Sorry.

[Reinbach]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I got the ideas for this topic from a question asked of me by somebody, in another thread, in another town, in another world...:-

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"
My response:- Clearly the concept of development is beyond this person.
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds.
Let's hear it for jumping to conclusions.

Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.
'Reason' has got nothing to do with language.
One by which I mean I would think you would be more careful about using words like nothing. A case could very easily be made for the relationship between reason, and language. Example: one expresses the formation of ideas, and integral aspect of reason through language. (Ooh, just waiting for someone to beat me about that)
Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.
Here we have a fine example of language without reason. I lacking your superior mental means can't interpret this statement using my own linguistic capabilities.
Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it.
Hmm, I for one am not fully convinced by this argument. The primary flaws, aren't the utter lack of any support, but more the assumptions made. You assume (make joke here) that we as in humans are born with an inherent understanding of "order". It does not seem to be the natural "order" of existence that babies, who would have reason you argue should poke themselves in the eye. Despite this I have eyewitness accounts of this very phenomenon.
Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.
Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.
From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason. And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.
The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Impressive, your conclusion does indeed draw from each premis that you stated, however there is still the fact that every argument postulated by you represents a logical disjunction. As such the nature of you conclusion is somewhat in doubt.
Any chance of some sensible responses?
yes, though I am at this point fearful of your concept of sensible. Good day to you sir, and I hope you have as much fun reading this as I did writing it. =^^=

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

DD, when I present a reasoned argument with conclusions, then the way to refute that argument is to address it, line by line.

Good so address my argument line by line about the observed correlation between brain development and the ability to reason, or even form sentences.


By the way, answered Upchurches question yet?

[Dancing David]

I think that I already detect the pattern that our discussion will procede along and it is pinned on the word reason.

I claim that there can be the ability of the brain to percieve order from the way that the brain is structured.

You claim that there can be the ability of the mind to percieve order because of the nature of the mind.

The two sentences above are very similar, mine that there is a growing organic process which leads to the perception of order. Yours that there is a pre-existing doober called the mind which leads to the perception of order.

Which then gets to the origin of the ability to percieve order:
I claim that it is a result of a chaotic but shaped process,
You claim that it is the result of a determined process.

Mine that the perception of order arises, your's that the perception of order is inherent.

Is that making sense LG?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Reinbach
One by which I mean I would think you would be more careful about using words like nothing. A case could very easily be made for the relationship between reason, and language. Example: one expresses the formation of ideas, and integral aspect of reason through language. (Ooh, just waiting for someone to beat me about that)

I meant that reason is not created by language. In fact, vice versa, since language is an ordered system of sounds and symbols designed for communicating the order which exists amongst things which are also discerned with reason.

You assume (make joke here) that we as in humans are born with an inherent understanding of "order".

But the point is that I assume no such thing: I give reason which suggests the ability to understand order must exist before order is understood (as knowledge).

It does not seem to be the natural "order" of existence that babies, who would have reason you argue

The base ability to. I'm not claiming that all babies are expert philosophers, of course.

should poke themselves in the eye. Despite this I have eyewitness accounts of this very phenomenon.

Reason doth learn from things. I don't think the baby will poke itself in the eye too often. It reasons not to.

Welcome to the forums.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Since lifegazer is in the UK he may have seen the program recently about feral children who were only exposed to language late in their development.

I didn't see it.
I just wanted you to be aware of something. I'm a monist. I.e., I postulate that there is but one reality. My philosophy does not separate mind and matter, so much as state that it is all Mind.

My philosophy is fully consistent with both a Mind that affects [perceived] matter and with matter that affects the awareness [of Mind, seeing itself in a world of matter].
I get the feeling that you're trying to tell me that the brain is integral to the Mind's ability to reason amongst the things it relates to. I just want you to know that I am already aware of this and that it doesn't affect my philosophy. Where you and I differ is that I state the ability to reason emanates directly from the Mind itself. Not matter.

By the way, I hope this new thread doesn't distract you from answering Upchurch's question. It's been quite a while now and the evasions don't reflect well on you.
Answered in the illogical paradise thread, tonight.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I claim that there can be the ability of the brain to percieve order from the way that the brain is structured.

Interesting claim. Organise the bricks just so and they shall have the ability to comprehend the nature of all things.
Materialists the world over cling to this; yet no a one of them can show that the claim is true.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Interesting claim. Organise the bricks just so and they shall have the ability to comprehend the nature of all things.
Materialists the world over cling to this; yet no a one of them can show that the claim is true.

I’m not a Materialist so will leave people who are to argue from their perspective I just thought that I as they and all here will say and be very correct in saying that for you to say yet no a one of them can show that the claim is true. is perhaps the best definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Be well my friend.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


I’m not a Materialist so will leave people who are to argue from their perspective I just thought that I as they and all here will say and be very correct in saying that for you to say is perhaps the best definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Be well my friend.
What do you think my argument is about? Did you read it? Did you see how the conclusion proceeded the rational observation that reason precedes knowledge?
Engage your brain my friend.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What do you think my argument is about? Did you read it? Did you see how the conclusion proceeded the rational observation that reason precedes knowledge?
Engage your brain my friend.

My silly friend.

My point was you have avoided providing any supporting facts or logical conclusion or answering any questions concerning your beliefs at all other threads now you say of others that yet no a one of them can show that the claim is true.

I am sure someone there can explain to you the words written here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


My silly friend.

