What makes people irrational thinkers?

[brewer]

god is a greyish brown fungus with blue tinges

[Angrboda]

I don't really see how it's relevant.  I've had mystic experiences too, and never believed in gods.  It's not as if the one is a comment on the other.  We hear that, on the inarguable reality of these experiences, he can't discount this or that.....but.....I've had those experiences, equally inarguable, and still have no trouble discounting the same this's and that's.

I'd say quite a few people have had these experiences and simply said 'wow, that was a strange quirk of my mind' and continued on down the road.

My personal view is that it is likely there is a circuit (or analog) in our brains that determines that something coming through is 'important'. When it goes into overdrive, the something is 'very important' and carries a twinge of 'wow, that is amazing'. That can easily lead to 'religious experiences'.

This view is supported by the fact that religious experiences are more likely under conditions of stress or drug use (psychedelics can lead to such).

[Neo-Scholastic]

@polymath257  hasn't proven either his nominalism or radical empiricism but expects everyone else to take it for granted.

No, I don't. I simply see it [nominalism and radical empiricism] as the simplest explanation consistent with the facts as we know them.

Simple explanations are indeed to be preferred when they explain all the relevant phenomena. No philosophical system is complete though there may be degrees of perfection. In your case, qualia and intentionality seem woefully unaccounted for.

Mere consistency is very far from being enough.

So, in mathematics, there is the notion of formal proof....any proposed truth must be reducible to...axioms.

In the sciences, when there is a dispute, an experiment is proposed to resolve the dispute. Then actual observation determines who is wrong.

True consistency with observations is not enough. Degree of completeness is a important too. I see two independent systems: formalism and empiricism. What's their connection? You have not yet expressed any reason. What is common to formal systems that correspond with observations and those that do not? At some point you have to connect the phenomenal with the noumenal. IMHO such that is not a satisfactory position.

Also, you and a few others seem very concerned about who is wrong.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Simple explanations are indeed to be preferred when they explain all the relevant phenomena. No philosophical system is complete. In your case, qualia and intentionality seem unaccounted for.

That's rather presumptuous 

Yes, you have these two independent systems. Except, you really don't have any reason for when they correspond or how that is possible. At some point you have to connect the phenomenal with the noumenal. IMHO that is not a satisfactory position.

It's not satisfactory to you

[polymath257]

No, I don't. I simply see it [nominalism and radical empiricism] as the simplest explanation consistent with the facts as we know them.

Simple explanations are indeed to be preferred when they explain all the relevant phenomena. No philosophical system is complete though there may be degrees of perfection. In your case, qualia and intentionality seem woefully unaccounted for.

Mostly because those are not fundamental questions, but questions of biology. We are still learning about how the brain functions, but there seems to be nothing inherently problematic about the brain being the substratum of the mind (which is a process, not a thing).

In a bit more detail, I have yet to find a coherent definition of what a 'quale' is. How does it differ from a perception? How can you be so convinced there is no physical explanation when we seem to be able to point to specific areas of the brain dealing with sight, sound, touch, etc?

As for intentionality, once again, we have a LOT of good information about which brain regions mediate it, how it can go wrong, etc.

Now, many people claim there can be no physical explanation of these, but I strongly disagree.

For example, supposed we get to a technological level (we are not there yet) where we can 'read minds' by looking at brain scans. Suppose that we can say that if a certain process in the brain occurs, the person will say they experienced the color red. Suppose we can do this with all experiences.

How is that *not* a physical explanation of qualia?

Perhaps this gets to the difference between 'physical' and 'mechanical'. There is no 'mechanical' explanation of light. But it has a very detailed *physical* explanation in terms of electromagnetic waves and photons. Like most physical phenomena, this amounts to a correlation between what we measure in certain ways and what we observe in other ways.

And in this way, we can have an explanation of consciousness: we can tell when a person is conscious, what they are experiencing, what their intentions are, etc.

