Rationality implies that a Thinker is in control of thoughts.

By materialistic or naturalistic doctrine, thoughts (mind) are effects that are caused by some processes in the brain.

In other to ground rationality, the thinker (The effect) must control the processes in the brain (The cause)

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.

I wonder if you are again attempting to set Rationalism and Materialism as opposites on a common scale. I myself can't see that! Below is a definition from Eight Confusing Philosophical Terms Explained.

Materialism is the opposite of Idealism and sees matter as the primary reality and all other things including thoughts as the product of interactions of matter.

Rationalism is the belief that the rational mind is the best way to know something. If you are a rationalist you believe that your mind is more trustworthy than your sense. A stick in the water might look bent, but you know rationally that it only looks that way because it is in the water.

Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason, as in, whatever reason I may think up in my head. While materialistic, as used here, implies the physical evidence itself, though note it actually means as evidenced by a person who might be rational or irrational or blind .

Here is a thread showing a clear example of materialistic irrationality, though I am absolutely certain the op of that thread will claim to being rational.

Materialistic itself is a concept of the mind, as in an opinion of the material, which might be rational or irrational, and is not the same as the physical world itself which exists regardless of what any mind might make of it.

I may have a rational or irrational view of the material before me since my opinion of the material itself is created in my rational or irrational mind.

johnydon22:

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.

Effect that controls what cause exactly? My opinion of the material nature, or the material nature itself?

I would not think of rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, hell etc, unless rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc actually exist or have been created even as concepts in a mind. And my thoughts about rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc are merely attempts at rationalising, as in explaining (or creating) things with my own mind.

As the Greeks stated long before Christianity's hijack:

In the beginning was the Logos (logic, reasoning),... All things were made by the Logos; and without the Logos was not any thing made that was made.

Basically, humans are the measure of all things. And until we measure things, things do not exist to us though they may exist and we just know it not.

budaatum:
I wonder if you are again attempting to set Rationalism and Materialism as opposites on a common scale.

Nope. I'm again attempting to see if I can spark of deeper thoughts and more profound philosophical arguments on this board.

I myself can't see that! Below is a definition from

Lol. Ok

Eight Confusing Philosophical Terms Explained.

Materialism is the opposite of Idealism and sees matter as the primary reality and all other things including thoughts as the product of interactions of matter.

Ok.

Rationalism is the belief that the rational mind is the best way to know something. If you are a rationalist you believe that your mind is more trustworthy than your sense. A stick in the water might look bent, but you know rationally that it only looks that way because it is in the water.

Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason, as in, whatever reason I may think up in my head. While materialistic, as used here, implies the physical evidence itself, though note it actually means as evidenced by a person who might be rational or irrational or blind .

Here is a thread showing a clear example of materialistic irrationality, though I am absolutely certain the op of that thread will claim to being rational.

Materialistic itself is a concept of the mind, as in an opinion of the material, which might be rational or irrational, and is not the same as the physical world itself which exists regardless of what any mind might make of it.

I may have a rational or irrational view of the material before me since my opinion of the material itself is created in my rational or irrational mind.

I do believe you missed the point and delve into arguments that are mostly non sequitur.

Let me rephrase the argument again.

If a material being is in control of his thoughts, and his thoughts are a product of his brain (material)

Then the brain is the cause while thought is the effect.

In order to control thought, the thinker must be able to control processes in the brain.

How do the thinker (thought) which is the effect control the cause?

The idea is, if thought (effect) is a product of the cause, then you can't control the cause since it take thought to initiate a conscious action in human physiology.

But, if conscious process starts from the brain without control then we are not in control of our thought, it is just reeling out as predetermined by the material brain.

budaatum:

Effect that controls what cause exactly? My opinion of the material nature, or the material nature itself?

I would not think of rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, hell etc, unless rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc actually exist or have been created even as concepts in a mind. And my thoughts about rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc are merely attempts at rationalising, as in explaining (or creating) things with my own mind.

As the Greeks stated long before Christianity's hijack:

In the beginning was the Logos (logic, reasoning),... All things were made by the Logos; and without the Logos was not any thing made that was made.

