Honesty in Skepticism

[Whomp]

I may be misunderstanding, but Sketicism seems to say "Question everything, and make sure you get damn good answers. Answers that are logical and provable."

God/spirituality seem to not meet this tenet, I agree.

My question is, what else? Are there things we take for granted in the "rational" word that we don't have complete answers for?

Put on those intellecual honesty hats. Can you come up with any?

My first thought is "mind" (vs. brain), or "conciousness", whatever you want to call it. AFAIK we don't know how the human brain creates "mind", yet we seem to take for granted that we have minds. And it further seems that the human brain is the only one that does so.

anybody else?

(edited because I can't spell)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Whomp
I may be misunderstanding, but Sketicism seems to say "Question everything, and make sure you get damn good answers. Answers that are logical and provable."

God/spirituality seem to not meet this tenet, I agree.

My question is, what else? Are there things we take for granted in the "rational" word that we don't have complete answers for?

Put on those intellecual honesty hats. Can you come up with any?

My first thought is "mind" (vs. brain), or "conciousness", whatever you want to call it. AFAIK we don't know how the human brain creates "mind", yet we seem to take for granted that we have minds. And it further seems that the human brain is the only one that does so.

anybody else?

(edited because I can't spell)
Do you just want a list of more examples, or do you want to discuss the one you presented? Because I disagree with you.

All the evidence we have says that the mind is what the brain does. There is no evidence whatsoever for a mind separate from the activity of the brain. How would you test for such a thing?

Non-human animals display lots of mental activity, but since we can't communicate directly with them we can't verify clearly whether they have a "mind" and how similar it is to ours. Name any trait that you think is definitive of "mind" - tool use, counting, self-awareness, communication with others of the same species - and there is probably some non-human animal that displays this trait.

[arcticpenguin]

I re-read your original post, and I guess I'm not sure if I understood your position properly. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

[Mercutio]

If I read you right, you are questioning the assumption of "mind" at all. If so, I agree--I have made that argument on a few threads here. If that is what the question is, I'm up for a go at it.

[Whomp]

Hmmm,
I see your point. If I had to give some atributes of "mind" they would be;
Self-introspection
Guilt
Morals
etc.

These things (to me) don't fit into the catagory of emotion (a chemical reaction), and don't seem to be observed in other species.

I was also looking for a list of other things, if you have any.

Whomp

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Whomp
If I had to give some atributes of "mind" they would be;
Self-introspection
Guilt
Morals
etc.


Hmm... I see these things as (perhaps inevitable) byproducts of having a language and being social creatures. They are certainly things we do (or, metaphorically, things we "have"), but I honestly don't see them as attributes of a "mind". Of a person (or a society, to some extent, for Morals), yes. I am yet to be convinced of the existence of a Mind--even my own.

[Darwin]

"...Self-introspection
Guilt
Morals
etc.

These things (to me) don't fit into the catagory of emotion (a chemical reaction), and don't seem to be observed in other species.
"

Whether you consider them a chemical reaction as you correctly put it,this does not serve to say that these "products" would require something fundamentally different or to originate from a different source.
Descartes woo-woo and flat,religious interpretation of capacities of other species unfortunately gets to us but I disagree.

"My first thought is "mind" (vs. brain), or "conciousness", whatever you want to call it. AFAIK we don't know how the human brain creates "mind", yet we seem to take for granted that we have minds. And it further seems that the human brain is the only one that does so."
Personally,I´m sick of this mind/brain question,I recommend anyone concerned to take a look at neuroscience and overwhelming evidence for this link.
I think pondering on this is cabable of getting as as far as pondering on soul,God etc. namely,back where we started.
Neuroscientifically/psychologically,mind (conciousness I assume) there is no single spot for conciousness itself.Seriously,in human related analysis there are our enlargened regions of frontal and limbic systems responsible for a lot of our emotion and thinking processes,yet in order to be concious/for there to be any clinical conciousness itself,you are highly dependent on ancient "paleocircuits",primitive brain from "lower" life forms that we owe to.

If adventures in animal cranium are of interest to you,you might want to look for neuroethology.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Whomp
Are there things we take for granted in the "rational" word that we don't have complete answers for?

Put on those intellecual honesty hats. Can you come up with any? Well, not taken entirely for granted, per se, but all of science is based on the assumption that the universe is as we observe (or "measure" to use better word) it to be and that it isn't one big impenetrable illusion. I say that it's not entirely taken for granted beause theory of science classes will talk about it, but it's sort of the ultimate assumption in science and really can't be proven one way or the other (otherwise it wouldn't be impenetrable). So, it's recognized for what it is, but unaddressable.

[Dancing David]

The illusion of the self for one, it is harder to find the self than the mind.
The blind faith that the most current scientific theory is always, always right.
The belief that math really coorelates to something outside of itself ( I mean it is like a hammer, it exists in and of itself but just because you can bang on things doesn't mean the hammer is the best tool)
The belief that men are meant to be more agressive than women biologicaly.
The belief that victims of domestic violence are at fault.

There are some strongly held beliefs.

I believe that mind is dependant on matter, I have yet to see proof of mind without matter.


Peace

[lyghtningbyrd]

What? The BRAIN is responsible for everything you percieve. It is just a network of neurons that work together much like a computer. It does a highly complex procedure enabling us to autonomously be 'aware' of our existence and the side-effect of this is that we can 'consiously' control our own actions. Thinking that there is more to it that this is just another way of hiding from the truths of reality.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Dancing David

The blind faith that the most current scientific theory is always, always right.


:confused: umm...yeah, I suppose there might be some scientists who think this way...:confused:

[Dancing David]

Test, suggest to them that the universe as we know it may not be all that there is, suggest that maybe there is a lot of fudging results and outright lying in science, suggest that spiritual experiences are real.

I grant you that there are a lot of open minded people but if you ever suggest that maybe the way we percieve nature is an arbitrary consequence of biology , some people get very upset.

Peace

[Yahzi]

Whomp
These things (to me) don't fit into the catagory of emotion (a chemical reaction), and don't seem to be observed in other species.
You're wrong. They do, and are.

As for things we accept without critical scrutiny: my list has no entries. As for cultural insanitys, see Dancing David's list.

Mercutio
umm...yeah, I suppose there might be some scientists who think this way...
Where did Dancing David suggest that this was a weakness of scientists? I think he was referring to the public's instant endorsement of every scientific theory (aka Cold Fusion) as equally proved with all the other theories they don't understand (like Relativity).

Dancing David
I grant you that there are a lot of open minded people but if you ever suggest that maybe the way we percieve nature is an arbitrary consequence of biology , some people get very upset.
:D :D :D

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Mercutio

Where did Dancing David suggest that this was a weakness of scientists? I think he was referring to the public's instant endorsement of every scientific theory (aka Cold Fusion) as equally proved with all the other theories they don't understand (like Relativity).


My bad. I was confusing this thread with another that specifically looked at scientists. My apologies, Dancing David

[Whomp]

Wow!
OK, I was wrong. Obviously I chose a poor beginning example, and there don't seem to be any others.

For now, I respectfuly withdraw the question.

Oh, and Darwin? I can't tell you how absolutely crushed I am to have started with an example you are so thoroughly sick of. :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mercutio


My bad. I was confusing this thread with another that specifically looked at scientists. My apologies, Dancing David


No offense taken, good point and all eh, what.

Peace