Modes of thought

[adrianh]

I think that both approaches have value, Thomas Edison didn't wake up one day a quickly created the light buld from his dreams but n the other hand Archimes had his Eureka moment when he got into the bath.

[Dave A]

I think that both approaches have value

Without doubt

In particular, the intuitive approach has the advantage of speed.
It also often guides at least the framework applied to the first round of examination in the rigorous approach.

[Trickzta]

Interesting.

My nephew (3 or 4 yrs old) tripped and scuffed his knee on the concrete, thinking nobody had noticed he puffed his cheeks while examining the damage and watching the blood ooze. A female then noticed what had just happened and exclaimed in a motherly tone, "Ag shame". My nephew then started to cry and was 'mothered' by the gentler (phhhht) sex who'd been summoned by his tearful sobs. The act of showing pity or the soft tone of compassion was the catalist (spelling?) here, or so I think anyway.

I'm very sure that had there been no 'oohs and aahs' that he would have gotten up without shedding a tear.

In my opinion there are many possible factors that influence behaviour or thought patterns, and different kids will (could) have different ways of reacting to various stimuli, which I suppose translates into enviroment and other factors playing a role. I've often wondered if we don't have a kind of 'instinct' as well, this if true could also be a factor I'd say.

[Citizen X]

I wonder whether rational and irrational thinking is genetic or whether it is taught (self taught or formally taught) I am fascinated by our mental operational modes. Association of appropriate cause and effect occurs at a very young age, a baby quickly figures out that if it cries it gets attention. Could it be because of upbringing, people grow up to believe that rain is brought on by dance and all sorts of strange things. So, if the thought process is learned at a very young age is there a way to turn irrational thought processes into rational processes through education. Are people able to overturn their ingrained thought processes themselves....

You may just be a metaphysical thinker after-all! (Not going off topic, I promise, but I'm also not going the 'conditioning route,' here)
I get that you focusing on cause and effect for now. In terms of inertia, from a philosophical perspective, the question is not what keeps a sledge from moving across flat ice but rather what stops it[some external force]. To take it further, if you believe that the body is simply material, then there’s no question of any after- life let alone immortality. This is so because the atheist believe that the body is just matter and when it dies, it ceases. This very body and mind that can do all you rightfully describe, mere matter or something greater.
Are our mental capacities a mere coincidence?

[Dave A]

This very body and mind that can do all you rightfully describe, mere matter or something greater.

The "mere matter" vs "matter + " is the bit I mull over at times.

What really differentiates "inanimate" material from "living" material.
We know the symptoms of that difference, and can manipulate those symptoms in many ways.
There are theories and beliefs as to what that + might be.
But at this point we don't truly understand the real cause (of life).

[vieome]

The "mere matter" vs "matter + " is the bit I mull over at times.

What really differentiates "inanimate" material from "living" material.
We know the symptoms of that difference, and can manipulate those symptoms in many ways.
There are theories and beliefs as to what that + might be.
But at this point we don't truly understand the real cause (of life).

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/10/...-shes-a-robot/

Meet the Robot Telemarketer Who Denies She’s A Robot Our encounter with an all-too-convincing robot.

[adrianh]

The only real difference between a human brain and that of an animal is self awareness. What is self awareness other than having two processes running that are able to interact internally with one another whilst interacting externally. I think therefore I am simply means that for you to be aware of your own thinking you have to have a process that monitors another process. The problem with the whole soul thing is that our thinking processes are 100% tied into the heath of our brains. Look at stroke victims, they suffer all sorts of strange problems, what about those who suffer from Alzheimer's or what about the guy who gets hit with a hammer on the forehead and becomes a totally different person. The idea of a soul doesn't work for me because our thought processes are wholly dependent on a biological machine, if a specific region of the machine breaks down then a specific ability is lost. The other problem is of course the effect that drugs have on the mind. If you are a manic depressive and you take Prozac then you feel better, if you take ecstasy you feel relaxed or if you tape PCP you freak out. Now again, how do you separate that thing that is soul from mere chemistry. Maybe one could say that soul is considered to be your mean or average state of mind, difficult to explain that to a schizophrenic who is totally delusional without medication. This brings up an even bigger dilemma, lets say a schizophrenic grows up living in his blurred world and kills somebody in a delusional fit. That person is put into a psychiatric hospital and given a lobotomy (be it by blade or drug) and the person is now completely lucid and not schizophrenic any more....now what about the thing called soul - does he still have one.....

[pmbguy]

Trying to reconcile the idea of a soul with our biological and social reality is problematic. A good person could change “bad” and a bad person could change into a “good” one through damage to the brain. Especially the frontal lobe where our “character” is based. Then consider nature vs. nurture, will a person’s soul be determined by their biological condition? perhaps they mad and bad because of a genetics. Will their soul be determined by their social environment? A person who grows up in a bad environment might become bad him/her self, does this ecological reality which determines their character then negatively affect their soul? So in some respects one could argue that the soul is a product of both nurture and nature, but is the soul in fact determined by these factors, or is the soul independent from nature and nurture? If this is the case then we cannot condemn an individual as having a corrupt soul, for it is nurture, genetics and the environment that potentially corrupts the soul. As a weird conclusion, all souls might be equal regardless of how good or bad you are, which may delete all thoughts of a soul being eater good or bad.

So where does this leave us then? If a soul’s “quality” is not determined by life, then how is it determined to be either good or bad? Perhaps it’s just an energy that goes wherever all souls go regardless of how good or bad the individual may be.

[adrianh]

...ah... you see my problem with religion...

So, does a bipolar, psychotic, schizophrenic sociopath who stabs somebody because "the voices" told him to do so go to heaven or hell ... or is it all ok provided that he believes in a particular story book. It's not his fault that his brain wiring is all wrong, how can he be condemned to hell...he doesn't know any better.

[wynn]

I have said this before in another thread, If you visit Fiji or remote Borneo there are people living there that years ago (sometimes not so long ago) ate the "Long Pig"
It was socially acceptable, in fact encouraged, at the time.
Was it wrong? sinful?