GENIUS FORUMS

cousinbasil wrote:A retard can choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream bunnies, correct? Animal psychologists have always set up experiments that force a subject animal to choose between alternatives. Can the choice ever really be considered rational?

Depends on how you define the word "choice". Personally I define it as the awareness of the consequences of our actions.

Choosing to act irrationally can be regarded as being an irrational act (set B). Choosing to act rationally would be a rational act (set A).

Then your definition of the word "choice" is "anything that happens."

cousinbasil wrote:Consider this, then: is an infant a rational being? Say this infant becomes an adult and is clearly a rational being. At some point, he began to choose to think rationally for the first time. Was he then suddenly a rational being after his first rational decision? If so, then he could not ever make irrational decisions thereafter, by your definition. Who acts like that? Anyone you have ever known? Or was he basically still largely irrational who occasionally made rational decisions, as if by trial and error, and thereby learned the superior nature of being rational. Therefore, an irrational being most definitely can have an idea of what rational thinking means - it is what he aspires to, since he has witnessed others so engaged.

You make things more automatic than they ever are in the real world!

As usual you're miles off-target of what I'm trying to say. An irrational being is, by definition, incapable of being aware of anything. If this irrational being "becomes" a rational being in the future, then it will no longer exist, because there is a rational being in its place. Keep in mind that a "rational being" can be a single thought, a single moment of awareness. There is nothing that inherently remains the same in an irrational being and a rational being, or between two different rational beings, or two different irrational beings. Hence, "choice", as you define it, is really just a sequence of events.

Conciousness = rational? You speak of a biological process.

jupiviv wrote:Depends on how you define the word "choice". Personally I define it as the awareness of the consequences of our actions.

But that's delusional. You can't be aware of something that hasn't happened. You can have mental images of possible outcomes at the moment of decision, but you do not "know" the consequences. I had a dog who did not like the rain because he did not like to get wet. I would open the door, and he could either follow me out or not. When it was raining, he would not. Is he less "aware" of consequences in the way you are putting it?

cousinbasil: Choosing to act irrationally can be regarded as being an irrational act (set B). Choosing to act rationally would be a rational act (set A).
jupiviv: Then your definition of the word "choice" is "anything that happens."

Only if you are refusing to see my point. A tornado wipes out your house. How am I assigning that to either A or B? Most thing that happen have nothing whatsoever to do with one's choice!

As usual you're miles off-target of what I'm trying to say. An irrational being is, by definition, incapable of being aware of anything. If this irrational being "becomes" a rational being in the future, then it will no longer exist, because there is a rational being in its place.

I agree I am miles off what you are trying to say, but that is because I am on target, and I am trying to show you why you are missing it.

To wit, give me an example of an irrational being, if the definition of one means that being is incapable of being aware of anything. Aren't you conflating being rational with being conscious? You are saying if a irrational being becomes rational, then that irrational being ceases to exist because it has been replaced by a rational one, correct? I am asking what then happens if that rational being has sex? Can he not decide to have it or not have it? He chooses a pretty girl (or boy) over an ugly one. This is because he is aware his enjoyment will be enhanced by the other's better looks. Isn't this rational? Women choose wealthier mates because that means it is more likely they will wind up with more stuff. Why is this ceasing to be rational?

In other words, a rational being can agree to spend the next hour engaging in irrational activity, since he knows from experience that once he has satisfied his lower, baser instincts, his rational faculties return in full. Even if by your definition he ceases to be a rational being during his dalliance, he was still a rational being when he consented or agreed to engage in it in the first place.

cousinbasil wrote:you do not "know" the consequences.

I know that there ARE consequences. I also know that the consequences of my rational actions would be rationality, and those of my irrational actions would be irrationality. I can't know what exactly those consequences would be, even though I can guess what they'll be based on what I'm doing now.

A tornado wipes out your house. How am I assigning that to either A or B?

It obviously belongs to B. The irrational tornado irrationally decided to wipe out your house!

Most thing that happen have nothing whatsoever to do with one's choice!

