h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

rockycheekychimp

That's as good a philosophical statement as many hav e posted here - keep it up!

Hey, ref! Get some spectacles! Foul! Call that a fair tackle? Gould was way offside! etc. etc.

Shows doesn't it, that philosophy is a game where everyone is their own referee.

Thanks for noticing - it's also that the point of philosophy is for many is to win intellectual arguments, so as to be noticed and stand-out as a superior. Often irrespective of the validity of the POV of the other. I sometimes feel people argue because of habit and bruised ego's. It's almost like a tribal issue, if a person identifies themselves as being 'one if us' they are not put to the test. But if one chooses to question and differ, then irrespective of the validity of the POV they are castigated. The 'other' is rarely tolerated if he challenges the status quo.

So much intellectual effort is put into defence of the ego and pride of the group that the validity of the other truth can be missed. As much as we try to be rational the primitive bias and selfish needs drive our psyche.

It's like two intelligent and well read brothers. One argues his position always consistently from a set of principles he believes to be correct. Another before meeting a person tosses a coin to randomly decide his position. Both employ rational argument. Can they be distinguished, if you meet them for the 1st time without prior knowledge of their behavior? Can you determine who is 'principled' and who is 'flippant'?

Deep within us are motivations that surface when our hot buttons are pressed. Our rational arguments can be screens for primordial fears. If you have ever fatasized about making a crushing humiliating argument with a person who has challenged you - to score a goal for the team! Then your intellectual rationality is a shadowplay to disguise the inner brute who wants to exact revenge and display his strength to attract a mate or gain power over others.

I catch myself doing it , when I am not observing others doing it , and pretending to be above all of that!


It's useful to reflect and catch yourself.

There is a leaflet aimed at teenagers warning of the pitfalls of drink. It doesn not aim to patronise and I think serves its purpose jolly well. In it it gives the message not to enter into arguments with drunks. Apparently, and I don't think this is apocryphal, a clever student type had an argument with someone prone to violence. The one prone to violence caused the other to back down. As the student type was walking away he muttered, "Grow up!" - not exactly the most stinging or clever of ripostes. In retaliation the other person killed him.

I have to remind children, my own and other people's, that being in the right (e.g. stepping onto a zebra crossing) isn't enough if the other person can't stop themselves from killing you.

It takes people a lot to realise that the concept of "shouldn't" is generally a waste of time and energy.

There is a chap called Stephen Covey who makes pretty penny or two with self help guides, such as "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Actually quite a useful book I thought. In any case he make the point that we are ResponseAble, meaning to say we must take responsibility for our actions, we shouln't allow ourselves to react to others in a destructive way.

He argues that in between the stimulii and the reaction there is an interval, in which an aware person can stop themselves from doing something they have learned to be bad for them. They can literally learn to be more responsible.

This is real important, it implies that consciousness linked to ones will can interact with the same neurologial brain states (caused by a certain stimulii) differently, if the will chooses, causing different brain states (responses) to be generated. In other words brain states are not connected determinstically becuase of conscious will.

Philosophy of mind is the study of the nature of the mind, mental events and consciousness, as well as the nature of their relationship with the physical body: the so-called mind-body problem. Many modern philosophers of mind adopt a physicalist position, maintaining that only the brain exists. Whilst some philosophers of mind however continue to ask, "How can the subjective qualities of mental states be explained in purely neurological or naturalistic terms?"

The complex cybernetic feedback loops between the body's endocrine system and the brain is an example of such a mind-body argument, e.g., adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a natural hormone. The fight or flight response requires extra supplies of blood and oxygen in the muscles. Fear causes the adrenal gland to pump large amounts of adrenaline into the bloodstream.

However the conscious mind can become aware of the tell-tale effects of adrenaline on the body, and thus the response to an extent can be controlled by an act of subjective will, which in turn may quell the fear and reduce the adrenaline. We can argue that our behaviour is not purely neurological and not purely deterministic.

In that sense we are ResponseAble.

Is the mind just a neural condition,
When adrenaline changes cognition?
It makes some people fight,
And few others take flight.
Thus mind is an embodied commission

Yes, but where does alcohol fit into that?

If you look at the Enneagram it helps you to understand that the "knee jerk" response we have is generally negative and leads to bad things. We have to know ourselves better and know how we normally react to things before we can begin to look at alternative ways. One nice thing about the Enneagram is that it has no single correct position.

I believe it comes from a Sufi Muslim tradition which has been adapted by western Christians for work with groups of people living or working together.

Usually my limericks read better when tight with alcohol, e.g.,

Statistics, like lamp-posts when tight,
Might be used for support, not for light.
Kuhn called such utility
"Incommensurability".
That's a bias that's hidden from sight.

(Thomas Kuhn, an American philosopher of the history of science, in his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions says that in our models of reality we have the problem of Incommensurability. He says that there is no scientific statement which may claim to be objectively true, because a) all observational data is interpreted in light of scientific theorising (building various models or paradigms), and b) scientific theories are in fact judged after having passed through the interests, biases, and sensibilities of the scientists involved.)

To be serious though I think Alchol has a very clear and empirical impact into the interval between stimulii and response. The more sotted you are the less Able you are to be ResponseAble .

am i a member?

That's deep. I don't know if I am.

Of course you are! Only nobody's counting. Welcome, on behalf of the rest of us (mostly absent)

thanks
just checking

So it's not a deep philosophical question then...
A straight yes or no answers it...
What if I don't exist?

So?

If I'm just part of the workings of the computer churning out convincing replies to questions am I still a member?

Your question passes the Turing test.

Aha! So i've fooled you!

wat

Good enough for me, I'm enjoying this conversation / exchange.