Basically, humans are the measure of all things. And until we measure things, things do not exist to us though they may exist and we just know it not.

I still think you didn't get the argument.

Let me change the wordings from Rationality to simply: Thought control.

johnydon22:


If a material being is in control of his thoughts, and his thoughts are a product of his brain (material)

Then the brain is the cause while thought is the effect.

You accuse me of not getting you when I just don't use words your.

Take the simple bit above. You've switched from "material" to "material being", and made out like "material being" is what you meant in the op. Surely if that were the case, you ought to have said so as it would be rather odd, I think, to assume your "material" there meant "human being".

Then there's the second paragraph, where you eliminate the profound material effect you have on my thought and make out like I just thought up all I wrote with no input from you!

I can most certainly be like some who control what they think and accuse others of "delving into arguments that are mostly non sequitur" or "not getting the argument" and "missing the point", but I think I am just a human being who is not solely in control of my thoughts as you can clearly see, as there is no way I'd be thinking of any of what I am writing here if you, an external entity to whatever chemicals might be in my brain, had not placed this wonderful thought provoking idea in front of my eyes inflicting my brain with a "spark of deeper thoughts" so that I now consider the "more profound philosophical arguments on this board" that you have once again presented as you usually do and which would not be the case if you hadn't since I would not have thought this up with no material input from your very wise self and for which my appreciation of you is immensely boundless.

Please take credit for making the chemicals in my brain do whatever it is they do as far as this thread is concerned.

johnydon22:

But, if conscious process starts from the brain without control then we are not in control of our thought, it is just reeling out as predetermined by the material brain.

I do not agree that "conscious process starts from the brain", nor do I agree that "we are (to some extent) not in control of our thought".

My conscious process of thinking about this current subject, for example, started with the external inputs that you presented me with and I pressume something external made you come up with it too, though I might be wrong or you yourself might not be aware of the external instigators that made you come up with it. Ergo, one could say I was not in control of my choosing to think of what you presented (controlled me into considering), and which I otherwise might not currently be thinking of.

But how I think of it is within my own sphere of understanding which is within my own control since I can choose to narrow or expand that sphere through prior or future mind expansion or narrowing.

Neither, though, is "predetermined by the material brain" since it is not the material chemicals in my brain but me myself and my mind that do the considering and thinking for me.

johnydon22:

The idea is, if thought (effect) is a product of the cause, then you can't control the cause since it take thought to initiate a conscious action in human physiology.

My thinking about this current subject, as evidenced by my input in this thread, is a cause of the effect of you creating the thread.

If you had not initiated a conscious action in my human physiology mind, I'd likely be talking about something much less intelligent like a flat earth or tomatoes!

johnydon22:
Rationality implies that a Thinker is in control of thoughts.

By materialistic or naturalistic doctrine, thoughts (mind) are effects that are caused by some processes in the brain.

In other to ground rationality, the thinker (The effect) must control the processes in the brain (The cause)

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.

Consciousness is a product of the chemicals and neurons in the brain according to certain naturalists.I use certain,because although it is a widely speculated assumption,it hasn't been verified scientifically. So it's still very much an assumption but a metaphysical naturalist would most likely favour this assumption.Now,consciousness in varying degrees holds the ability to rational thinking and as such it doesn't discredit naturalism.Rational thinking doesn't debunk naturalism because to think,you need a brain to provide the ability to function independently as a being.It's still unknown where consciousness is derived from but a metaphysical naturalist would assume it's just a product of natural processes and nothing beyond the material world..
I'm not sure rationalism and metaphysical naturalism are in opposed in anyway but I'd like to hear your perspective in a more comprehensible way,cos I believe your onto something but just mixing things up. Rationalism and empiricism would be worthy opponents,if that's what your getting at(I don't think so)

budaatum:

You accuse me of not getting you when I just don't use words your.

Take the simple bit above. You've switched from "material" to "material being", and made out like "material being" is what you meant in the op. Surely if that were the case, you ought to have said so as it would be rather odd, I think, to assume your "material" there meant "human being".

Material being meant human in a naturalistic point of view.

