A Rational mind.

[jamest]

You talk about the limitations of reason - what it is, how it functions, and its usefulness (or lack thereof).

Did I? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Although, as I said before I'm intrigued, quote me from the OP - I'd like to see the epistemological claims about 'reason' and the assumed ontology. It might give me a clearer idea what you're trying to get at.

"I believe that there is no such thing [as reason]".

"Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals."

"there are no 'Oasis's of clear thinking' never have been, no cleansing area where the countless traps of irrational thought are washed away."

... Here, clearly, assertions are made about the limitations and essence of reason. Indeed, the first quote seems to reduce it to some sort of behavioural adaptation. Regardless, it is clear that you don't think much of reason, nor of its capacity to transcend knowledge mirroring human behaviour.

I have no idea why you are playing this game. If you want to apologise for your OP, then just do it.

[charlou]

I have no idea why you are playing this game. If you want to apologise for your OP, then just do it.

WTF?

[charlou]

Quoting baa, whose post has been moved along with a few others ...

Charlou: Looks like a bit of derail to me. Might it be too hopeful to ask it be moved to spam and trash? Can't see anything that warrants a thread of its own, or is worth staying here.

Derail split to here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12221

[Clinton Huxley]

It really is very telling that the threads that generate the most aggression are the ones about philosophy and reason.

[Clinton Huxley]

I have no idea why you are playing this game. If you want to apologise for your OP, then just do it.

Impertinence indeed.

[floppit]

You talk about the limitations of reason - what it is, how it functions, and its usefulness (or lack thereof).

Did I? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Although, as I said before I'm intrigued, quote me from the OP - I'd like to see the epistemological claims about 'reason' and the assumed ontology. It might give me a clearer idea what you're trying to get at.

"I believe that there is no such thing [as reason]".

"Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals."

"there are no 'Oasis's of clear thinking' never have been, no cleansing area where the countless traps of irrational thought are washed away."

... Here, clearly, assertions are made about the limitations and essence of reason. Indeed, the first quote seems to reduce it to some sort of behavioural adaptation. Regardless, it is clear that you don't think much of reason, nor of its capacity to transcend knowledge mirroring human behaviour.

I have no idea why you are playing this game. If you want to apologise for your OP, then just do it.

Ok - just got bored. You need to read what's written much more carefully. This is profoundly sloppy:

"I believe that there is no such thing [as reason]".

The rest is just plain wrong.

[floppit]

Just to clarify, I'm not discussing the validity or function of attributes such as reasoning, I'm talking about whether the way we see them as identifying features of individuals or groups has any validity.

For example if you have a group of people that strive to keep out 'strangers' in order to keep out the attribute of malice I would suggest the hard work will be in vain, they'll eventually find malice within the group. In the same way if a group begins to believe 'it' is rational then the hard work of reasoning can be replaced by group membership, belonging to a 'rational group' appears to replace the process of reason and in doing so rationality is lost.

Or, when we marry, pick out a person to share a life with, if we confuse the person with the attributes we favour and forget that the attributes are verbs, just actions, then we leave ourselves open to bitter disappointment. Still, I have to admit to being a romantic at heart, although it's not the area of my thinking I view as the most objective!

[Hermit]

Descartes once observed somewhat sardonically that "Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have." It is not easy to fault it. It seems to apply almost universally, no matter if you are a communist, fascist, libertarian, new-ager, fundie, atheist, democrat, nihilist, or whatever else. There are people who will admit to possess a pinch of irrationality, but it is really difficult to find an individual who will not regard him/her-self as an essentially rational person.

[Trolldor]

Well, the old addage that you should 'always trust your instincts' is rather horrifically dangerous, and yet it is so widespread...

[PsychoSerenity]

Descartes once observed somewhat sardonically that "Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have." It is not easy to fault it. It seems to apply almost universally, no matter if you are a communist, fascist, libertarian, new-ager, fundie, atheist, democrat, nihilist, or whatever else. There are people who will admit to possess a pinch of irrationality, but it is really difficult to find an individual who will not regard him/her-self as an essentially rational person.

hmm.. when you put it like that, I would describe myself as "unfortunately biological". Not that I know of any un-biological beings capable of more rationality - but I get the feeling that if computers were capable of reasoning, they might be less distracted by transient desires and deeply engraved behaviour patterns.

[Hermit]

Descartes once observed somewhat sardonically that "Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have." It is not easy to fault it. It seems to apply almost universally, no matter if you are a communist, fascist, libertarian, new-ager, fundie, atheist, democrat, nihilist, or whatever else. There are people who will admit to possess a pinch of irrationality, but it is really difficult to find an individual who will not regard him/her-self as an essentially rational person.

hmm.. when you put it like that, I would describe myself as "unfortunately biological". Not that I know of any un-biological beings capable of more rationality - but I get the feeling that if computers were capable of reasoning, they might be less distracted by transient desires and deeply engraved behaviour patterns.

