What is the Definition of 'Emotional' Convictions?

[Doctordick]

I have just recently bought a book, "A brief Tour of Human Consciou5ness" (the five is cute). I read the whole book the next day and found it very interesting. It was written by a Dr. V. S. Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D. He is the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of California. Check him out here.

In particular, I found the "resistance to intellectual correction" described in Cotard's syndrome quite funny. I am afraid such resistance to intellectual correction is a much more widely distributed symptom of human behavior than implied by his discussion. In fact, I think we should have a word in the English language to describe the expression of ideas conceived by the human mind which are resistant to intellectual correction. Since these ideas could be referred to as "convictions or beliefs" which are fundamentally intellectually undefendable, it seems to me that they can be thought of as "emotional" convictions. Thus I am very tempted to reserve the word "think" for ideas which can be intellectually defended and substitute the word "emote" for ideas or beliefs which cannot. That is, if I "feel" something is true which I cannot intellectually defend, I should not say, I "think" it is true, I should say instead that I "emote" that it is true. Perhaps we would better understand one another if we took the trouble to differentiate between the two very different circumstances.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[honestrosewater]

Why not "I squink (squirrel think) it is true"?

 

[Wilhelm]

I am afraid such resistance to intellectual correction is a much more widely distributed symptom of human behavior than implied by his discussion. In fact, I think we should have a word in the English language to describe the expression of ideas conceived by the human mind which are resistant to intellectual correction.

The word already exists. The phenomenom you are talking about is called "stupidity", and it's quite widespread indeed.

There's only one problem with the concept of stupidity: it only applies to other people. I never met anyone who considers himself stupid, even in face of the strongest evidence. Other people's ideas can be easily dismissed by dismissing the thinker, but our own ideas tend to appear extremely sound to us even when they sound as lunacy to others.

 

[Doctordick]

Why not "I squink (squirrel think) it is true"?

Yeah, I guess I could go with that. I was having fun with "emote" as it has strong connotations of dishonesty (acting that is)!

The word already exists. The phenomenom you are talking about is called "stupidity", and it's quite widespread indeed.

No, I think not (and I am ready to make an intellectual argument for that case). The central issue of that argument is the fact that, without acceptable axioms, no arguments can be made and those axioms are arrived at via "squinking" (courtesy of honestrosewater above). Thus "squinking" underlies any rational thought and can't be set equivalent to "stupid".

There's only one problem with the concept of stupidity: it only applies to other people. I never met anyone who considers himself stupid, even in face of the strongest evidence. Other people's ideas can be easily dismissed by dismissing the thinker, but our own ideas tend to appear extremely sound to us even when they sound as lunacy to others.

You need to read my post on thought referred to by honestrosewater. Though I wouldn't call "squinking" stupid, squinking when you should be "thinking" is the very definition of stupidity: i.e., if you have squinked up something worth thinking about, it's stupid not to do so.

Have fun -- Dick

PS I suppose the past tense of "squinking" would be "squat"?

 

[Wilhelm]

The central issue of that argument is the fact that, without acceptable axioms, no arguments can be made...

As you expressely stated at the beginning of the sentence ("the central issue of that argument..."), you are making an argument here. According to yourself, you need acceptable axioms to make that argument, but to me at least those axioms are not clear. Could you please provide some clues as to on what axioms you are basing your argument above?

... and those axioms are arrived at via "squinking" (courtesy of honestrosewater above). Thus "squinking" underlies any rational thought [...]

Again you are making an argument about the origin of axioms. I could openly disagree with you and provide counter-arguments, but I think it should suffice to point out that if the above is not based on solid axioms, then you're just making an intuitive guess ("squinking"?)

I think I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think you're doing it the right way. You may not realize it, but that line of thinking eventually leads one to assert that absolute truth does not exist or is not knowable, which are self-falsifying statements. And we all know what causes us to sometimes arrive at self-falsifying statements: bad choice of axioms!

Though I wouldn't call "squinking" stupid, squinking when you should be "thinking" is the very definition of stupidity: i.e., if you have squinked up something worth thinking about, it's stupid not to do so.

I don't mean to imply that you are stupid (because I don't agree with the above anyway), but I do think you just blurted out a lot of intuitive thoughts where you could have gave your ideas a little thought.

 

[Doctordick]

Well of course I am "squinking"! And I was not giving an argument; just pointing out the central issue of such an argument.

You may not realize it, but that line of thinking eventually leads one to assert that absolute truth does not exist or is not knowable, which are self-falsifying statements.

And that is exactly why everyone avoids thinking about the issue; they firmly believe that the only eventuality is the one you have given. They are in error. Look at the last half of my post at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=442701#post442701

and consider the problem I put forth there. There has to be a solution and it cannot be too difficult. I will show you one solution with far reaching consequences; if you are interested. However, there are about six fundamental issues you must understand first. Or you won't be able to understand my solution.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Wilhelm]

Well of course I am "squinking"!

Well, in that case I should not comment.

And that is exactly why everyone avoids thinking about the issue; they firmly believe that the only eventuality is the one you have given. They are in error. Look at the last half of my post at ...

and consider the problem I put forth there. There has to be a solution and it cannot be too difficult.

I disagree that your problem must have a solution. To start with, it may be a pseudo-problem, and pseudo-problems are notorious for not having known solutions (but there are plenty of pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems; that is essentially the bulk of Western philosophy)

I find your notion that we are tiny "somethings" completely separated from reality to be quite naive. There is no one locked inside a brain watching billions of tiny flashing lights, unless you still believe in the erroneous "humunculus" concept of the self. You need to reformulate your problem so you can get rid of that philosophic anachronism, otherwise no one with a little knowledge of philosophy will take you seriously.

Sorry for being sincere.

 

[Doctordick]

You need to reformulate your problem so you can get rid of that philosophic anachronism, otherwise no one with a little knowledge of philosophy will take you seriously.