So whether I use material/material being, as long as (thought/mind/think) is also used, it is obvious that I am talking about human or at least beings that can think.

Word uses are hardly important.

Then there's the second paragraph, where you eliminate the profound material effect you have on my thought and make out like I just thought up all I wrote with no input from you!

I can most certainly be like some who control what they think and accuse others of "delving into arguments that are mostly non sequitur" or "not getting the argument" and "missing the point", but I think I am just a human being who is not solely in control of my thoughts as you can clearly see, as there is no way I'd be thinking of any of what I am writing here if you, an external entity to whatever chemicals might be in my brain, had not placed this wonderful thought provoking idea in front of my eyes inflicting my brain with a "spark of deeper thoughts" so that I now consider the "more profound philosophical arguments on this board" that you have once again presented as you usually do and which would not be the case if you hadn't since I would not have thought this up with no material input from your very wise self and for which my appreciation of you is immensely boundless.

Please take credit for making the chemicals in my brain do whatever it is they do as far as this thread is concerned.

k

budaatum:

My thinking about this current subject, as evidenced by my input in this thread, is a cause of the effect of you creating the thread.

If you had not initiated a conscious action in my human physiology mind, I'd likely be talking about something much less intelligent like a flat earth or tomatoes!

So, you are not in control of your thoughts? It just reels out as the brain chuns them out from the stimulis it receives?

EmperorHarry:
Consciousness is a product of the chemicals and neurons in the brain according to certain naturalists.I use certain,because although it is a widely speculated assumption,it hasn't been verified scientifically. So it's still very much an assumption but a metaphysical naturalist would most likely favour this assumption.

Consciousness is a product of chemicals in the brain. Right.

The brain is the cause, the consciousness is the effect if the words of this naturalist is taken into consideration.

Let's continue.

Now,consciousness in varying degrees holds the ability to rational thinking and as such it doesn't discredit naturalism.Rational thinking doesn't debunk naturalism because to think,you need a brain to provide the ability to function independently as a being.It's still unknown where consciousness is derived from but a metaphysical naturalist would assume it's just a product of natural processes and nothing beyond the material world..

I'm not sure rationalism

I'm not talking about rationalism, I used Rationality .

It's about one being able to control his thoughts

and metaphysical naturalism are in opposed in anyway but I'd like to hear your perspective in a more comprehensible way,cos I believe your onto something but just mixing things up. Rationalism and empiricism would be worthy opponents,if that's what your getting at(I don't think so)

I'm not mixing anything up at all.

Let me try again.

According to the naturalist you mentioned above, consciousness is a product of the brain.

Brain is the cause, consciousness (mind) is the effect.

And for a conscious being, conscious actions are initiated in the mind.

i.e: Conscious being as I will use throughout this post means a being that thinks and knows it is thinking.

Brain ---> Mind ----> Action.

So, in order to control thoughts (mind) those chemicals in the brain must also be controlled.

So, how does the Mind (effect) control the chemicals in the brain (Cause) in other to control thoughts (Effect)

This means the effect can control the cause.

But, if a conscious being can't control his thoughts (mind) then things he thinks about or does are automatic feeds from the brain (cause)

johnydon22:
Rationality implies that a Thinker is in control of thoughts.

By materialistic or naturalistic doctrine, thoughts (mind) are effects that are caused by some processes in the brain.

In other to ground rationality, the thinker (The effect) must control the processes in the brain (The cause)

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.

Is controlling your thought(thinking) independent from the processes in the brain?
True control is an illusion; Thoughts generated and their control are all processes in the brain.

tartar9:

Is controlling your thought(thinking) independent from the processes in the brain?

That is a problem I am hoping we can discuss.

How can mind (effect) control processes in the brain (the cause)

True control is an illusion; Thoughts generated and their control are all processes in the brain.

So, we have no control whatsoever over our thoughts or minds? We just believe we do (which should also be due to an uncontrollable reactions going on in our brain)?

johnydon22:
That is a problem I am hoping we can discuss.

How can mind (effect) control processes in the brain (the cause)

So, we have no control whatsoever over our thoughts or minds? We just believe we do (which should also be due to an uncontrollable reactions going on in our brain)?

