Oxymoron

Absolutely.

Cognition (like any aspect of our makeup) has no teleological purpose other than as a tool to aid the propogation of our genes.

All of these.

Not necessarily. I consider the external world not as a passive entity but as a 'pseudo-active' one. Let me explain: if we hold a belief in our heads that is patently untrue, the world has a way of reminding us. For example, if we believe we can walk through walls, then we get a sore head. Either we update the belief in our world model (ie create a strong association between walls and sore heads), or we carry on the fallacy. Think of it as a 'Newton's third law of existence'. I'm absolutely NOT attributing any conscious behaviour on the external world (hence the 'pseudo'), I'm just suggesting that the objective world is out there, we interact with it and effectively the evolution of our model of the world is guided by reality, should we choose to notice it.

There is no goal/meaning/purpose, other than what you define for yourself. People change usually because they realise the costs of a behaviour outweigh the benefits.

I'm no doctor! I used to be a youth counsellor (Shrink).

JusticeMachine

Propogation, then that is the goal/meaning/purpose?
Is our existance as hollow as that?

or Is it your goal/meaning/purpose you have assigned to yourself?

I guess my issue is: what is there to live for, if there is not purpose, but subjective purpose?

So, since you brought it up earlier, what is the strong association between having faith and some sort of negative result that should pursued us away from faith?

What is the negative result and how do we associate it with faith?

Oxymoron

Our genetic and biological existence is, as you say, as hollow and selfish as that. The rest of it, though, can be as deep as you like.

What more do you want? It seems quite enough to keep us occupied for a lifetime. Live for friendship, sex, children; write a book; study something; make products that benefit people's lives... none of that requires objective purpose.

Human beings are genetic survival machines coupled to a powerful cognitive computer. Life is tough, complex and scary; the universe is vast and we seem insignificantly small. And death (of ourselves and loved ones) is terrifying. Our higher brain can find it nigh impossible to contemplate these concepts.

Fear is the root of faith. Fear motivates the believer to accept "answers" that numb the pain and uncertainty of existence. It is used to block the feedback step of our cognitive system so that the believer does not validate their beliefs with regard to the external world because if they did they would come up inconclusive, unprovable or just plain false. It is (in loose psychotherapeutic terms) denial as a result of psychological trauma.

JusticeMachine

What I asked you was:
what is the strong association between having faith and some sort of negative result that should pursued us away from faith?

What is the negative result and how do we associate it with faith?

JusticeMachine

Subjective purpose is no purpose.

If my focus is subjective, then the only thing that matters to me is my personal happiness.

If my focus is subjective, then there is no morality but what I decide is moral.

If my focus is subjective and my personal happiness if my sole goal, then I will only take into consideration my own happiness at the expense of others.

If my focus is subjective, then it is wrong of you to force your moral law upon me.

If my focus is sucjective, then I should strive to achieve what I want, when I want regardless to the repercussion of those around me.

Sounds a bit pathological or sociopathic to me.

I don't think it bennifits mankind to believe that everything is subjective.

The trees of power, conviction and passion are rooted in the soil of objective belief.

Objective belief will always overcome subjective belief, for subjectivity is the recessive of the two.

Keith Russell

Justice said:
"I don't think it bennifits mankind to believe that everything is subjective."

Justice, if everything is subjective, there is no mankind...

Keith.

Oxymoron

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Thieving Magpie

I apologize, but with complete disregard of everything that has been written before me on this topic, I would like to add my two cents - and here they are:

1) Insanity and sanity are labels, roughly defined by the language, but specifically defined by the individual - in short - what one considers insane is not necessarily what another considers to be insane and it can be rather presumptuous to say "This is what sanity/insanity is" when not speaking in a purely scientific manner. With that said, I should like to forward a theory of mine, that for the sake of brevity will be relayed without undue flourish; it is my hope that some will understand immediately though I provide the barest of details.

2) Because sanity/insanity are labels, that, when used by laymen, are not specifically defined in a physical sense (ie saying a man who is 'making out' with a light switch is INSANE!!! - when maybe the man believes that that is just how you get the sweet nectar from it's candied shell..), I believe that the simplest distinction is that between understanding (or at least believing you understand, through personal experience, empathy, or what-have-you), and not understanding specific behaviour. We, on a personal level, believe someone is sane, if they do as we do, or if we at least believe we understand why they do what they do (which in and of itself implicates our own physical/mental affairs, and abilities). However, we believe someone is insane if we can not, or do not believe to understand why they act as they do.

I do make the presupposition here that everybeing acts with reason, though I do accept that people can have impaired reason, or even, if you will, 'retarded' reason. The real trick, in my thinking, is to determine what these reasons are, why they are considered reasons, and how they came to be considered as reasons. Finally, these findings must be compared to other reasons that can scientifically be proven to be worthwhile motives for a living being and evaluated as such. This requires a standard that all people must aspire to - though what this standard is exactly, is another matter entirely.

At this point one might consider whether a person is or is not insane - though once this is known the very meaning of the words 'sane' and 'insane' lose the commonly accepted definition that they are given by our language and become largely irrelevant terms.

Insanity, I should say, is really just a mental illness, if properly diagnosed - but I am sure you all knew this already. It is an attempt by the body to do something, though it is a case where the body fails in this attempt.

JusticeMachine

Well, if I didn't believe in a wall, but through banging my head against it, caused me to realize that, through my preceptions of the pain and presure being exerted against my noggin, there may be something there that I have to understand and compensate for, and thus change my internal model.

In an analogy with the wall = faith (I guess we are talking judao-christian) then what is the information that my senses will receive that tell me I need to change my internal model?

Oxymoron

Faith is not the same as the wall. It specifically requires that certain beliefs not be tested. Denial is like that. However, as an example, supposing that I had swallowed the Bible hook, line and sinker, I might have the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. Radio-isotopic dating says otherwise, of course. However, denial is nothing if not aspirational, and it will grow in scope; soon I will be denying science, history, philosophy and weaving such a complex web of obfuscation in my head that if I have the presence of mind to notice it I might want to do something about.