Change the "most" to "all" and you'll have the truth.

You are saying if a irrational being becomes rational, then that irrational being ceases to exist because it has been replaced by a rational one, correct? I am asking what then happens if that rational being has sex? Can he not decide to have it or not have it? He chooses a pretty girl (or boy) over an ugly one. This is because he is aware his enjoyment will be enhanced by the other's better looks

Why does he want to have sex in the first place? Yes, he is displaying some level of rationality by making distinctions("pretty" and "ugly") but this rationality is like a flaming candle in a breeze, not a forest fire.

Women choose wealthier mates because that means it is more likely they will wind up with more stuff. Why is this ceasing to be rational?

This rationality is even lesser than the other one. All she has in her mind is "rich, handsome, muscular doctor - ummmmmm!"

In other words, a rational being can agree to spend the next hour engaging in irrational activity, since he know from experience that once he has satisfied his lower, baser instincts, his rational faculties return in full.

If you really think so then you're dreaming. It's precisely because we engage in irrational activity that we can't be more rational than we are right now, which is very very little.

cousinbasil: ...you do not "know" the consequences.

jupiviv: I know that there ARE consequences.

Then why did my dog not know there would be a consequence if he followed me out the door when he could see it raining? If he is never a rational being, then his decisions must always be irrational. Yet you may decide not to go out in the rain if you have forgotten your umbrella. You both make the same decision based on knowing the same consequence. Yet yours is a rational decision. Why is that? And don't tell me it's because your knowledge of the possible consequences includes such things like "I might catch pneumonia and die." That would be a fear - and such a fear is irrational.

cb: A tornado wipes out your house. How am I assigning that to either A or B?
jup: It obviously belongs to B. The irrational tornado irrationally decided to wipe out your house!

I do quibble with your use of the word irrational. I encourage you to look it up if you are not aware that it is almost always used in the sense of a sentient being's actions, emphasizing the lack of rationality by implying it could or should have been otherwise. In this sense, one would not speak of a tornado as being irrational, since no tornado has ever been or ever could be rational. It is not a being of any sort. It is much the same as calling a tornado "untalented."

cb: Most things that happen have nothing whatsoever to do with one's choice!
jup: Change the "most" to "all" and you'll have the truth.

This gets to that basic logical contradiction underlying much of the so-called "house" philosophy here at GF. As I said previously, if your view of the truth is that nothing that happens has anything whatsoever to do with one's choice, you would be implying that one's decisions make absolutely no difference, since the very idea of a decision is a delusion. Consequently, one cannot decide to act rationally or to act irrationally. Thinking would be an action - so it is saying that one cannot decide to think rationally or not. This is after all the entire crux of your argument.

But doesn't the very existence of this forum stand for the opposite? Aren't we all trying to shine light into dark places? I don't think a person can be said to "be" rational or irrational. We all have dark or unexplored spaces, even the so-called enlightened ones, which is why no one here ever ventures to proclaim he has attained enlightenment even though everyone here talks about it.

Therefore, everyone is capable of making decisions of both types A and B.

This rationality is even lesser than the other one. All she has in her mind is "rich, handsome, muscular doctor - ummmmmm!"

It has been my experience that women seem to function in a more calculated way when it comes to choosing sexual partners. They angle for things, material comfort, and often do not know how to surrender their lesser degree of rational awareness during sex and totally abandon themselves to the irrational sensation of pleasure in the moment. It is girls who poke pinholes in condoms, my friend. Always scheming and planning and you would do well to remember that. A plump, balding Jew with a Rolex and a Ferrari is given more consideration than a gardener with biceps.

It's precisely because we engage in irrational activity that we can't be more rational than we are right now, which is very very little.

Maybe it's precisely because it is possible to abandon rationality completely at times that we are able to achieve those rare moments of total rationality and lucidity. I think most of the time we waver between the two, since our higher selves are always tethered to our baser selves by bodily requirements and animal instincts. Everyone is capable of A and B. I'm quite certain you are as well?

cousinbasil wrote:

jupiviv wrote:I know that there ARE consequences.

