Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

[Mark Charles Compton]

If everything is a rationalization after the fact, then that also applies to everything is a rationalization after the fact.

I cannot remember the details of the case study, but this is fairly close to the heart of the matter, if you ask me. What is rationale?

If you ask me, the process of rationalization is analogous to: Intending to navigate the ocean, by building a ship from a flotsam in the middle of said ocean.
We're all as mad as hatters and we consider everything we've had to matter!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I cannot remember the details of the case study, but this is fairly close to the heart of the matter, if you ask me. What is rationale?

If you ask me, the process of rationalization is analogous to: Intending to navigate the ocean, by building a ship from a flotsam in the middle of said ocean.
We're all as mad as hatters and we consider everything we've had to matter!

Weah, it is all meaningless and that is the rational meaning. Learn that there is a meaning that works and it is connected to the rational, but not rational itself. That is how simple I can make it.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Is it just me, or is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible because:

@Snow White the last 1½ minutes ¹(timestamp 1:10:00) of the following video could perhaps provide another way to look at the dilemma I quoted here.

I invite. Nay, challenge! The members of this thread to watch this panel of academics discuss reality on the following World Science Festival broadcast:

(edit: Added timestamp.... And hopefully it intrigues you into wondering why he led with the phrase he did... if you choose to begin by starting at the end .)

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

This is an intriguing question (paraphrase: "how can mind exist considering everything being material?") and answer from Jordan Peterson.

I would have to disagree with Peterson on his position that, what I would call the 'curiosity to spark scientific inquiry' to be dependent of religious institutes to be ignited/initiated.
I do, however appreciate that he shouted out Sir Roger Penrose, probably my favorite breathing cosmologist/mathematician/physicist!

Long live Sir Roger Penrose! May he dance and dazzle us but a while longer before he settles in the heavens to breathe helium and get heavier, as one does. ​

 

[ppp]

Allow me an attempt at analogism here, I will repeat your 2nd sentence in the context of another hotly debated topic. Hopefully it clarifies where I lack clarity:

"Humans. Chimpanzee. Silverback. The ancient Homo erectus and neanderthal. All fall into the bucket of primates, but none are primates. And they are all separate and discrete species."

'Human are primates' is a grammatical shorthand for 'humans are a type of primate'. Not for 'humans are equivalent to the category of primate'.

 

[Truthseeker]

Psychology is not just about rationality.

I never said it was. Why do you believe I see it that way?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said it was. Why do you believe I see it that way?

Sorry.

 

[F1fan]

Well, the base problem is in effect today North Korea. A part of a population can survive by cooperating to take advantage of another part.
Evolution is about the replication of the fittest gene, not replication of the totally of a population in toto. Learn your biology.

But it isn't just biology, it is also how social animals have an advantage by cooperating with each other. Humans have a vastly better chance of survival by living and working in communities than those living isolated lives. Expand that to a whole species and that species has an advantage with more social and cooperative individuals. Those traits will be selected.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

'humans are equivalent to the category of primate'

I feel like the only thing being argued here is semantics. You can have your wins as soon as I respond in like kind:

"Of course they're not equivalent to the 'category' of primate... there's no such thing. It's the ORDER of primate." - Persnickety Pete

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it isn't just biology, it is also how social animals have an advantage by cooperating with each other. Humans have a vastly better chance of survival by living and working in communities than those living isolated lives. Expand that to a whole species and that species has an advantage with more social and cooperative individuals. Those traits will be selected.

Well, alpha male traits can also be selected for. So if you can show with evidence that cooperating traits are on rise and alpha male are going down, then you have made your point.

 

[F1fan]

Well, alpha male traits can also be selected for.

How are alpha male traits relevant?

So if you can show with evidence that cooperating traits are on rise and alpha male are going down, then you have made your point.

I never claimed either one of these.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How are alpha male traits relevant?


I never claimed either one of these.

Well, there are 2 ways to do power - cooperative and alpha male in groups like humans. But that is not real, right, because we can only observe cooperative behaviour in humans and no alpha male behaviour.
And if you don't know what alpha male behaviour is, then read up on it.