My point was you have avoided providing any supporting facts or logical conclusion or answering any questions concerning your beliefs at all other threads now you say of others that

I am sure someone there can explain to you the words written here.
I'm sure the regulars here would like to see you address my argument head-on and refrain from the usual foxtrots. I know I would. Then you might actually be able to state that I have no proof of my God (what did you think this argument was a proof of?). So, must the ability to reason precede knowledge?
Yay or nay, my chanting friend. And then I can discuss my God.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot do anything without first having the ability to do that thing.
How do you expect to learn something without first having the ability to discern of knowledge?

True. But I'm struggling to see what you infer from this.
So you do not understand the concept of a circular definition.

Ok...From your own logic, you still cannot demonstrate that the ability to do the thing precedes doing that thing. As you have no evidence for ability other than performance, the best you can do is to say that ability and performance are demonstrated to emerge simultaneously...in which case, Occam's razor would suggest that "ability" is a superfluous concept.

Again, if all the evidence you have for "ability" comes after the fact (i.e., you cannot predict if a given bird has the "ability" to fly until you have seen it fly), then it is a circularly defined and useless term.

If you insist that "ability" is proven to exist (and be meaningful) as soon as performance is observed, why stop there? I would suggest that it is equally valid, logically, to infer that not only does the bird have the "ability" to fly (or the baby the "ability" to reason), but it also has Upchurch's permission. How do we know it has Upchurch's permission? Easy--it is flying (or reasoning, as the case may be). We may assume that it has Upchurch's permission for the exact same reason that we may assume it has the "ability"--because we see it perform. In fact, it could be the case (again, using your logic) that sometimes a bird does not fly when it does have the ability, simply because it lacks Upchurch's permission! Only when it has both the ability and Upchurch's permission can it fly.

Or else, both "ability" and "Upchurch's permission" are circularly defined and not logically required. If you see why you think that it is ludicrous that a bird needs Upchurch's permission to fly, you will see why I think it is ludicrous to use performance to infer ability.

(note--this does not mean that the concept of ability is totally useless. If we can test someone's ability independently of specific performance, and use this to accurately predict their performance, wonderful. This is nothing at all like your use of the term.)

(other note--I do not have Upchurch's permission to use his name. We may infer from this that I cannot fly.)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm sure the regulars here would like to see you address my argument head-on and refrain from the usual foxtrots. I know I would. Then you might actually be able to state that I have no proof of my God (what did you think this argument was a proof of?). So, must the ability to reason precede knowledge?
Yay or nay, my chanting friend. And then I can discuss my God.

I'm sure the regulars here would like to see you address my argument head-on and refrain from the usual foxtrots.


The regulars here know I answer every point made to me and every question asked so this is a lovely dance but “the regulars” know you are simply dancing again and avoiding the point.

I know I would.

Again your hypocrisy, can you go back and post just ONE question I have not answered? Or will you be shown to be a fibber again?



Then you might actually be able to state that I have no proof of my God (what did you think this argument was a proof of?).

I have always been able to state you offer no proof of God as you have not offered any proof of God.

By stating The origins of reason is in the mind means just that The origins of reason is in the mind. I know you do not at all understand Buddhism and have not understand what is written to you but I will try again. I also believe that like matter and energy the true nature of mind is eternal ( well you believe it is created) not created nor distorted.


You are using a known ”mind” and seeking to explain it by a unknown, “God” that is as I have pointed out backwards.

What is logical is to use what is known to prove what is unknown but to seek to explain what is known what is unknown is theological lunacy.

You believe that you can point to a tree and say that proves God, no that proves tree.

So, must the ability to reason precede knowledge?
Yay or nay, my chanting friend. And then I can discuss my God.

If your position here is correct then again your God would need to be created as you have said your God thinks, plans, feels and reasons. Again you have simply contradicted your own belief with your new belief.

This is too easy.


Prove God and then we can talk about it as if it were a fact. As you see a fact MUST precede a belief that something is fact.

Be well and keep thinking you will get it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Interesting claim. Organise the bricks just so and they shall have the ability to comprehend the nature of all things.
Materialists the world over cling to this; yet no a one of them can show that the claim is true.

Just as you can not show that all things are mind, you can demostrate that all is percieved with a mind, but not that all is mind. Funny you should can the neurons bricks, that is an inept analogy. very funny.

What was wrong with the rest of the post, did your hamster distract you? Or is it true that you just want to fight?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
As you have no evidence for ability other than performance, the best you can do is to say that ability and performance are demonstrated to emerge simultaneously...in which case, Occam's razor would suggest that "ability" is a superfluous concept.

This demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. If performance is not dependent upon ability, then all things should be able to perform all known functions. I.e., if performance is not dependent upon ability, then all things should be able to reason and discern of knowledge. Can they? Similarly, all things should be able to fly like an eagle or swim like a dolphin. Can they?

Surely you must concede to the fact that a demonstration of the reasoning process, by any entity, is dependent upon the ability to reason by that entity?

Again, if all the evidence you have for "ability" comes after the fact (i.e., you cannot predict if a given bird has the "ability" to fly until you have seen it fly), then it is a circularly defined and useless term.

The most which can be said of this statement is that the abilities of some entities are not known, possibly, since perhaps those entities have not yet performed a task which they are capable of performing. But this does not affect my argument: we see knowledge, thus we have the ability to reason prior to seeing that knowledge.