Then why did my dog not know there would be a consequence if he followed me out the door when he could see it raining? If he is never a rational being, then his decisions must always be irrational. Yet you may decide not to go out in the rain if you have forgotten your umbrella. You both make the same decision based on knowing the same consequence. Yet yours is a rational decision. Why is that? And don't tell me it's because your knowledge of the possible consequences includes such things like "I might catch pneumonia and die." That would be a fear - and such a fear is irrational.

I've no idea what you're saying here, and how it relates to my point that only a rational being can know that actions have consequences.

As I said previously, if your view of the truth is that nothing that happens has anything whatsoever to do with one's choice, you would be implying that one's decisions make absolutely no difference

As far as I am concerned the only choice we can have is to be rational. If we have a choice between being rational and being irrational, then it doesn't matter which we choose, because the existence of neither is dependent on such a choice.

We all have dark or unexplored spaces, even the so-called enlightened ones

Depends on how you look at it. A single clear thought may be called enlightenment, but this thought may be followed by a period of darkness(for example, if the person goes to sleep.)

It has been my experience that women seem to function in a more calculated way when it comes to choosing sexual partners.

Their calculation is unconscious, like the calculation of a spider about to catch a fly. Sometimes their calculations are different - they decide to leave their husband and kids for another woman. That is also unconscious, instinctive behaviour.

Maybe it's precisely because it is possible to abandon rationality completely at times that we are able to achieve those rare moments of total rationality and lucidity.

How so?

I think most of the time we waver between the two

Most humans just stick to the unconscious side, with occasional ticks towards the conscious side.

I've no idea what you're saying here, and how it relates to my point that only a rational being can know that actions have consequences.

If my dog was not a rational being, what kept him from going out when it was raining? Getting wet or staying dry depended on whether he followed me out or not on rainy days. You tell me: did my dog or did he not know there would be consequences? If not, upon what did his decision rest? You cannot say it wasn't his decision - if not, whose was it? The rain's? Why would your decision not to venture out on a stormy night without a mac or umbrella be more "rational"? I am really surprised that you have trouble seeing my point about this! So-called "irrational" animals can be seen to be making decisions all the time. If my dog did not "know" on some level that staying inside equalled remaining dry (a consequence), why was his behavior quite consistent in this regard? Even more - he chose not to do something he would otherwise always do - that is, follow me everywhere.

cousinbasil wrote:So-called "irrational" animals can be seen to be making decisions all the time.

So can trees, rocks and tornadoes. It depends on how you are defining "decision." A dog may act on instinct. A tree may act according to environmental conditions, as would a tornado. None of these things show any degree of consciousness.

The problem here, as elsewhere, is that you are selectively using your definitions in order to prove what you think is right. If I show that the definition doesn't fall within the scope of what you are trying to prove, then you start opposing what I say.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:So-called "irrational" animals can be seen to be making decisions all the time.

So can trees, rocks and tornadoes. It depends on how you are defining "decision." A dog may act on instinct. A tree may act according to environmental conditions, as would a tornado. None of these things show any degree of consciousness.

The problem here, as elsewhere, is that you are selectively using your definitions in order to prove what you think is right. If I show that the definition doesn't fall within the scope of what you are trying to prove, then you start opposing what I say.

The fact is I agree with a lot of what you say. I can't agree with some of it because it seems arbitrary. I try to use examples but maybe I should be trying to define things more explicitly.

You use picking fruit from a tree as a description of what it is like to engage in sex. The tree does not consent, and neither does a person is, I believe, your explanation. But a tree cannot and a person can. You are asserting things that are not true - they may be your opinion, but they really are not matters of opinion.

A tornado cannot decide to do anything. But a dog evidently can, at least compared to a tornado or a rock falling off a cliff. There would be no such thing as operant conditioning if a dog or any other animal (including a human) could not be trained to make one choice instead of another at a given stimulus. You cannot train a ball to roll uphill. But you can train a seeing eye dog to stop at a red light and proceed on a green light (they actually use the relative positions of the traffic lights instead of the colors).