Reason is not only compromised by our instinctual urges. The paradigms on which we base our rationality are also determined by the platform from which we happen to look at things from. Ignoring the social context from which you form your way of "reasoning things out" makes it really easy to regard people who do the same from a different platform as ignorant or nutters. That is why we tend to think of a peasant living in medieaval times as a fool, while that peasant would very likely regard him/her-self as quite commonsensical. Conversely, if such a person, having been brought up in a village he/she was unlikely to have traveled further away from than half a day's march, who knew that the people above governed by divine right, was to visit us, he/she would most likely have thought of us all (with the exception of the pope and suchlike) as stark raving mad loonies.

[devogue]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

I don't understand this BAA.

I don't have to imagine myself in relation to an ant - I can stand beside it and it's reality. Likewise for a skyscraper.

As for imagining the ant and the skyscraper - well, the ant is a lot smaller than me, and the skyscraper is a lot bigger, so I'll imagine myself in relation to, say, Ireland. I can do that because I know the geography, distances, times involved in travelling compared to my size.

Maybe I'm missing the point completely.

[PsychoSerenity]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

I don't understand this BAA.

I don't have to imagine myself in relation to an ant - I can stand beside it and it's reality. Likewise for a skyscraper.

As for imagining the ant and the skyscraper - well, the ant is a lot smaller than me, and the skyscraper is a lot bigger, so I'll imagine myself in relation to, say, Ireland. I can do that because I know the geography, distances, times involved in travelling compared to my size.

Maybe I'm missing the point completely.

I think what he's getting at is the middle-world thing - though perhaps ant and skyscraper don't go far enough to make it clear. In scales beyond those in which we have evolved, the universe gets very strange. Take quantum mechanics or relativity. Day to day rationality just cant apply there. We can use high tech instrements to get data, and abstract mathematics to understand it, but we cant then apply this information to decisions about what we want to buy from the shops, despite the fact that it does make a difference.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

I don't understand this BAA.

I don't have to imagine myself in relation to an ant - I can stand beside it and it's reality. Likewise for a skyscraper.

As for imagining the ant and the skyscraper - well, the ant is a lot smaller than me, and the skyscraper is a lot bigger, so I'll imagine myself in relation to, say, Ireland. I can do that because I know the geography, distances, times involved in travelling compared to my size.

Maybe I'm missing the point completely.

I think what he's getting at is the middle-world thing - though perhaps ant and skyscraper don't go far enough to make it clear. In scales beyond those in which we have evolved, the universe gets very strange. Take quantum mechanics or relativity. Day to day rationality just cant apply there. We can use high tech instrements to get data, and abstract mathematics to understand it, but we cant then apply this information to decisions about what we want to buy from the shops, despite the fact that it does make a difference.

What is day to day rationality? Also, you forgot to explain what our failure to 'imagine' what an atom looks like has to do with human rationality. It would seem that perfect rationality or superrationality have more pertinent problems than lack of an imagination as things tend towards relativity or quantum mechanics. For one, empirical data that shows that humans don't make rational judgements, are bad at statistical understanding and generally aren't built to do well in various games (like the reiterated prisoner's dilemma).

[PsychoSerenity]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

I don't understand this BAA.

I don't have to imagine myself in relation to an ant - I can stand beside it and it's reality. Likewise for a skyscraper.

As for imagining the ant and the skyscraper - well, the ant is a lot smaller than me, and the skyscraper is a lot bigger, so I'll imagine myself in relation to, say, Ireland. I can do that because I know the geography, distances, times involved in travelling compared to my size.

Maybe I'm missing the point completely.

I think what he's getting at is the middle-world thing - though perhaps ant and skyscraper don't go far enough to make it clear. In scales beyond those in which we have evolved, the universe gets very strange. Take quantum mechanics or relativity. Day to day rationality just cant apply there. We can use high tech instrements to get data, and abstract mathematics to understand it, but we cant then apply this information to decisions about what we want to buy from the shops, despite the fact that it does make a difference.

What is day to day rationality?

I mean the rationality people use on a day to day basis, as opposed to - well thought out rational judgements made with all the available evidence - or even a superrationality as you put it.

Also, you forgot to explain what our failure to 'imagine' what an atom looks like has to do with human rationality.

It's not about imagining it - it's the fact that we can't comprehend how every quantum event will will change our lives, so we can't take them into account when trying to make a decision, therefore, as BAA said, it is impossible to be completely rational.

For one, empirical data that shows that humans don't make rational judgements, are bad at statistical understanding and generally aren't built to do well in various games (like the reiterated prisoner's dilemma).

Ok good. Now back on topic, for the limited rationality we are capable of, do you think that it, and kindness, loyalty, honesty etc. are intrinsic aspects of specific individuals, or is it more useful to think of them as temporary acts that we are all capable of?