Knowledge is acquired by the process of reasoning. Hence, any entity which conciously acquires knowledge must possess the ability to acquire that knowledge... must possess the ability to reason.

If you insist that "ability" is proven to exist (and be meaningful) as soon as performance is observed, why stop there? I would suggest that it is equally valid, logically, to infer that not only does the bird have the "ability" to fly (or the baby the "ability" to reason), but it also has Upchurch's permission. How do we know it has Upchurch's permission?

Flawed thinking again. The reason for saying that knowledge is acquired by reason itself, is obvious - is reasonable. Yet here you insert a fact about our friend Upchurch which no rationale could merit. It's not philosophy squire.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
By stating The origins of reason is in the mind means just that The origins of reason is in the mind.

It states more than that but you have to delve deeper. If the Mind itself is the primal cause of the reason which she doth possess, then the Mind itself possesses abilities not dependent upon any external realm. I.e., the Mind is shown to be distinct from any supposed external realm.

You keep asking me to prove God, and when I present arguments to do exactly that, you just dance all around them.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Just as you can not show that all things are mind, you can demostrate that all is percieved with a mind, but not that all is mind.

Actually, things are entities discerned within the mind's sensations. In effect, all things do exist within the mind. No man can escape the reality of Mind.
My philosophy can and has demonstrated this on several occasions. This is the existence we actually experience.

Funny you should can the neurons bricks, that is an inept analogy. very funny.

There's nothing inept about it whatsoever. As a materialist, you reduce all phenomena down to the structure and motion of the building-blocks of reality. A neuron is just a particular style of house.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Surely you must concede to the fact that a demonstration of the reasoning process, by any entity, is dependent upon the ability to reason by that entity?
Look at your own example. Is ability seen first? No; performance is. You are inferring ability exists before performance, when your own evidence is that it is only the existance of performance that allows you to infer ability.

I am not saying ability is a useless concept. I am saying that as you use it it is a useless concept. Your logic is flawed, but I expect that you will be the last person reading this thread to understand that.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Look at your own example. Is ability seen first? No; performance is.

Actually, performance and ability are exhibited simultaneously. Performance does not precede ability, of course.
But rational contemplation of this process must conclude that ability precedes performance, since performance is dependent upon ability, as discussed earlier. **Yet, significantly, ability is not dependent upon performance. It is theoretically possible to possess an ability and not exhibit that ability.**

You are inferring ability exists before performance, when your own evidence is that it is only the existance of performance that allows you to infer ability.

All we can say is that performance is evidence of prior ability. We cannot say that performance and ability are the same thing, as you are trying to infer.

I am not saying ability is a useless concept. I am saying that as you use it it is a useless concept. Your logic is flawed, but I expect that you will be the last person reading this thread to understand that.
My whole argument rests upon the usefulness of that concept (of ability). I do not use it uselessly, since my conclusions about the Mind link directly to the observation that the ability to reason must precede the acquisition of any knowledge. You have not exposed any flaws in my logic. Just your own.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, performance and ability are exhibited simultaneously. Performance does not precede ability, of course.
The "simultaneous" observation was mine, actually, a few posts back. Thank you for recognising it. And of course, may well precede ability. Do you remember learning to ride a bike? Those times when you managed to stay upright (sometimes with, sometimes without parental support) for several meters, before you truly had the "ability" to ride independently? You will, of course, say that you must have had the ability to do what you did--in which case, of course, the term "ability" is rendered superfluous. If I ask whether or not you have the ability to ride a bike, I am not asking whether you have the ability to stay upright 25% of the time for several meters, I am asking whether you have a meaningful ability. Once again, ability is not a useless term, it is only useless as you use it.

But rational contemplation of this process must conclude that ability precedes performance, since performance is dependent upon ability, as discussed earlier. **Yet, significantly, ability is not dependent upon performance. It is theoretically possible to possess an ability and not exhibit that ability.** As I said before, this is merely evidence that you do not have Upchurch's permission. Seriously, the response to this is merely more of the above; your use of the term "ability" is, in this case, so narrowly defined as to lose any usefulness.

All we can say is that performance is evidence of prior ability. We cannot say that performance and ability are the same thing, as you are trying to infer.No, all we can say, as you did in your first sentence here,is that performance is evidence of current ability, and merely ability to display whatever performance is currently being displayed. Your use of the term in your own context is prohibitively narrow.

My whole argument rests upon the usefulness of that concept (of ability). I do not use it uselessly, since my conclusions about the Mind link directly to the observation that the ability to reason must precede the acquisition of any knowledge. You have not exposed any flaws in my logic. Just your own. Where have you demonstrated "precede"? You have not. By rejecting any empirical testing (which might allow us to infer an "ability" beyond that which we have tested, and by insisting on a "logical proof" of ability, you have rendered the concept impotent. You are a victim of your own method.

Of course, my psychic prediction is that you will never admit this.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, things are entities discerned within the mind's sensations. In effect, all things do exist within the mind. No man can escape the reality of Mind.
My philosophy can and has demonstrated this on several occasions. This is the existence we actually experience.

All things know to humankind are discerned within the mind's sensation. There may or may not be things that are unknown to the mihd's sensation.
Mo man can escape the reality of mind, but there may be things outside that set.
I agree that we we sense puts limits on what we can know. But what we can sense may or may not be all that is.
[/B]

There's nothing inept about it whatsoever. As a materialist, you reduce all phenomena down to the structure and motion of the building-blocks of reality. A neuron is just a particular style of house. [/B]

Well a house that can grow and change it's interaction with the other houses aroud it, which is why I wouldn't call it a house. As a materialist I take the opposite of your approach, I say what can be observed is all there is. Which is slightly different than observation is all there is.

