ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Is Emotion or Intellect more Useful and BenefiIím not sure/donít know/cial to Humans?
Emotion 0 0%
Intellect. 13 30.23%
They are equally useful and beneficial. 22 51.16%
Iím not sure/donít know/donít care (Planet X). 8 18.60%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 5th January 2018, 05:41 PM   #81
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,952
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Not of any use without detail of the expermiments.
I imagine someone with an ounce of initiative will Google them.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 06:01 PM   #82
Elaedith
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 717
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I chose intellect, but that doesnít mean I think emotions donít have use and benefit (just less than intellect).

ETA - I posted this poll in Religion and Philosophy because I would like to find out if the answers are affected by realism (atheism) and arealism (theism)
Do you think that questions like this are purely hypothetical and a matter of opinion?
What about answers being affected by empirical evidence from advances in research on the functions of emotions in the last decades? The underlying assumption of a dichotomy between emotions and intellect is outdated.

If you are actually interested in evidence, I suggest you start by looking at the work of Antonio DamasioWP

I get a strange 'feeling' of deja vu from this thread.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 07:01 PM   #83
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Do you think that questions like this are purely hypothetical and a matter of opinion?
What about answers being affected by empirical evidence from advances in research on the functions of emotions in the last decades? The underlying assumption of a dichotomy between emotions and intellect is outdated.

If you are actually interested in evidence, I suggest you start by looking at the work of Antonio DamasioWP

I get a strange 'feeling' of deja vu from this thread.
If my purpose was to find out if either emotion or intellect actually are more useful and beneficial to humans, then I wouldn’t choose posting a poll on a forum to find out (and certainly not in the Religion and Philosophy section). The opinions of members are all I expect and need to get for my purpose.

My purpose is an attempt to find out whether theists are more likely to “side” with the values of emotions than atheists (and vise versa). From my impressions of the forum members that have voted so far I think this is shown to be so. Unfortunately the wording of the poll question has caused some member to misinterpret the question and vote wrongly.

From my OP . . .
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I posted this poll in Religion and Philosophy because I would like to find out if the answers are affected by realism (atheism) and arealism (theism)
Hope your deja vu clears up quickly .
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 5th January 2018 at 07:05 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 03:45 AM   #84
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,952
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
If you are actually interested in evidence, I suggest you start by looking at the work of Antonio DamasioWP
That's the guy.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 06:55 AM   #85
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,179
We all know that human emotions are very powerful and that an emotionally-appealing item can lead us down a very bad road indeed. Like one of Hitlerís speeches...

Or, we may ďfall in loveĒ with and marry someone with whom we are seriously unable to get along with...

But intellect and itís products, science, technology, and philosophy, can lead us down some wrong roads as well. Technology is almost always accompanied by ďunforeseen circumstancesĒ.

ďLets put your new motor in one of those carriages and see how fast it will go!Ē
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 06:48 PM   #86
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,498
Here's a question that I find highly analogous to the thread question:

"Are wings or a cockpit more useful and beneficial to airplanes?"
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 07:24 PM   #87
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here's a question that I find highly analogous to the thread question:

"Are wings or a cockpit more useful and beneficial to airplanes?"
And equally easy to answer . . .

Wings (obviously)
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 07:25 PM   #88
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
We humans are the most emotional and intellectual species on Earth and our elevated “emotellect” is what separates us from all other species and makes us “special”.

Many argue that emotions are the essence of being human, and they cite positive emotions like love, happiness, passion, empathy, and the like, as some sort of proof that emotions are positive and lovely and that the more people embrace emotions the better they and humanity become. This is a flawed Argumentum ad Rose-Tinted Glasses however as it ignores the fact that emotions are also equally responsible for hate, sadness, dispassion, disdain, and the like.

Never once have I heard anyone claim that intellect is the essence of being human, although clearly it is every bit as much as emotion. I think intellect deserves more love and respect .

If Trump or “Rocket Man” push their respective “red button”, will they be guided more by intellect or emotion?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 6th January 2018 at 07:43 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 09:19 PM   #89
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,108
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Equally essential?

How you'd go about quantifying essential? (that was rhetorical. Don't want yet another semantic thread)
Bet you get one though!!!!! And I voted both.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 12:35 AM   #90
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,078
To me this question is along the lines of "do you need food, water or air to survive?"
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 11:42 AM   #91
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
And equally easy to answer . . .