The idea of this thread is that of consensual sex and is there really such a thing. You assert there is not because sex is irrational activity. My position is that enormous amounts of planning go into occasioning this so-called irrational activity. I gave the example of choosing a more attractive mate as rational behavior having to do with the irrational sex act. You said it is not a forest fire but a mere wind-blown candle. But don't you see that civilization itself is built around constructing unhindered places to get sex, have access to sex, engage in it unmolested?

So many laws and statutes hinge on the concept of "consent." If there were no such thing as consenting to sex, no man should ever be punished for taking what he wants when he wants it, like picking fruit from a tree? And why not? That fruit would have dropped off sooner or later anyway. That niece of yours - the one with the iphone.... Is she pretty?

cousinbasil wrote:The tree does not consent, and neither does a person is, I believe, your explanation. But a tree cannot and a person can.

According to my definition of consciousness, anything can consent, given that it is conscious.

You assert there is not because sex is irrational activity. My position is that enormous amount s of planning go into occasioning this so-called irrational activity.

My position is that if you choose to say that consent is merely the way some things happen, as opposed to another way in which they could happen, then the word really loses its meaning. According to this definition, every single thing can give its consent. A tree consents to have its fruits plucked, as opposed to not having them plucked.

You see plans and calculations in selecting sexual partners and dogs, but not in tornadoes and rocks. But the fact is that even tornadoes and rocks can be said to be planning and calculating the things they are doing, without being conscious of that very fact.

So many laws and statutes hinge on the concept of "consent."

Yes, and the reason they do is that consciousness is not totally absent in the human race. However, people generally use the law to achieve their own selfish ends.

If there were no such thing as consenting to sex, no man should ever be punished for taking what he wants when he wants it, like picking fruit from a tree?

I don't follow. It is irrational to want to satisfy ones irrational desires, regardless of whether other people share those desires or not.

jup wrote:I don't follow. It is irrational to want to satisfy ones irrational desires, regardless of whether other people share those desires or not.

But the law clearly differentiates some of those irrational acts from others. It does so based on the idea of consent, which you claim is meaningless. Why should someone be punished for making an eight year old girl suck his wee-wee? How old did you say that niece of yours is?

He is completely failing to recognise the obvious and departing into the night. This discussion has become repetetive, the poster's ears aren't receptive to the idea the form is all he can ever have, he rejects it whilst requiring to do so.

mental vagrant wrote:He is completely failing to recognise the obvious and departing into the night. This discussion has become repetetive, the poster's ears aren't receptive to the idea the form is all he can ever have, he rejects it whilst requiring to do so.

I do repeitive very well - you might say it is a gift.

My whole point is if one abandons the idea that it is possible to consent to irrational behavior, then consent means nothing and we males have all been wasting our money on booze and rufies.

cousinbasil wrote:My whole point is if one abandons the idea that it is possible to consent to irrational behavior, then consent means nothing

It only means nothing to a person who himself wants to indulge in irrational behaviour.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:My whole point is if one abandons the idea that it is possible to consent to irrational behavior, then consent means nothing

It only means nothing to a person who himself wants to indulge in irrational behaviour.

Truist of your claim you be. You haven't dealt with what cousinbasil has replied, you rely upon your definition of rationality which i think is flawed.

Consent is rational
AND
One can't consent to the irrational (because the impurity makes it inaplicable?)
AND
Sex is irrational (according to you)
THEREFORE
You cannot consent sex.

How can you differ rational and not? All rational behaviours (of today, we can change our mind of what constitutes this wisdom, even though it is absolute), are founded upon 'irrational' needs, extrapolated through complicated warrens of increased complexity. I think you greatly undervalue of critical nature of your unconcious. As antynomous as the two are linguistically for communications purposes, they are '"ultimately"' the same. What is the difference between shining your nads through this forum and against a ladie's clittoris? I postulate that it stems from a similar urge, surely you wouldn't come here to learn!? You'd experiment with real people because the data is richer (given your attitude towards conciousness).