I am not a total reductionist, just as you say that all there is is mind, I happen to say that all there is is material. When I see any evidence that there is more to 'the world' than that material I will accept it. Even if the world just appears to exist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Answered in the illogical paradise thread, tonight. Correction: he only half-answered the question. He neglected to differentiate between "inner" and "outer" sensations and only reiterated that he did not believe the sensations that represent the "outer world". He still has not explained the why he believes the the sensations that represent the "inner world."
Originally posted by Mercutio

(other note--I do not have Upchurch's permission to use his name. We may infer from this that I cannot fly.)Despite the lack of permission, I've never been used as a logical device before. I'm honored and quite amused. However, I'm still not giving anyone on this board permission to fly under their own power. It wouldn't fit with my will for the order of the universe.

Sorry.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It states more than that but you have to delve deeper. If the Mind itself is the primal cause of the reason which she doth possess, then the Mind itself possesses abilities not dependent upon any external realm. I.e., the Mind is shown to be distinct from any supposed external realm.

You keep asking me to prove God, and when I present arguments to do exactly that, you just dance all around them.



[b]quote:Originally posted by Pahansiri
By stating The origins of reason is in the mind means just that The origins of reason is in the mind. I know you do not at all understand Buddhism and have not understand what is written to you but I will try again. I also believe that like matter and energy the true nature of mind is eternal ( well you believe it is created) not created nor distorted.


You are using a known ”mind” and seeking to explain it by a unknown, “God” that is as I have pointed out backwards.

What is logical is to use what is known to prove what is unknown but to seek to explain what is known what is unknown is theological lunacy.

You believe that you can point to a tree and say that proves God, no that proves tree.[b]



It states more than that but you have to delve deeper. If the Mind itself is the primal cause of the reason which she doth possess, then the Mind itself possesses abilities not dependent upon any external realm. I.e., the Mind is shown to be distinct from any supposed external realm.

Yes, and? If you read anything at all and here concerning Buddhism or read what I write you would know that Buddhism believes this is fact. There is in reality only the true nature of mind bound to this only by ignorance, ego, cravings etc.


There is as I have said over and over and over nothing that is self, nothing that is in and of itself, self, no rainbow, no sun, moon, earth, no right or left no up or down, no “me” no “ you” no “I” no self.

BUT NONE of this fact proves God it only proves what is not what you hope it is.

You keep asking me to prove God, and when I present arguments to do exactly that, you just dance all around them.

You offer NO facts you offer statements of belief of an unknown then seek to prove the unknown saying only because a known exist the unknown exist.

NO, the known exists and until the unknown is proven to exist it is just that a unknown, a belief.

Just because there is an apple, a tree, a mind ( or no mind) a sun etc does NOT prove there is a God it only proves there is a apple, a tree, a mind ( or no mind) a sun..

I know you are dancing as fasts you can but you are only becoming dizzy-er


I address everything, you should try it all of us here do it and it is great fun.;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Despite the lack of permission, I've never been used as a logical device before. I'm honored and quite amused. However, I'm still not giving anyone on this board permission to fly under their own power. It wouldn't fit with my will for the order of the universe.

Sorry. I am considering making it my life's mission to make "Upchurch's permission" at least as famous as "invisible pink unicorns".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I am considering making it my life's mission to make "Upchurch's permission" at least as famous as "invisible pink unicorns". It may just be as unlocatable, but as long as you have faith that it exists....

[Dancing David]

Now at last we know how Santa's reindeers fly.... they have Upchurch's permission...perhaps this is the break through in anti gravity

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Do you remember learning to ride a bike?

Yes... I had the ability to learn, so I embarked upon doing so. The performance of "learning to ride" proceeded from having the initial ability to learn how to ride. There is a distinction to be made between learning to ride via active effort, and having the ability to learn how to ride regardless of active effort.
For example, my 1 year-old niece - being a healthy human - has the ability to be able to learn how to ride a bike, as she has the ability to learn how to do anything the average human-being can do. But she cannot ride nor is she trying to learn.
In conclusion, the ability or potential to do something is distinct from the act of doing that thing, or trying to do it.
Likewise, the ability to reason [of things] must proceed the act of reasoning what things are about. A child must possess the ability to learn language before any language will be learnt. I.e., a child must possess the ability to reason before any knowledge will be gleaned.

Similarly, I could state as fact that I possess the ability to learn Japanese, to whatever degree I desire (given the required effort and desire) even though I know absolutely no Japanese. My ability to do something precedes my attempt to learn or my final gain(s).

Those times when you managed to stay upright (sometimes with, sometimes without parental support) for several meters, before you truly had the "ability" to ride independently?

Yup. But you are merely distinguishing the learning from the knowing. And both are distinct from ability.

You will, of course, say that you must have had the ability to do what you did--in which case, of course, the term "ability" is rendered superfluous. If I ask whether or not you have the ability to ride a bike, I am not asking whether you have the ability to stay upright 25% of the time for several meters, I am asking whether you have a meaningful ability. Once again, ability is not a useless term, it is only useless as you use it.

