B
Bahman
Guest
We are always rational meaning that we choose the best option unless we are challenged yet we are still rational to do otherwise in spite of looking like irrational.
That is a great plan.
- Status
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
We have taken cats just as an example of animals to realize which aspects of their being are those that we will have in our minds when we use the term “desire”. It is clear that different species of animals will display different behavioral patterns to preserve their existence. We won’t see a cat diving into the sea to catch a fish and eat it. We won’t see a shark chasing a rat to devour it. As humans we could say “those actions are not options for them”; but, does the behavior of a shark appear as an option to the cat? Does it play with options at all? The behaviors of some animals seem to show that they do, but it is not possible for me to affirm it with absolute certainty. It it true that when some animals are looking for something they do it in their usual way, and if they find an impediment to fulfill their desire, they essay another way. However, playing with options would require the representation of different means to reach the represented goal before they proceed to act. I don’t know if this happens or not.
What I have observed is that when some animals have in front of them a thing “a” which would fulfill their desire but at the same time they are aware of certain danger, they hesitate to act. They feign the initial movements, stop and observe around as if they were evaluating the magnitude of the risk. To and fro, to and fro… What is all this? The danger would destroy them or at least would impair their existence; the thing “a” would satisfy their need. They react in one fashion at the sight of the thing “a” and in a different way at the sight of the danger. Which action will be displayed to its completion? Sometimes the animal will go away, sometimes it will capture the thing “a” and escape with it, sometimes it will hide and wait until the danger has diminished or disappeared. There seems to be a kind of evaluation process. As the object or circumstance perceived as dangerous and the thing “a” are present, no representation of them is needed; but the different courses of action seem to be real options for the animal, and it seems too that a priority is perfectly “defined”: the animal will try to preserve its existence. Sometimes it will succeed, and sometimes it will fail.
So far so good, Bahman?
B
Bahman
Guest
So far so good.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Acting or not acting? Animal’s hesitation shows us that their optional courses of action are not prioritized at certain moments. I have no doubt that their goal is a priority for them (preserve their being): It is precisely this goal which has taken them to their current situation; but it is the same goal which prevents them to proceed to the end. When they hesitate, the means to reach such goal in one way -capturing the thing “a”- or the other -escaping from the danger-, are being weighted, and the weighting process seems not to be a straightforward one. Is it because those animals are not rational? Would rationality eliminate their hesitation?
It seems clear to me that the answer is “no, rationality would not eliminate hesitation”, simply because we human beings -rational animals- sometimes hesitate as well, even when we have been rationally advised by someone else.
But perhaps we should reflect more about rationality to see why it cannot eliminate hesitation.
…Here I stop. How should I continue this meditation? I conceive several options but I don’t know which one is the best. I essay one, and after some steps, I doubt. I essay another and face a similar situation. Nothing seems defined to me. Nothing determines me to follow one path or the other. My rationality does not possess any impetus to drive me in one direction or the other. The goal is defined (to find out if my rationality determines my action or not) and I am committed to it, but the means to reach it do not have any weight associated to them. I have to decide, I have to determine myself to choose one of the options that I have figured out. But what I am sure of at this very moment is that the energy for this determination does not come from my reason. My reason lacks this energy. It has shown me the paths that are open to me to go on, but it doesn’t do any more. Further!, my reason is ready to work on whichever path I select, but the determination of the path does not belong to it.
Has something like this happened to you?
B
Bahman
Guest
We, including animal, simply play random when the situation is not clear, when options have the same weight or we cannot give weight to options and we are forced to decide. Playing random is a rational response to such a situation.
Yes, this situation has happened to me. We play random when situation is not clear and we are forced to act.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
How do you define “rationality”, Bahman?
B
Bahman
Guest
Simply, being reasonable.
D
davidv
Guest
How does one tell if I am being reasonable?
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
B
Bahman
Guest
We all know what reason is. Isn’t that true?
B
Bahman
Guest
Why?
I already define it. What is wrong with that? What is your definition?
Being reasonable and logical.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
How can one be able to “deduce” from such simplistic notions that “free will is an illusion because we are rational beings”? There is no experience behind it, no reflection, not even a speculative construction; nothing!
