So safe to say Dante's a bust?
- Thread starter Maneesh
- Start date
Engorged On Unborn Gore
Well-Known Member
Descartes championed the idea of the body as a machine, and began the fallacy that the brain can operate like a computer with "logic software" by simply studying logic and arguing thusly. But neuroscience has revealed that all of our neurons fire along paths that were established emotionally when we were children.
If your frontal lobes are damaged, you lose your ability to make decisions (which includes laying out data logically in an argument on a discussion forum) because your frontal lobes have access to the deeper emotional core of your brain, where all of your decision-making ability resides. So the insistence on being a "logical" or "intelligent" person is just an outdated Cartesian myth.
Happy hunting.
If your frontal lobes are damaged, you lose your ability to make decisions (which includes laying out data logically in an argument on a discussion forum) because your frontal lobes have access to the deeper emotional core of your brain, where all of your decision-making ability resides. So the insistence on being a "logical" or "intelligent" person is just an outdated Cartesian myth.
Happy hunting.
I don't see how emotional pathways make the human body any less of a machine. It is quite clear that emotions are a large part of human intelligence. I also understand how "logic" can only go so far, as you eventually run into irreducible basic principles that are constructed emotionally through ones own experiences and preferences (I also understand that the rational pattern of thought itself is influenced by ones emotional makeup/state). Nonetheless, an emotional machine is still a machine. As in, it is a system that can be constructed by anyone who understands enough about its operating principles and the proper methods of construction.
You made a generalization that I found interesting, so I wanted to see where you were coming from.
Also, don't listen to NAOS. I'm a materialist through and through.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I don't see how emotional pathways make the human body any less of a machine. It is quite clear that emotions are a large part of human intelligence. I also understand how "logic" can only go so far, as you eventually run into irreducible basic principles that are constructed emotionally through ones own experiences and preferences. Nonetheless, an emotional machine is still a machine. As in, it is a system that can be constructed by anyone who understands enough about its operating principle and the proper methods of construction.
You made a generalization that I found interesting, so I wanted to see where you were coming from.
Also, don't listen to NAOS. I'm a materialist through and through.
I would have liked this post if not for the last miserable sentence.
I originally also called you a hater. Then I edited that out. So count yourself lucky.
Engorged On Unborn Gore
Well-Known Member
That is a separate question, and just as delicious. But my point was about the mind.
If the mind were merely a cog of the body, I would likely agree. But the mind appears to be something else entirely, complete with Cartesian chasms and unspeakable outlier possibilities that are not reliant upon the full functionality of the body. Which is why the idealists have some philosophical footing.
I think scientific doubt certainly has it's place. Especially when one is concerned with an equation, a recipe, or shipping/receiving. But in the realm of human interactions it is almost completely useless unless the goal is to destroy the relationship. Faith must be utilized.
There is a huge effort put forth of this notion of "knowing" somebody, a spouse or a friend. Some people won't marry until they know they are making the right choice, for example. But all of that goes out the window the moment that person changes. And the fact of the matter is that we all change over time. Even if you've "known" someone for 20 years, you must still live those questions out without all of it worked out logically, because she/he might not just change, but their feelings about you might change also. And that is a question that cannot be parsed out scientifically by a computer. It must be lived through by a creature with not only a sophisticated range of emotional intelligence, but also someone with the ability to act on faith upon emotional cliffs and rapids that are complete unknowns.
So I don't buy the idea that the mind is tabula rasa, and that the body is mere apparatus. I'm much more of a mystic on that front. If faith is not just possible, but effective in empowering individuals and interrelationships, then the body and the mind might be far more than Descartes theorized.
I disagree with all of this. For one, what is the mind? Thinking, understanding, visual perception, memory, emotions, and everything else that can be lumped into "the mind", is the outcome of the natural processes of the body. Like you demonstrated in an earlier post, damaging part of the brain changes one's "mind" considerably.
Science is just a formal standard for obtaining reliable information. Rational thought, which is what science relies upon, is involved in human relationships and interactions. But I lose interest whenever someone starts talking about how something must remain in the realm of faith. So I'll go watch a movie instead.
Engorged On Unborn Gore
Well-Known Member
You are indeed a materialist. Enjoy your movie!
Release the Kraken
Well-Known Member
^Is this still the thread about Exum being a bust? If so, it just occurred to me that at the time of the draft, I was hoping we would take Julius Randle. Now although Randle has made more of an impact on offense than Exum has, he's also made some of the biggest bonehead plays ever, particularly on D where he just often gets lost. But nobody's saying he's a bust. I think the difference might be the Exum hype at the time of the draft - the comparisons to Kobe for example.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Bump
Just want to keep this thread around a while, as Exum continues to develop. You know, just for kicks and giggles.
Just want to keep this thread around a while, as Exum continues to develop. You know, just for kicks and giggles.
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
He's definitely gotten some boobies this last week
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Well, until somebody invents a crystal ball that actually lets you see into the future, that's the gamble you take. I mean, this is the whole reason the NBA made a rule forcing kids to spend a year in college. But it is a gamble, and anyone who expects to swing for the fences and also want a sure thing just isn't being realistic.
Ummm... Boobies...
Remember how all the 80s comedies had some boobies for good measure? Yeah, so do I.
If anyone in hollywood thinks we're too sophisticated for that nowadays I want to inform them that we most certainly are not. Give me boobies randomly with no context at all in the middle of my ****-joke level comedies. Please.
dipship31
Well-Known Member
Gotta remember 80's boobies were a lot more valuable and rare than today's boobies
#internet
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
Boobies are the cure to all the worlds ills .. including Dante Exum's lack of confidence
Spinoza
Well-Known Member
I don't want to insult you, but I have to point out that this post is total nonsense. You need to study these topics more before making these kinds of assertions publicly.
Spinoza
Well-Known Member
The connection between emotion and reason was not at all foreign to the Cartesians. In fact, it forms the basis for much of the Ethics.
Pimples is turning the corner.
We'd all given up on him, or at least put him out of our mind earlier this year.
Now he is contributing, and looking like he wants to become a solid part of the rotation.
Is Lyles next?
We'd all given up on him, or at least put him out of our mind earlier this year.
Now he is contributing, and looking like he wants to become a solid part of the rotation.
Is Lyles next?