If you ask whether I have the ability to ride a bike, you are not in fact enquiring whether I can ride a bike. You are enquiring whether I have the capacity to learn.
You're dancing from one corner to the next, but you cannot rid language of the concept of "ability", nor of its meaning and usefulness. Ability is distinct from the things it proceeds to gain.

The ability to reason is distinct from gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge is an exhibition of having the ability to reason. But having knowledge is a sure sign that the entity in possession of that knowledge had the ability [to reason] prior to the gain.

Solid reasoning... and I'll let the readers make their own minds up. It's pointless discussing this at any further length unless you have something new to say. But discarding the concept of ability so you can discard the whole of my argument is a cheap cop-out, imo.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
As a materialist I take the opposite of your approach, I say what can be observed is all there is. Which is slightly different than observation is all there is.

How can what is observed be all that there is?
Firstly, what is observed is inner-sensations. So clearly, there also has to be an observing awareness, aware of its inner-sensations. Not to mention the source of those sensations.

And since inner-sensations are distinct from any [supposed] external reality, you must really mean that what is observed is all that there is except the external reality they are meant to mirror.

Is your brain hurting yet? If not, then you aren't thinking deeply enough.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It may just be as unlocatable, but as long as you have faith that it exists....
Why don't you have a bash at my arguments? You shouldn't ridicule my philosophy without addressing it. So, stretch your fingers and start typing. I want to see your brain in action.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why don't you have a bash at my arguments?:rub:

Oh, lifegazer, not everything is about you and your dippy "philosophy".
You shouldn't ridicule my philosophy without addressing it. So, stretch your fingers and start typing. I want to see your brain in action. What are you talking about? I address your childish "only I have the truth" philosophy more than most and definitely more than I should.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:rub:

Oh, lifegazer, not everything is about you and your dippy "philosophy".

True. But the way you lay into me in flamewars, I'd be forgiven for thinking so.

What are you talking about? I address your childish "only I have the truth" philosophy more than most and definitely more than I should.
You haven't addressed this credible argument. Nor did you address my previous argument about order, if I remember correctly. Nor did you address my arguments about existence, space & motion, or monism.
Given your verbosity in refuting my philosophy as a whole, your lack of participation in relation to these individual arguments gives little credance to your overall denouncement. In fact, it amuses me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You haven't addressed this credible argument.That is because I know next to nothing about cognitive development. Anything I said would be just as much guessing as what you are doing.
Nor did you address my previous argument about order, if I remember correctly.Because chaos and thermodynamics are not my strong points. Plus, by the time I got around to reading it, your argument had been so thoroughly picked apart, there really wasn't much to add.
Nor did you address my arguments about existence, space & motion, or monism.I don't know what the reference to monism means, but you're using that selective memory if you believe that is true.
Given your verbosity in refuting my philosophy as a whole, your lack of participation in relation to these individual arguments gives little credance to your overall denouncement. Well, as your basic premises are contradictory and laughable, it is only logical that anything based on those premises will also be contradictory and laughable. I don't need to reiterate what others have said by making a token effort on every thread you start.

Besides, you've already shown yourself to either be subject to delusions or a simple troll. You're juvinille attempt to claim an account hack alone is proof of that.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes... I had the ability to learn, so I embarked upon doing so. The performance of "learning to ride" proceeded from having the initial ability to learn how to ride. There is a distinction to be made between learning to ride via active effort, and having the ability to learn how to ride regardless of active effort.
For example, my 1 year-old niece - being a healthy human - has the ability to be able to learn how to ride a bike, as she has the ability to learn how to do anything the average human-being can do. But she cannot ride nor is she trying to learn.
*snip*
Similarly, I could state as fact that I possess the ability to learn Japanese, to whatever degree I desire (given the required effort and desire) even though I know absolutely no Japanese. My ability to do something precedes my attempt to learn or my final gain(s).
There is a distinct difference between these three examples and what you were claiming earlier. Do you see it?

In these cases, you are looking at some performance and infering an ability from it that is not that same performance. In your infant reasoning and language learning example, this was not the case--in that example, ability to learn language was infered solely from language learning performance. You have danced closer to a definition of "ability" that is meaningful. Trouble is, you have done so by following my advice, and I really wish you would admit that. These three above examples do not rely on logic alone, as you have claimed you wish us to proceed.

Yup. But you are merely distinguishing the learning from the knowing. And both are distinct from ability.
And you are--exactly as I predicted--narrowing your definition of "ability" so as to be utterly superfluous.

If you ask whether I have the ability to ride a bike, you are not in fact enquiring whether I can ride a bike. You are enquiring whether I have the capacity to learn.
You're dancing from one corner to the next, but you cannot rid language of the concept of "ability", nor of its meaning and usefulness. Ability is distinct from the things it proceeds to gain.
There is an elegant gavotte being danced here, but it is yours alone, dancing from a logic-only and useless definition of ability to ability as a predictive measure (exactly as I showed you! thank you so much!)

The ability to reason is distinct from gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge is an exhibition of having the ability to reason. But having knowledge is a sure sign that the entity in possession of that knowledge had the ability [to reason] prior to the gain.
Just when I thought you had it, you say this...and once again, you have not proven "prior" at all; the best you have done is demonstrated simultaneous and irrelevant.