Wings (obviously)

Why is that obvious? A plane with wings but no flight controls is as useless for its ostensible purpose as the reverse. Neither can be flown.

(The plane with wings but not flight controls might, however, serve as a decoy; the one with flight controls but no wings could be used as a training simulator.)
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 02:32 PM   #92
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Why is that obvious? A plane with wings but no flight controls is as useless for its ostensible purpose as the reverse. Neither can be flown.

(The plane with wings but not flight controls might, however, serve as a decoy; the one with flight controls but no wings could be used as a training simulator.)
Not true. "Flight controls" isn't the same thing as "cockpit". Planes can fly autonomously or by remote control without the need of any cockpit.

If your question had been "Are wings or flight controls more useful and beneficial to airplanes?" I would have chosen "flight controls" because without some form of flight controls (on-board or remotely controlled) a plane wouldn't even get off the ground.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 7th January 2018 at 03:06 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 02:45 PM   #93
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
To me this question is along the lines of "do you need food, water or air to survive?"
Obviously you need all three to survive, but air is most needed to survive in the short term (minutes). Then water, then food. Need for air therefore has the most immediate importance to survival.

The poll question isn't "Can you do without emotions or intellect?" or "Do you need emotions or intellect?". Your question is not along the lines of the poll question at all.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 7th January 2018 at 03:01 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 03:06 PM   #94
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Speaking as a realist, I chose the planet x option.

Your Pal, The Big Dog, A Realist.

The Big Dog a realist!

The method of convincing others, and yourself, of an absurdity by repetition alone is a well proven technique in theism. Now we have TBD trying it on us, and himself?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 03:16 PM   #95
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The Big Dog a realist!

The method of convincing others, and yourself, of an absurdity by repetition alone is a well proven technique in theism. Now we have TBD trying it on us, and himself?
When theists arrive at my door to tell me the good message of their particular savior I usually say - "Sorry, but it would be a waste of time because I'm a realist". Their enlightened eyes light up even more, and their plastic smiles broaden even more, and they exclaim enthusiastically - "So are we!" The poor fools actually believe they are! I guess if you can believe in a magical, invisible sky-daddy you can believe anything.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 7th January 2018 at 03:18 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 03:36 PM   #96
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
When theists arrive at my door to tell me the good message of their particular savior I usually say - "Sorry, but it would be a waste of time because I'm a realist". Their enlightened eyes light up even more, and their plastic smiles broaden even more, and they exclaim enthusiastically - "So are we!" The poor fools actually believe they are! I guess if you can believe in a magical, invisible sky-daddy you can believe anything.
That is a super cool story.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 05:55 PM   #97
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,421
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That is a super cool story.
And here I ever doubted your ability to contribute, Such verboseness.

You're welcome, inb4 dog gif.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
ďThat which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Ē -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 07:58 PM   #98
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Given I wanted to get personal opinions I wouldíve been better to ask ďDo you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?Ē. Silly me.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 08:56 PM   #99
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Given I wanted to get personal opinions I wouldíve been better to ask ďDo you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?Ē. Silly me.
See, that I can answer.

I put more value on the intellect.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 10:45 PM   #100
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Given I wanted to get personal opinions I wouldíve been better to ask ďDo you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?Ē. Silly me.
I hope that you know that an opinion is not science and that you can't use science to answer your question: Do you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?

Yet according to you that is possible as per the is-ought problem.
It is a fact that there are emotions and intellects. Ought you value emotions or intellects more?
The first is a quantitative fact and the other ethical/qualitative question.
Here it is as an invalid deduction; i.e the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
P1: It is a fact that there are emotions and intellects.
C: Therefore intellects are more valuable than emotions.

As invalid deductions go that one is no different than this one.
P1: It is a fact that you can't answer ethical questions using the scientific method.
C: Therefore there is a God.

Now for both the cases of invalid deduction you could still ask if the premises are true as facts? And, yes, both are true.
Now what about the conclusions?
Are they both true?
No, the first one is true as a first person subjective evaluative opinion, where as the second is not true, because it is unknown, whether there are god(s).

As knowledge goes, both premises are objective knowledge, the first conclusion is subjective knowledge and the second conclusion is not knowledge, but a belief without evidence.

So a philosopher I know that you can't answer an ethical ought question using science, but that won't stop you from believing that without evidence. Just as some people believe that there is a God, some people believe that science can answer an ethical ought question.