There is no genius in stupidity but all the stupidity in genius. :)

These discussions remind me of how limited we really are, even though i can't touch what i cannot see.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:My whole point is if one abandons the idea that it is possible to consent to irrational behavior, then consent means nothing

It only means nothing to a person who himself wants to indulge in irrational behaviour.

And since you yourself are not a person who wants to engage in irrational behavior, "consent" does have meaning to you. You adroitly side-stepped my salacious references to your niece, but I see I have made my point.

cousinbasil wrote:And since you yourself are not a person who wants to engage in irrational behavior, "consent" does have meaning to you.

When did I say that consent does not have meaning to me? It is only *your* definition of consent that has no meaning to me, because it means nothing.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:And since you yourself are not a person who wants to engage in irrational behavior, "consent" does have meaning to you.

When did I say that consent does not have meaning to me? It is only *your* definition of consent that has no meaning to me, because it means nothing.

My definition of "consent" is the standard one - meaning agreeing to participate in an activity, in this case, sexual activity - regardless of whether some people deem it irrational activity or not. The point is, one should be free to make that decision - or at least, not have it made for them.

Let's say shooting heroin is an irrational activity. You are saying one cannot consent to shoot heroin. If not, there is no logical difference between shooting up yourself, or tying up someone else and injecting that person- presumably you think it would not make a difference if you went and had sex with the person after doing so, because he or she cannot consent to that either?

cousinbasil wrote:My definition of "consent" is the standard one - meaning agreeing to participate in an activity

My definition is the same, which is why I say that it must be a rational act, and must necessarily be tied with another rational act.

The point is, one should be free to make that decision - or at least, not have it made for them.

This is where you reasoning fails. Nothing in the universe is free in the way you think human beings are. A rational being will have to act rationally, and an irrational being will have to act irrationally.

If not, there is no logical difference between shooting up yourself, or tying up someone else and injecting that person

There's no logical difference, at least not in terms of irrationality.

The Life Cycle:
1) Birth
2) Old Age
3) Disease
4) Death

Life is suffering.
Sex perpetuates the life cycle which is nothing other than suffering.
What little happiness you have on Earth is only temporary.

Consenting to sex is a primative instinct that perpetuates the cycle of life and suffering.
It's irrational to consent to sex because you are ignorant of what you are consenting to: Perpetuating suffering on Earth

Is that the crux of your logic Jupiviv ?

Kunga wrote:What little happiness you have on Earth is only temporary.

All things are temporary, even consciousness. However, a conscious being does not seek happiness, and therefore he does not suffer.

jupiviv wrote:

Kunga wrote:What little happiness you have on Earth is only temporary.

All things are temporary, even consciousness. However, a conscious being does not seek happiness, and therefore he does not suffer.

So.....if someone asked you to cut your arm off for them...could you ?

jupiviv wrote:There's no logical difference, at least not in terms of irrationality.

But in a relative, moral sense, though. Is it not somehow "worse" to dose an unwilling - and maybe even unwitting - third party than to dose oneself?

You are adopting a viewpoint from which you are viewing the notion of consent as logically inconsistent when applied to "consenting" to engage in an inherently irrational activity. Philosophy is at its weakest when it fails to consider the various levels of reality in which humans exist, which is what you have been doing in this thread.

The only reason I have been dragging your poor niece into this little discussion is to force you to abandon that viewpoint, if only temporarily. Do we teach a young girl, "Since it is impossible to consent to an irrational act such as sexual intercourse, do not trouble yourself over when, where, or with whom you have relations in your life." Why can you not see how practically useless your logically consistent viewpoint is? And potentially very harmful?

cousinbasil wrote:But in a relative, moral sense, though. Is it not somehow "worse" to dose an unwilling - and maybe even unwitting - third party than to dose oneself?

It is even more immoral to enjoy the pleasures of sex under the pretense of "consent." Either both rape and so-called consensual sex are equally wrong, or they are both equally valid. It depends on whether you are being rational or irrational.

Jamesh,

What?