Solid reasoning... and I'll let the readers make their own minds up. It's pointless discussing this at any further length unless you have something new to say. But discarding the concept of ability so you can discard the whole of my argument is a cheap cop-out, imo. Oooh, are you going to post a poll? I'd look forward to that! I do not discard "ability" at all...it is you who has bastardized the term and rendered it meaningless.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That is because I know next to nothing about cognitive development. Anything I said would be just as much guessing as what you are doing.

Nonsense. Here, you assert you know nothing yet give authority to science - nay, materialism - as the speaker of truth.
I invite you to use reason my friend, and to stop believing everything which is ASSERTED in those wayward science books of ours.
Science cannot explain the brain or the mind... let alone reason.
It is time to use your own [reason], and embark upon a rational discussion... instead of one which revolves around ~facts~ you have read or have not read, as per the science section of the library.
Philosophy transcends knowledge, upchurch, as you would surely realise if you understood that philosophy (reason) was the creator of mathematics/logic and also the essential ability which embraced knowledge of the existence she actually perceived/surveyed.
Wakey wakey Upchurch. This is not about science.

Because chaos and thermodynamics are not my strong points.

Screw chaos and thermodynamics as a science. These concepts are defined by reason and relate to disorder as well as the order of energy itself.
Science proceeds reason and language, upchurch. So does mathematics. The things I discuss are subjects of reason - not science. When will you meet me on the field of play and get your head out of your scientific you-know-what?

Plus, by the time I got around to reading it, your argument had been so thoroughly picked apart, there really wasn't much to add.

Unfounded nonsense. In fact, given your "lack of credible status" - your own opinion - I find these judgements to be to totally dishonest and bias towards a preset philosophy.

I am sure that you possess a high intelligence, which is why I persist in conversing with you. But your mind is closed/biased. I pray I can break the lock, for your own sake.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Science cannot explain the brain or the mind... let alone reason.


I might point out that science is working towards this goal. Advancements are being made everyday. Time will tell. Will science explain reason and conciousness? Will artificial intelligence reason and become concious? Will you simply rework your philosophy in the wake of such accomplishments?


Screw chaos and thermodynamics as a science. These concepts are defined by reason and relate to disorder as well as the order of energy itself.


eh? Weren't you attempting to use them as a proof? And now you say screw them?


I am sure that you possess a high intelligence, which is why I persist in conversing with you. But your mind is closed/biased. I pray I can break the lock, for your own sake.

I bet that upchurch can admit that he might be wrong. However you, could never admit that you might be wrong. Who's mind is closed, and who's is open?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I am considering making it my life's mission to make "Upchurch's permission" at least as famous as "invisible pink unicorns".

At least Upchurch's permission isn't logically impossible.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I might point out that science is working towards this goal.

And?

Advancements are being made everyday. Time will tell. Will science explain reason and conciousness? Will artificial intelligence reason and become concious? Will you simply rework your philosophy in the wake of such accomplishments?

The answers are no, no, and that I shall have no need to.
Science has not proven that the attributes of the Mind have their origin with matter. So there's no such thing as an "expert" when it comes down to discussing these issues, as I'm trying to do here.

eh? Weren't you attempting to use them as a proof? And now you say screw them?

I never used thermodynamics as a proof. In fact, if memory serves me right, it was you who raised it... and I to explain that behaviour and being were distinct, etc., and that thermodynamics was irrelevant to that argument.

I bet that upchurch can admit that he might be wrong. However you, could never admit that you might be wrong. Who's mind is closed, and who's is open?
Upchurch should be participating in this thread as an acceptance of the limitations of science... and in respect of the negative judgements he constantly brandishes upon my philosophy as a whole.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The answers are no, no, and that I shall have no need to.
Science has not proven that the attributes of the Mind have their origin with matter. So there's no such thing as an "expert" when it comes down to discussing these issues, as I'm trying to do here.


This is something science is trying very hard to do, and with the increases in computing power, is not that far away. I suppose from your pov simulating a neurnal net with machines will not bring about the same result as the real biological system, eh?


I never used thermodynamics as a proof. In fact, if memory serves me right, it was you who raised it... and I to explain that behaviour and being were distinct, etc., and that thermodynamics was irrelevant to that argument.


if you are talking about order and disorder, thermodynamics is key, course, you wouldn't know that because you never bothered studying it. Interesting how you remember threads differently, explain when it came about that thermodynamics was irrelavent.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
This is something science is trying very hard to do, and with the increases in computing power, is not that far away. I suppose from your pov simulating a neurnal net with machines will not bring about the same result as the real biological system, eh?

The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc..
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted. Again, the universe knows nothing of abstract experience.
So no, we cannot create a robot which will have the same experience of existence as ourselves, since material processes cannot, by themselves, create these abstract experiences. Yes, they do influence our experiences, such as when a hammer hits me on the head and I feel pain. But the hammer does not create the pain... my Mind does.

if you are talking about order and disorder, thermodynamics is key, course, you wouldn't know that because you never bothered studying it. Interesting how you remember threads differently, explain when it came about that thermodynamics was irrelavent.
Again, my argument distinguished between being and doing. Thermodynamics is related with doing.

EDIT: I'm going to paste this post in the upchurch's question thread, since it belongs there. So if you want to discuss anything here, go over there.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, performance and ability are exhibited simultaneously. Performance does not precede ability, of course.
But rational contemplation of this process must conclude that ability precedes performance, since performance is dependent upon ability, as discussed earlier. **Yet, significantly, ability is not dependent upon performance. It is theoretically possible to possess an ability and not exhibit that ability.**


This is just silly posturing Lifegazer. This is so typical of neo-platonism it isn't even funny. This is you creating an abstarct idea called ability and the assigninging it some magic place where it exists seperate from the world.