So here it is as love. I love facts and I am a stickler for facts. And it is a fact, that we can't answer an ethical ought question using science.
So as a question open to falsification, the answer to the question - "Can we use science to answer ethical ought questions?" - the answer is no.
That you then believe that this makes me religious, is your problem and not mine.
It just means that we both in general understand how science works, but I understand how ethics works and you don't.

As an invalid deduction it goes like this:
P1: It is a fact that I know we can't answer an ethical ought question using science.
C: Therefore I am religious.
BTW I am not religious, we just disagree on how ethics work.

I hope you have learned something.
For the fact that science is a limited method in that you can't answer all question about reality in a positive sense using science, doesn't follow that everybody who knows this, is religious.
If you really like intellect more that emotions, then you ought to learn to understand this text and learn to know that is a fact, that you can't answer an ethical ought question using science.

With regards

P.S. If you want evidence, then understand this - no all versions of truth is scientific. I.e. there is not just one version of truth.
So ask yourself this: What makes it true that I put more value on intellect than emotions?
Hint - it is subjective.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 11:40 PM   #101
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Oh look, there's a mountain . . . Oh sorry, it's just a molehill.

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Given I wanted to get personal opinions I wouldíve been better to ask ďDo you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?Ē. Silly me.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 7th January 2018 at 11:41 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 11:58 PM   #102
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Oh look, there's a mountain . . . Oh sorry, it's just a molehill.
So you agree that personal opinions can be real, natural and a part of reality/the universe/the world and there is not just one kind of truth.
I.e. it is not the truth of reality, but the truths of reality.
Or do you still insist that there is only one kind/category of truth - the truth.

You want to use intellect and truth. There is a difference between the truth and the truths and it amounts to a contradiction to say that they are the same.

So what is it, ynot? The truth or the truths?

Here it is as 3 variations and not just 2:
Science is the only truth.
Science is not truth.
Science is one truth, but there is also other kinds of truth.

In the academic sense there are the following areas of knowledge and truth:
Natural science.
Social science.
Mathematics/logic.
Human science(humanities).
Philosophy.

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 12:17 AM   #103
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Oh look, there's a mountain . . . Oh sorry, it's just a molehill.
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Given I wanted to get personal opinions I wouldíve been better to ask ďDo you put more value on Emotions or Intellect?Ē. Silly me.
Now the interesting part is that you use emotions and not intellect.
So in this case emotion is more useful and maybe beneficial than intellect to you.
So intellect is not always more useful and beneficial than emotions, right, ynot?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 12:46 AM   #104
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,104
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Many argue that emotions are the essence of being human, and they cite positive emotions like love, happiness, passion, empathy, and the like, as some sort of proof that emotions are positive and lovely and that the more people embrace emotions the better they and humanity become. This is a flawed Argumentum ad Rose-Tinted Glasses however as it ignores the fact that emotions are also equally responsible for hate, sadness, dispassion, disdain, and the like.
Where? And who has claimed that negative emotions don't count?

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Never once have I heard anyone claim that intellect is the essence of being human, although clearly it is every bit as much as emotion. I think intellect deserves more love and respect .
Yet you claim that you already expected that atheists were more likely to vote for intellect in your poll, and that the results don't surprise you.
So the fact you never heard anyone pick intellect over emotion was what? A lack of research? Not true?
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 12:50 AM   #105
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Now the interesting part is that you use emotions and not intellect.
Horses for courses.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So in this case emotion is more useful and maybe beneficial than intellect to you.
Horses for courses.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So intellect is not always more useful and beneficial than emotions, right, ynot?
Never said it was. Your post wasn't worthy of an intellectual reply (Horses for courses).

That I prefer intellect doesn’t make me against emotions. Wonder why it has to be “If you’re not with us you’re against us” for you?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 01:00 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:06 AM   #106
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Horses for courses.


Horses for courses.


Never said it was. Your post wasn't worthy of an intellectual reply.

That I prefer intellect doesn’t make me against emotions. Wonder why it has to be “If you’re not with us you’re against us” for you?
Because I am religious, right, ynot?!! I am against you because you understand reality, but you don't get me, because I am not like you, so I have to be religious. Does it make you feel better to believe that I am religious?!! Or has it dawned on you, that I am an atheist yet different than you?

We are equal as humans as a part of reality(science and intellect) and different as individuals(ethics and subjectivity/emotions).