I don't believe there *is* a hard problem of consciousness--only a soft one.

Mere consistency is very far from being enough.

So, in mathematics, there is the notion of formal proof....any proposed truth must be reducible to...axioms.

In the sciences, when there is a dispute, an experiment is proposed to resolve the dispute. Then actual observation determines who is wrong.

True consistency with observations is not enough. Degree of completeness is a important too. I see two independent systems: formalism and empiricism. What's their connection? You have not yet expressed any reason. What is common to formal systems that correspond with observations and those that do not? At some point you have to connect the phenomenal with the noumenal.  IMHO such that is not a satisfactory position.

Also, you and a few others seem very concerned about who is wrong.

Mathematics is a formal language. We can use it as we use other language to help us organize our ideas about the world. One advantage is that math is precise and thereby allows much more testability. 

The term 'nounenal' is ambiguous. Kant's version of the 'thing in itself' isn't problematic at all, I think: the 'thing in itself' is simply how it interacts. Physical things are defined in terms of their interactions.

If, instead, you mean something about 'mind' that is independent of physical things, I don't think there is such a thing. But, the brain processes information and one aspect of that information is a model of where it is and what it is doing; what it's goals are.

Consciousness is information and information supervenes on the physical.

I'm not so concerned about *who* is wrong. I simply want to avoid error.

[SlowCalculations]

If I left "Thinkers" out of the top sentence and just said what makes people "Irrational" would that have changed responses?
It's a spelling question. Yes, i off track and don't stay on the same subject don't mind me.

[brewer]

If I left "Thinkers" out of the top sentence and just said what makes people "Irrational" would that have changed responses?
It's a spelling question. Yes, i off track and don't stay on the same subject don't mind me.

Yes, think about it.

[SlowCalculations]

If I left "Thinkers" out of the top sentence and just said what makes people "Irrational" would that have changed responses?
It's a spelling question. Yes, i off track and don't stay on the same subject don't mind me.

Yes, think about it.

"Thinkers" makes it too selective? I'm not sure I have the word to describe what my thoughts on the matter are and even if I did I don't know if I'd be correct. 
I didn't see the error at the time I posted this even though I try to edit as much as possible, looking back I'm worried it sounded too targeted. I was poorly educated. finding the correct phrasing is something I'm always teaching myself and i don't have many people around me to ask.

[brewer]

Yes, think about it.

"Thinkers" makes it too selective? I'm not sure I have the word to describe what my thoughts on the matter are and even if I did I don't know if I'd be correct. 
I didn't see the error at the time I posted this even though I try to edit as much as possible, looking back I'm worried it sounded too targeted. I was poorly educated. finding the correct phrasing is something I'm always teaching myself and i don't have many people around me to ask.

I didn't mean to offend, but if you consider this a bit more you'll find that there are many things/situations/conditions that make people act/think irrationally. They can be physiological, psychological, sociological.

[SlowCalculations]

"Thinkers" makes it too selective? I'm not sure I have the word to describe what my thoughts on the matter are and even if I did I don't know if I'd be correct. 
I didn't see the error at the time I posted this even though I try to edit as much as possible, looking back I'm worried it sounded too targeted. I was poorly educated. finding the correct phrasing is something I'm always teaching myself and i don't have many people around me to ask.

I didn't mean to offend, but if you consider this a bit more you'll find that there are many things/situations/conditions that make people act/think irrationally. They can be physiological, psychological, sociological.

Why do you think I'm offended? 
Don't worry you've not offended me in the slightest 
And yes i agree, and I'm aware my favorite subject is psychology oftentimes what I'm actually doing when I ask questions is trying to get others' perspectives even if I know the answer. Maybe it sounds a bit silly, but I get some really interesting perspectives from it at times. As for whether or not I should have taken out the word "Thinkers" I really didn't know the answer in a spelling context.  I assumed yes cause it sounded off, but I'm not sure.