I think that if you stop and think, and maybe talk to your hamster, you will find that there is no such thing as ability the way you are using it. Look at riding a bike or playing a musical intrument. There is a physical potential to learn a skill
But that skill is learned through repitition and learning


All we can say is that performance is evidence of prior ability. We cannot say that performance and ability are the same thing, as you are trying to infer.

Then why did Beethoven have to practise? And Horowitz, they certainlt developed talent but they had no base ability, what ability they had was developed.
When you use ability it seems to you mean potetial to learn. Which is not the same as your magic ability.
[/B]

Your whole argument rests upon magic words and mantras Lifegazer, which is why you could benefit from a head flush and refit.

Keep using those magic phrases and you will believe them, your philospohy is very old and very worn out. there is nothing new or revolutionary.

You would do better to plant a garden and do some volunterr work.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
This is just silly posturing Lifegazer. This is so typical of neo-platonism it isn't even funny. This is you creating an abstarct idea called ability and the assigninging it some magic place where it exists seperate from the world.

So "ability" is a concept invented by me? LOL. What are you guys on, because I could do with a long drag myself.
Collins dictionary
Ability: 1. Possession of necessary skill, competence, or power.
2. Proficiency; capability.

It's part of the language hombres, and it refers to a concept which recognises inherent capability within an entity to perform a function, regardless of whether that function is attempted.

The ability to reason precedes the function of reasoning which precedes the gain of knowledge.

I think that if you stop and think, and maybe talk to your hamster, you will find that there is no such thing as ability the way you are using it.

Nonsense.

Look at riding a bike or playing a musical intrument. There is a physical potential to learn a skill

The physical potential to learn a skill is the inherent ability of an entity enabling him to learn that skill. Not all entities possess this ability, so not all entities will be able to try and learn.

Then why did Beethoven have to practise? And Horowitz, they certainlt developed talent but they had no base ability, what ability they had was developed.

Of course they had base ability. Entities that do not possess the ability to learn how to compose music, can never learn how to compose music. Why don't you try teaching your shoe to compose music? Simply because it lacks the ability to learn.

Beethoven's ability enabled him to learn. The learning process itself enabled him to master the art.

You would do better to plant a garden and do some volunterr work.
I sometimes look upon my work here as voluntary tending of the vegetables.

[Mercutio]

Your dictionary is telling you what we have been..."ability" is defined by performance. If you cannot perform, you do not have ability. It is thus defined after the fact. Nothing new there.

The key that you are missing in addressing Dancing David's remarks is that he speaks of ability the way you are using it. The problem is not in the term as the dictionary uses it. It is in your circularity.
The physical potential to learn a skill is the inherent ability of an entity enabling him to learn that skill. Not all entities possess this ability, so not all entities will be able to try and learn. Unless you have some new way of measuring ability prior to performance (and in your logical argument, you have rejected doing this), this argument still falls prey to the "Upchurch's Permission" fallacy.

[lifegazer]

Question.
Do you recognise that knowledge and the process we call reasoning to discern of this knowledge, are distinctly separate concepts? I.e., is the [mental] act of reasoning distinct from the knowledge it yields?

Clearly, it would take a devious dance to say there is no distinction between the willful act of reasoning and the acquisition of her conclusions. My philosophy, for example, is an effect of my own ability to reason. My philosophy proceeds my willful reasoning.

Since the gains proceed the act of reasoning, it is sound to state that reasoning (the ability to reason) precedes the learning of things (such as languages).

I.e., before there was knowledge, there was reason.

You guys are kidding yourselves here if you think that a fact can be learnt without first possessing the necessary capability (to reason of that fact). So dance away and avoid addressing the argument. The truth cannot be force fed to you. You have to want to eat.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You guys are kidding yourselves here if you think that a fact can be learnt without first possessing the necessary capability (to reason of that fact). So dance away and avoid addressing the argument. The truth cannot be force fed to you. You have to want to eat.

You completely ignore trial and error, positive/negative reinforcement. The way a baby learns to use its eyes, move its extremeties, etc, has nothing to do with reason, its simply an establishment of neural pathways.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The sensations we have, the emotions and the thoughts - all are created by ourselves - by our Mind. Our Mind gives us 'hot' and 'pain' and 'itchy' and 'red' and 'sweet' and 'angry' and 'happy' and 'conception', etc. etc..
The Mind itself is the creator of abstract experience. The [supposed external] universe knows nothing of hot, cold, pain, etc.. That the Mind is the primal-cause of its own abstract representations of an existence upon its own awareness is a fact which cannot be doubted. Again, the universe knows nothing of abstract experience.
So no, we cannot create a robot which will have the same experience of existence as ourselves, since material processes cannot, by themselves, create these abstract experiences. Yes, they do influence our experiences, such as when a hammer hits me on the head and I feel pain. But the hammer does not create the pain... my Mind does.


Why are you so convinced that an artificial mind cannot be created? And at what level and it what way will the behavior of neurons differ from our machines?


Again, my argument distinguished between being and doing. Thermodynamics is related with doing.


There is no distinguishing between being and doing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You completely ignore trial and error, positive/negative reinforcement.