That you and I in general prefer intellect over emotions doesn't make us better humans, because you can't use the intellect to give evidence for the fact that it makes us better. Better in that case is an emotion.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 8th January 2018 at 01:08 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:13 AM   #107
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Where? And who has claimed that negative emotions don't count?
Negative emotions "don't count" to those when they say "To love is to be human" and never say "To hate is be human" (Argumentum ad Rose-Tinted Glasses ).

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Yet you claim that you already expected that atheists were more likely to vote for intellect in your poll, and that the results don't surprise you.
So the fact you never heard anyone pick intellect over emotion was what? A lack of research? Not true?
It's not a matter of voting for intellect, it's a matter of what type of people usually say "To love is to be human" and similar statements that focus only on positive emotions and ignore the negative. In my considerable life experience these are more likely statements made by theists and other paranormal believers than atheists and realists.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 01:25 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:19 AM   #108
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Because I am religious, right, ynot?!! I am against you because you understand reality, but you don't get me, because I am not like you, so I have to be religious. Does it make you feel better to believe that I am religious?!! Or has it dawned on you, that I am an atheist yet different than you?

We are equal as humans as a part of reality(science and intellect) and different as individuals(ethics and subjectivity/emotions).

That you and I in general prefer intellect over emotions doesn't make us better humans, because you can't use the intellect to give evidence for the fact that it makes us better. Better in that case is an emotion.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Case of emotional diarrhea perhaps?

My posts aren't all about you. Not about you personally at all actually.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 01:24 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:27 AM   #109
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
...
It's not a matter of voting for intellect, it's a matter of what type of people usually say "Emotions are the essence of being human", "To love is to be human" and similar statements that focus only on positive emotions and ignore the negative. In my considerable life experience these are more likely statements made by theists and other paranormal believers than atheists and realists.
Yes, love and hate are both real. I used to hate a lot and use other negative emotions. So I learn to be realistic and positive and learned how hate works and stopped do that as much as I used to.
So yes, love is necessary but not sufficient.

So truth is only science. Got any evidence for that using only your intellect or is it just an opinion?

What makes "To love is to be human" and "The truth of reality is science" similar? Both are not true for all of reality.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:34 AM   #110
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Case of emotional diarrhea perhaps?

My posts aren't all about you. Not about you personally at all actually.
But it is also about me, but not just me. You asked about humans. I am a human and so are you. You speak of reality, I am a part of it and so are you. You speak of intellect and emotion, I have both and so do you.
You speak of a we/us versus them(religion and so on). Got any evidence for for that you and your we are all there is to reality? What about them?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:35 AM   #111
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes, love and hate are both real. I used to hate a lot and use other negative emotions. So I learn to be realistic and positive and learned how hate works and stopped do that as much as I used to.
So yes, love is necessary but not sufficient.

So truth is only science. Got any evidence for that using only your intellect or is it just an opinion?

What makes "To love is to be human" and "The truth of reality is science" similar? Both are not true for all of reality.
No. Science is our best method of establishing the truth of reality. This is true for all of reality.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 01:38 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:46 AM   #112
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
But it is also about me, but not just me. You asked about humans. I am a human and so are you. You speak of reality, I am a part of it and so are you. You speak of intellect and emotion, I have both and so do you.
You speak of a we/us versus them(religion and so on). Got any evidence for for that you and your we are all there is to reality? What about them?
Everything is a figment of my imagination. My imagination is therefore a figment of itself. Nothing is real. Nothing to get hung about . . .
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 02:29 AM   #113
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Everything is a figment of my imagination. My imagination is therefore a figment of itself. Nothing is real. Nothing to get hung about . . .
If that works for you, good for you. It doesn't work for me in practice since I believe that I am part of a natural world.

But I can do that too.

Everything is one and one is everything, because everything else is a contradiction and thus unreal. So since I am not you(not you, ynot), I am a contradiction and thus not really real.

The absurdity aside, you can find people who argue for that. The joke is that they can't explain who it is they are communicating with, because how can they communicate with someone who is not real.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 02:33 AM   #114
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Hi ynot.

I am glad that you shifted the question to an opinion. Because some cases of useful and beneficial are opinions and not science.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 04:06 PM   #115
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,443
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Emotion, not intellect, is the driving urge to discover. Science, a product of intellect, serves that urge.
The problem is, if Emotion did not exist, we would still engage in discovery because our intellect would tell us that its beneficial to ourselves and/or our species survival.