Exactly

johnydon22:


I'm not mixing anything up at all.

Let me try again.

According to the naturalist you mentioned above, consciousness is a product of the brain.

Brain is the cause, consciousness (mind) is the effect.

And for a conscious being, conscious actions are initiated in the mind.

i.e: Conscious being as I will use throughout this post means a being that thinks and knows it is thinking.

Brain ---> Mind ----> Action.

So, in order to control thoughts (mind) those chemicals in the brain must also be controlled.

So, how does the Mind (effect) control the chemicals in the brain (Cause) in other to control thoughts (Effect)

This means the effect can control the cause.

But, if a conscious being can't control his thoughts (mind) then things he thinks about or does are automatic feeds from the brain (cause)

I think the brain = the mind i.e. brain activity is the same with conscious activity.The problem would be,how does the brain generate consciousness without empirically verifiable means. Consciousness and rationality can be messed up if the brain is messed up..Mental disorders and psychedelics have effects on consciousness which would corroborate the fact that the consciousness and thought are in someway dependent on the brain.

johnydon22:
That is a problem I am hoping we can discuss.

Good, Johnydon. Think, and discuss. And trust me, you make us do both!

johnydon22:
Word uses are hardly important.

But first. I hope you don't mean this, for unless you happen to be a mind reader you cannot possibly know what I think until I convert my thoughts into words and present them for your consideration.

So, hoping you don't mean it, let's begin to think and discuss using words to communicate our thoughts to one another.

johnydon22:
So, you are not in control of your thoughts? It just reels out as the brain chuns them out from the stimulis it receives?

51 floors the building had. 2 apartments per floor except the 51^st, the penthouse, which was one whole apartment and mine, along with the 100 beneath it since I had built the building which was opening today. All I could think was "whao, buda, you have arrivèèd", and then I awoke from my sleeping 12 hours ago and thought, "what a dream", and made my coffee and read your's above, and all the thought I've been thinking of all day is my dream penthouse, and whether I control my thoughts or does my brain churn them out from the stimulus it received from Johny 12 hours ago!

Whether I think or not is my choice, I think. I can numb my brain if I like and not think if I don't want to - alcohol, methadone, heroin, crack and a whack on the head knocking me unconscious would surely do the trick - but thoughts themselves, like dreams (and even near death experiences), may still play around in my head even if its whacked and whether I choose to (consciously) think or dream them myself or not. And despite externally stimulated thoughts of you and my penthouse, I've still had to consciously concentrate my mind and my thoughts on earning my daily bread today, as in clear my mind of "external stimulus it received" and fill my mind with stimulus that had to do with putting food in my belly.

johnydon22:
How can mind (effect) control processes in the brain (the cause)

So, we have no control whatsoever over our thoughts or minds? We just believe we do (which should also be due to an uncontrollable reactions going on in our brain)?

Mind is a function of brain development, I think, is what you are saying above. If I fill my brain with garbage I will have a garbage mind and without a brain I likely would not have a mind.

It is the "filling" of the mind with garbage or not garbage that I will call our control over our mind and thoughts. But consciousness has quite a lot to do with it. As I said above, despite you and my penthouse, I've still had to consciously be in control and concentrate my mind and my thought on earning my daily bread today. That is me controlling my thought with my own mind.

A person of low consciousness would likely have their thoughts reeled out to their brain from the external stimulus it receives. An example is you, an external stimulus, making low consciousness me think of the subject you've posed in this thread by reeling it out to my brain. While a person who has developed a higher state of consciousness would not only think thoughts, but also think thoughts about how they think thoughts and what thoughts they think about.

Then there's you Johny, a person who has developed to such a much higher state that you not only think thoughts about how you think thoughts and what thoughts you think about, but you make others think thoughts about what thoughts they think about and how they think about those thoughts too like you done to me here, making me think thoughts about how I think about the thoughts I think about. And not only think about those thoughts, but also make me go do research to increase the ability of my mind to think about the thoughts I think about too!

Some history on the complexity of the mind-body dichotomy, just so we know we're not the first.