I addressed trial and error earlier:-
How do we learn from trial and error except through judgement in relation to the things we experience? And making judgements means weighing up the facts and then choosing what's best. So, even learning via trial & error is a process which occurs in association with having the ability to reason. Judgement and choice are weighed by reason.

The way a baby learns to use its eyes, move its extremeties, etc, has nothing to do with reason

The baby is not conciously responsible for the eyes. It is, however, conciously responsible for the facts it learns.

its simply an establishment of neural pathways.
There's nothing simple about the eye/brain relationship nor how you actually see things. But it doth suffice to know that 'you' have no input on how you see. You just do.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's nothing simple about the eye/brain relationship nor how you actually see things. But it doth suffice to know that 'you' have no input on how you see. You just do. Nothing simple...and yet we know a tremendous amount about it, due to over 100 years of scientific study, thanks to an assumption of a real material world. I'm glad the early psychophysicists did not share your philosophy.

"You have no input on how you see"...is only true in part. Viewed another way, you are completely wrong. Your neural pathways develop, in part, through interaction with the world. Without sufficient stimulation, some faculties will never develop. (thus blindness in one eye due to early ambliopia). So in a sense, you have tremendous input on how you see.

In another sense, our perceptions of depth, for instance, may also depend on our learning and experience. Look for the "carpenter world hypothesis" to explain some visual illusions.

All brought to you by the materialist world view.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Nothing simple...and yet we know a tremendous amount about it, due to over 100 years of scientific study, thanks to an assumption of a real material world. I'm glad the early psychophysicists did not share your philosophy.

Knowing how things work is a different issue.

All brought to you by the materialist world view.
Let me remind you that understanding the order within our perceptions is not dependent upon assuming that this order also exists externally to our awareness of it.
In other words, we can gain knowledge of how the eye works without assuming that we are observing an external reality.
Rather, the laws of physics apply to perceived, internal, reality. They do not apply to an external reality.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I addressed trial and error earlier:-
How do we learn from trial and error except through judgement in relation to the things we experience? And making judgements means weighing up the facts and then choosing what's best. So, even learning via trial & error is a process which occurs in association with having the ability to reason. Judgement and choice are weighed by reason.


actually no, neural networks can learn through trial and error, without a need for reason. We use these neuron simulations to perform a great many tasks, and they are all taught before they are used, and the teaching does not involve reason.


The baby is not conciously responsible for the eyes. It is, however, conciously responsible for the facts it learns.


here is where your idealism runs into trouble. What is a "learned fact". Is riding a bike a learned fact? You can read about it in a book, and know everything there is to know, but still not be able to ride a bike simply because you've never done it. Is being able to hear a learned fact? Those who had problems with their ears early on do not form the proper neural pathways, and so even if their ears are repaired later in life, they still cannot hear. There are many facts we learn that we are not conciously responsible for.


There's nothing simple about the eye/brain relationship nor how you actually see things. But it doth suffice to know that 'you' have no input on how you see. You just do.

Would it be fair to say that also you have no input on how you learn your first language? Just as vision has its own dedicated centers in the brain, so does language, so why should language be any different?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Knowing how things work is a different issue.


Knowing how things work is central to your argument. We are understanding more and more how the brain works, even to the point of replacing a complex portion of it with silicon. If you are right, then we are missing a large portion, the "antenna" portion. The portion of the brain that picks up what the "Mind" transmits to it. Should be interesting what would happen if this portion is removed, eh? Also interesting is that we have found no such portion

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Knowing how things work is central to your argument.

Knowing how the eye works is not central to an argument about concious reasoning preceding concious knowledge.

This whole argument revolves around the fact that we can and do reason prior to gaining knowledge. Simple and true. Why would you even want to dispute this?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Knowing how the eye works is not central to an argument about concious reasoning preceding concious knowledge.


we aren't talking about how the eye works


This whole argument revolves around the fact that we can and do reason prior to gaining knowledge. Simple and true. Why would you even want to dispute this?

We are talking about how the brain works. Confront my arguments instead of restating your assumptions.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Question.
Do you recognise that knowledge and the process we call reasoning to discern of this knowledge, are distinctly separate concepts? I.e., is the [mental] act of reasoning distinct from the knowledge it yields?

Clearly, it would take a devious dance to say there is no distinction between the willful act of reasoning and the acquisition of her conclusions. My philosophy, for example, is an effect of my own ability to reason. My philosophy proceeds my willful reasoning.

Since the gains proceed the act of reasoning, it is sound to state that reasoning (the ability to reason) precedes the learning of things (such as languages).

I.e., before there was knowledge, there was reason.

You guys are kidding yourselves here if you think that a fact can be learnt without first possessing the necessary capability (to reason of that fact). So dance away and avoid addressing the argument. The truth cannot be force fed to you. You have to want to eat.

You are very silly Lifegazer and becoming more of a clown again.

A child does not have the faculties of reason, they can learn to walk, but there is no reason in it.

The qualities that are generaly ascribed to reason are aquired in young adult hood, and there are ome who never aquire them. You are very silly to say that reason precedes knowledge. One can the owrd for tree and know how to label a tree but still lack the ability to make choices based upon past consequences.

Your grasp of relativuty shows that one can have reason without knowledge and sometimes they are incompatible.

You are just foolish is you say that a dog must have reason to bark, yet you say a child has reason to learn language.

Reason arises late in life, so there is till hope for you.

HAMSTER! HAMSTER! HAMSTER!