We wouldn't invent the wheel because we had an emotional desire to go driving around in a sports car. We would invent it because our intellect would tell us "hey, having a wheel would mean easier transportation of food and materials, which would mean better survival".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 04:19 PM   #116
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The problem is, if Emotion did not exist, we would still engage in discovery because our intellect would tell us that its beneficial to ourselves and/or our species survival.

We wouldn't invent the wheel because we had an emotional desire to go driving around in a sports car. We would invent it because our intellect would tell us "hey, having a wheel would mean easier transportation of food and materials, which would mean better survival".
Exactly! Intellectual urge/motivation/curiosity/exploration/etc.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 04:24 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 04:34 PM   #117
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,331
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The problem is, if Emotion did not exist, we would still engage in discovery because our intellect would tell us that its beneficial to ourselves and/or our species survival.

We wouldn't invent the wheel because we had an emotional desire to go driving around in a sports car. We would invent it because our intellect would tell us "hey, having a wheel would mean easier transportation of food and materials, which would mean better survival".
Quite the opposite. Without pesky emotions, we would have ditched agriculture, and gone back to the easy hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The reason we didn't was because it would have entailed mass starvation. But if you don't care about the people starving...
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 04:37 PM   #118
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Quite the opposite. Without pesky emotions, we would have ditched agriculture, and gone back to the easy hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The reason we didn't was because it would have entailed mass starvation. But if you don't care about the people starving...
Emotionist rubbish! Why do you hate intellect so much?

Are you seriously claiming that the agricultural revolution was the result of emotions?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 04:39 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 08:38 PM   #119
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Not true. "Flight controls" isn't the same thing as "cockpit". Planes can fly autonomously or by remote control without the need of any cockpit.

There are no cockpit-less planes that can fly autonomously. Autonomous winged flying machines exist, but they're called "cruise missiles." Remote control planes (aka drones) do exist, however.

I provide care to people who are intellectually disabled. They are non-verbal and their intellect (in terms of IQ) is not measurable. They are, however, completely and recognizably human because their emotional responses are normal or close to it. They demonstrate (and as far as anyone can tell also experience) enjoyment, anger, disappointment, excitement, curiosity, fear, satisfaction. They perceive and experience the concrete reality around them. Food, light or darkness and light switches, simple toys, sounds, hearing words and phrases with specific meanings ("dinner time," "put that down," "bed"). What they lack, as far as anyone can tell, is intellectual abstractions. Goals, stories, principles, beliefs, understanding.

That, in my analogy, is planes without cockpits. Their emotions are the wings. They can "fly," live experiential lives; they cannot navigate anywhere.

I have more difficulty imagining the opposite case, intellect without emotion (navigational instruments without wings), to a comparable degree. The closer I do get to imagining it, the more horrific the prospect seems. Such a person might make an ideal slave (or drone), able to handle complex assignments without fear or hope of reward; but maybe not, because the lack of resentment at being enslaved might be counterbalanced by a lack of any motivation to obey either. Such a person would easily understand that some actions would lead to punishments or even death, and others to comfort or pleasure, but without emotion why prefer either one over the other? Looking up descriptions of "flat affect" (psychology term for reduced emotional expression) as a symptom of mental illness or altered mental state can give some idea of what the consequences of a state of complete emotionlessness might be.

The person would, I suspect, still be completely and recognizably human. You'd be able to have a conversation, though what conversation the person would care about or be interested in is a difficult question. A plane without wings is a reasonable enough analogy.

Quote:
If your question had been "Are wings or flight controls more useful and beneficial to airplanes?" I would have chosen "flight controls" because without some form of flight controls (on-board or remotely controlled) a plane wouldn't even get off the ground.

A plane would also not even get off the ground without wings. So that choice actually has no logical basis.

Neither my actual real-world severely intellectually disabled companions, nor hypothetical severely emotionally disabled individuals, have any hope (heh) of being able to direct their own lives or care for their own basic needs.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 10:51 PM   #120
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,435
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
There are no cockpit-less planes that can fly autonomously. Autonomous winged flying machines exist, but they're called "cruise missiles." Remote control planes (aka drones) do exist, however.
It's not my fault you never got a remote control plane for Xmas. You shouldn't have been such a naughty little boy .

Wingless plane - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr5HwRyk020

Autonomous plane - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/b...7-12?r=US&IR=T
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 8th January 2018 at 11:02 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.