V
Vico
Guest
Reason and intellect are different. The role of intellect is to perceive the truth, by a reasoning process or perceived immediately as intuition. Reason, however, is a process, where intellect is possession. We make a decision to choosing between what is charitable, or uncharitable, to resist or not resist passions that are inordinate, to willfully remain in ignorance of the moral character of an act or omission.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
We use the term “rationality” to describe certain behavioral peculiarities of human beings which distinguish us from other animals. The basic peculiarity, and the foundation for many others, is the fact that we establish high order relations:
Titus Lucretius Carus (“On the nature of things”) describes how he concludes that atoms exist. His arguments are based on two observations which are quite simple: a) Humid clothes dry when exposed to the wind or to the sunlight, and b) the corruption or disintegration of organic matter does not proceed indefinitely, but has an end and is followed by other integration processes. From the first observation, he inferred that there must be particles which are so small that are invisible to us. From the second, he established that some of those tiny particles are indivisible (atoms).
Tycho Brahe made astronomical observations for years and carefully annotated what he observed. Johannes Kepler studied Brahe’s annotations and could conclude, for example, that the planets orbited around the sun along elliptical orbits. Newton deduced later, from his own physical principles, why those orbits had to be elliptical.
Etcetera.
Antique philosophers used to say that reality is only accessible to “reason”; and they said it because they conceived reality as something stable and very well ordered. Even Heraclitus, who said that everything flows unceasingly, conceived a universal law which produced harmony out of conflict. Obviously, if such universal law exists, it is nothing that we can perceive with our senses (we perceive the movement and the conflict with them, but not the law). It was something which could be apprehended only by our “reason”. At any rate, there was something that required an explanation: there were arts, techniques, science and prime philosophy; but our senses, which perceive only the particular and the mutable could not give account of the universality and the stability of those human experiences. So, there was “Reason”, or “Logos”, which constituted what we observe as a “Cosmos”; and we were able to know it because there was “logos” in us: we were the “zoon logon echon”, the being who has access to Reality, to the “Logos”.
All this can be discussed at length, but the fact remains that human beings have created arts, techniques, science and philosophy. It is this aspect of our human reality which we call “Reason” and “Rationality”.
Now, this aspect of our being allows us to adopt more or less appropriate attitudes towards our surroundings and to perform more or less effective actions on it; but it does not determine us to any particular attitude nor to any particular action. While “instincts” determine some of our actions and some of our reactions, “Rationality” does not. Options open up before us through it, but they remain weightless until we commit ourselves to one of them.
Compared to the “reality” in which animals inhabit, ours is an expanded “Reality”, and the instinctive behavioral patterns which characterize animals are insufficient for us. We even need to combat our instinctive reactions in order to live a good life in our human world through the development of good habits.
Free will is not incompatible with “Rationality”. Quite the opposite: “Rationality” is the foundation of free will. But, does it mean that because we are rational beings, each one of our human acts is free?
What do you think, Bahman?
Titus Lucretius Carus (“On the nature of things”) describes how he concludes that atoms exist. His arguments are based on two observations which are quite simple: a) Humid clothes dry when exposed to the wind or to the sunlight, and b) the corruption or disintegration of organic matter does not proceed indefinitely, but has an end and is followed by other integration processes. From the first observation, he inferred that there must be particles which are so small that are invisible to us. From the second, he established that some of those tiny particles are indivisible (atoms).
Tycho Brahe made astronomical observations for years and carefully annotated what he observed. Johannes Kepler studied Brahe’s annotations and could conclude, for example, that the planets orbited around the sun along elliptical orbits. Newton deduced later, from his own physical principles, why those orbits had to be elliptical.
Etcetera.
Antique philosophers used to say that reality is only accessible to “reason”; and they said it because they conceived reality as something stable and very well ordered. Even Heraclitus, who said that everything flows unceasingly, conceived a universal law which produced harmony out of conflict. Obviously, if such universal law exists, it is nothing that we can perceive with our senses (we perceive the movement and the conflict with them, but not the law). It was something which could be apprehended only by our “reason”. At any rate, there was something that required an explanation: there were arts, techniques, science and prime philosophy; but our senses, which perceive only the particular and the mutable could not give account of the universality and the stability of those human experiences. So, there was “Reason”, or “Logos”, which constituted what we observe as a “Cosmos”; and we were able to know it because there was “logos” in us: we were the “zoon logon echon”, the being who has access to Reality, to the “Logos”.
All this can be discussed at length, but the fact remains that human beings have created arts, techniques, science and philosophy. It is this aspect of our human reality which we call “Reason” and “Rationality”.
Now, this aspect of our being allows us to adopt more or less appropriate attitudes towards our surroundings and to perform more or less effective actions on it; but it does not determine us to any particular attitude nor to any particular action. While “instincts” determine some of our actions and some of our reactions, “Rationality” does not. Options open up before us through it, but they remain weightless until we commit ourselves to one of them.