 

[F1fan]

Well, there are 2 ways to do power - cooperative and alpha male in groups like humans. But that is not real, right, because we can only observe cooperative behaviour in humans and no alpha male behaviour.
And if you don't know what alpha male behaviour is, then read up on it.

You are going way past evolution and into psychology. My point was that basic moral behavior is set by evolution and biology via social animals. Cooperative behavioral traits have been an advantage to many species, and these can be assessed as the natural phenomenon of moral behavior.

Your bringing up of alpha males is a subset of the same moral phenomenon. Alpha leadership allowed groups a more efficient existence thus passed on genes that kept that behavior prevalent as an advantage. This is all part of social groups and behavior. And just because there is an alpha does not mean the group isn;t cooperative. let's note that alphas are often challenged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are going way past evolution and into psychology. My point was that basic moral behavior is set by evolution and biology via social animals. Cooperative behavioral traits have been an advantage to many species, and these can be assessed as the natural phenomenon of moral behavior.

Your bringing up of alpha males is a subset of the same moral phenomenon. Alpha leadership allowed groups a more efficient existence thus passed on genes that kept that behavior prevalent as an advantage. This is all part of social groups and behavior. And just because there is an alpha does not mean the group isn;t cooperative. let's note that alphas are often challenged.

So you are claim that cooperative behaviour in the human race will overwin alpha male behavior and other non-cooperative behavior for the future and the human race will remain the same over as cooperative for humankind as such and we will end up in one happy world government?
Or is it just cooperative behavior good and non-cooperative behavior bad? Are you trying to pull some variant of the naturalistic fallacy?

 

[F1fan]

So you are claim that cooperative behaviour in the human race will overwin alpha male behavior and other non-cooperative behavior for the future and the human race will remain the same over as cooperative for humankind as such and we will end up in one happy world government?

I never once brought any of this up. I've only referenced basic objective morals by evolving animals, not subjective and abstract morals by modern humans. A totally different thing.

Or is it just cooperative behavior good and non-cooperative behavior bad?

Cooperative behavior is good when it is an advantage for survival. Obviously this has been a huge advantage for the various human species. Neanderthals are believed to have gone extinct because they couldn't compete with humans for the available resources.

Are you trying to pull some variant of the naturalistic fallacy?

You are trying to pin claims on me, and others, that we haven't even mentioned. Straw man fallacy is on you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never once brought any of this up. I've only referenced basic objective morals by evolving animals, not subjective and abstract morals by modern humans. A totally different thing.


Cooperative behavior is good when it is an advantage for survival. Obviously this has been a huge advantage for the various human species. Neanderthals are believed to have gone extinct because they couldn't compete with humans for the available resources.


You are trying to pin claims on me, and others, that we haven't even mentioned. Straw man fallacy is on you.

So you are claiming objective morals? There is a Nobel Prize in that in biology if you can show that. I will just leave for now.
Or you could reference the scientific biological theory of objective morality with an Internet link. Then I will read it and have learned something new. Until then you are doing woo-woo and pseudo-science.
You could consider this as a start:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[F1fan]

So you are claiming objective morals? There is a Nobel Prize in that in biology if you can show that. I will just leave for now.

Objective morals in animal evolution is not controversial.

Or you could reference the scientific biological theory of objective morality with an Internet link. Then I will read it and have learned something new. Until then you are doing woo-woo and pseudo-science.
You could consider this as a start:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I didn't realize you weren't familiar with this issue as I am. I've heard this referenced for decades.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective morals in animal evolution is not controversial.


I didn't realize you weren't familiar with this issue as I am. I've heard this referenced for decades.

Then give me an actual science link. No journalistic publication, blog or what not. An actual science link.

 

[ppp]

I feel like the only thing being argued here is semantics. You can have your wins as soon as I respond in like kind:

No, no. That's too soon. You can have your wins as soon as you tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists. And the belief system of atheism that necessarily applies to all atheists. Until then, just stand over there and look pretty.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

No, no. That's too soon. You can have your wins as soon as you tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists. And the belief system of atheism that necessarily applies to all atheists. Until then, just stand over there and look pretty.

*walks over there and shouts*
..."Over here?! No? Oh, over there!"....

*walks further and shouts again*
..."Okay, I can see your goal posts was that what I was meant to see?"