SR VII

MovingPictures07 wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Bern is a popular guy around these parts. There are only 3 votes so far.

His amount of votes will increase by a power of 4 each day.

Henry Plainview wrote: This is boring! NEW TOPIC: What would you say if I dropped my There Will Be Blood theme? If you don't answer me I'll know that nobody reads my posts and be very sad. :(

Like the avatar, wouldn't miss the sig.

Bern wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: It happens because your brain is having it happen, really; it's a reason within itself (i.e. along the lines of--"Why does it happen? Because it happens. Roll the bones") Explaining the matter of tastes or something else is quite an interesting matter, because those all come down to balancing mental choice and predisposed personality/trait effects. You may naturally just not like a certain taste because of predisposed genes, traits, or for whatever reason that we may not be entirely sure of yet. The point is--there IS a reason and order behind it, but it's irrelevant to nearly all the time. This is a shaky matter though, and I'm not really arguing with your point as such. I'm simply saying that everything can be explained in some form using logic as the ultimate tool and not falling for logical fallacies. Emotions and thoughts, despite often portrayed as opposites in the media, really do interconnect. Well I've always seen lines as "Why does it happen? Because it happens." as the complete opposite of a reason to explain something. To me, this just shows that some things happen without a reason and there's no use to try and find it out. Why? Because. About taste, well, I've read a lot about taste recently. From ancient philosophers to modern philosophers to psychologists. Nobody knows where tastes come from. Psychologists tend to go with what you said. However, it's strictly an hypothesis. Sure, this makes sense and all but, if you get down to it and try to analyse someone, you'll see tastes are often illogical with the context someone grew up in and stuff. You can always try to explain 'em in a way but I could explain mostly everything if I wanted to by pushing some kind of logic very far. True, but I was referring to that in the fact that "falling to logical fallacies" would not be logical. Tastes do not rely much on environment; they're an exception and are really more of an innate, genetic aspect. Sometimes they can be influenced by environment though... particularly if the family or a certain member of the family eats something of notice quite often. This is more apt to have an environmentally-controlled response that is either positive, indifferent, and negative, after also factoring in the natural make-up of the person's natural feel for tastes. Trying to explain something that is controlled heavily by genetics or innately like taste can prove to be rather abstract. Emotions and thoughts are not opposites to me. They are basically the same actually. That makes up the unpredictable side of humanity. If, like animals, we were only based on instinct, we could be predictable and fully explained by logic. However, the faculty of thinking messes things up. How does thinking make us irrational though? If anything, it only makes us more complex and much harder to understand, but actually easier to fully rationalize given more time and effort. On a side note and to follow what I said, I'd much rather walk pass a bear in a dark alley than a man. I wouldn't want either.

HughesJB4 wrote: Exciting.

What is?

MovingPictures07 wrote: How does thinking make us irrational though? If anything, it only makes us more complex and much harder to understand, but actually easier to fully rationalize given more time and effort.

[/QUOTE]

It doesn't makes us irrationnal. It makes us what we are. Complex and hard to understand indeed. Not easier to fully rationalize at all though. You can explain an animal's behaviour. You can even predict what he'll do if you do something. However, human mind isn't like that. I only think people who try to rationalize it are just wasting their time personnally. Even if they manage to get to something which is a pretty good explanation of how human is :

1- What will it be for?
2- Will it work for every single person in the world? I really don't think so.

A game of "rock, paper, scissors" just might be a really good example of how human mind is unpredictable. Think about what goes on in your mind when you play. Is there really a logical way out?

How can you explain how a person will act when under drugs or alcohol? How can you explain why people fall in love with particular people?

To me, explaining such things is all random bullsh*t. Honestly.

No offense to your opinion though.

NaturalScience wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: This is boring! NEW TOPIC: What would you say if I dropped my There Will Be Blood theme? If you don't answer me I'll know that nobody reads my posts and be very sad. :( Like the avatar, wouldn't miss the sig.

Bern wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: How does thinking make us irrational though? If anything, it only makes us more complex and much harder to understand, but actually easier to fully rationalize given more time and effort.

It doesn't makes us irrationnal. It makes us what we are. Complex and hard to understand indeed. Not easier to fully rationalize at all though. You can explain an animal's behaviour. You can even predict what he'll do if you do something. However, human mind isn't like that. I only think people who try to rationalize it are just wasting their time personnally. Even if they manage to get to something which is a pretty good explanation of how human is :

1- What will it be for?
2- Will it work for every single person in the world? I really don't think so.

1. I don't quite understand your point here or what you mean.
2. I never said it would work for every single person. Each person is an individual and should be analyzed as such, in fact. Trying to generalize results in logical fallacy.

A game of "rock, paper, scissors" just might be a really good example of how human mind is unpredictable. Think about what goes on in your mind when you play. Is there really a logical way out?

Sure. A person chooses one of the three based on his/her evaluation of which would be strategically most effective or completely by chance. Nonetheless, the person chooses based on a certain reason and it can still be explained, despite being a very quick and simplified action.

How can you explain how a person will act when under drugs or alcohol? How can you explain why people fall in love with particular people?

Love can be rationalized. People turn to drugs or alcohol abuse just like any other form of dysfunctional behavior. Each person's behavior can be analyzed and explained, given time, effort, and logic as the highest tool. You can't fall in love with someone genuinely if they do not somehow attract you and thereby correspond with what you think and believe in. That isn't love. I actually wrote a very succinct essay on a rational analysis of love (about 9 pages) a while back, for what it's worth. I probably need to extend it though.

To me, explaining such things is all random bullsh*t. Honestly.

How?

No offense to your opinion though.
[/QUOTE]

I've been in a lot of polls :

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25381&KW=bern

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24238&KW=bern

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24065&KW=bern

Bern wrote: I've been in a lot of polls : http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25381&KW=bern http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24238&KW=bern http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24065&KW=bern