Compared to the “reality” in which animals inhabit, ours is an expanded “Reality”, and the instinctive behavioral patterns which characterize animals are insufficient for us. We even need to combat our instinctive reactions in order to live a good life in our human world through the development of good habits.
Free will is not incompatible with “Rationality”. Quite the opposite: “Rationality” is the foundation of free will. But, does it mean that because we are rational beings, each one of our human acts is free?
What do you think, Bahman?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
No. For example paying taxes. For many people, this is something that they would not do freely. You are more or less forced to pay your taxes under pain of landing in a jail cell.
B
Bahman
Guest
It is simple. We are sure that we are rational beings without any doubt. We however are not sure whether we have free will because the topic was subject of debate for a long time. The next question is how we treat a situation when we have a prioritized set of options? We of course pick up the best option since we are rational being. What if we don’t have a set of prioritized options? We pick up randomly if we are forced to decide otherwise we look forward to see whether we can form set of prioritized options. There is no room left for freedom.How can one be able to “deduce” from such simplistic notions that “free will is an illusion because we are rational beings”? There is no experience behind it, no reflection, not even a speculative construction; nothing!
B
Bahman
Guest
I think that animal are rational too but their scope of rationality is very limited.
You need to prove this. I already provided an argument against this. It is simple: There are three steps in any decision making: (1) realizing options, (2) forming prioritized options, (3) picking up the best options. There is no room left for freedom as you can see.
I don’t know anyway to show that. Could you?
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
I see…
How do you call this?: “We are sure that we are rational beings without any doubt. We however are not sure whether we have free will because the topic was subject of debate for a long time.” Is it an instance of one of your reasoning principles, or is it one of your axioms, or a postulate? What is it?
Actually, human rationality has been subject to debate too; so, applying your “principle”, you should not be sure of your rationality either. But let me be more specific so that you can realize how weak your basis is: Every “argument” that you, Bahman, have presented in this forum has been subject to debate; therefore you, Bahman, should not be sure of the truth of any one of them.
Secondly, you have been unable to describe -so much the less to explain-, how is it that you prioritize your options “rationally”. All you have been able to say is “We do”, which is not rational enough, so to say. Therefore, your statement “we prioritize our options using our reason” is not well founded.
Thirdly, it is true that some persons sometimes use to make some decisions randomly. In an exam where you have to select the right answers from a number of options, some guys who did not study enough the night before use to select their options closing their eyes and pointing to the exam with one of their fingers. When they open their eyes and see the pointed option, they choose it. After all, all of the options have the same weight to them. If that is the way in which you make your decisions, I will not debate it (some software programs do it that way). You know yourself, and I don’t. However there are some persons in this world who do not make decisions using those “techniques”. When I say that there is free will, I am thinking on this kind of persons, not on the other.
Fourth, if you need random processes in your decision making because your rationality cannot prioritize your options, it means that your rationality does not possess the energy to determine your actions. Therefore, your rationality is not an impediment for free will. But if you insist and say: “I, Bahman, are not free”; I am ready to accept it as true; you, Bahman, are not free.
Fifth, the statement “human beings are not free” has been subject to debate for a long time, therefore, according to your principle you should not be sure of its truth.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Why not!? Even planets must be rational; how could they be orbiting around the sun otherwise? They need a reason to be orbiting like that all the time! Don’t they?
You forget things very easily, Bahman! Don’t you remember that sometimes you are not able to prioritize your options and then you are subject to random processes? Instead of this, other persons make free decisions instead of the “techniques” you use. However, I don’t see it impossible that some individuals -like you, I guess-, do not have any experience of free will. It is comprehensible that you don’t know what it is, and that you have to rely on deficient “definitions” to formulate your “arguments”. It won’t be possible for you to understand freedom, as you can’t see.
Sure! Actually, Tombstone has proposed a good example above. It is an interesting one. Especially considering that we are supposed to be social beings. Paying taxes is a social duty, but I guess nobody is naturally inclined to pay them. People would prefer to use their whole income buying what they need; but authorities have added some weight to the option “paying taxes” sending you to jail if you don’t. That way it becomes easier for you to decide; but as Tombstone says, you are more or less forced to do it.
B
Bahman
Guest
Lets call it evidence which is obtained by introspection.
I am open to accept contrary if you have any argument against rationality.
How do we prioritize options? This is done in unconscious mind. We however can introspect to find out why.
How do you decide? You seems to believe in free will then you should know how do you decide. To me decision is made in three steps as it is discussed in another post.
Of course.
I am open to discussion.
I have an argument against free will. Do you have any argument in favor of it?
- Status