Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[inocente]

inocente;10165045:

That’s not what you said in post #158, but then with one bound Jack was free.

Your post #174:

The issue is whether rationality can be detected by the existence of beings who can **understand ** logical principles, **communicate **with others, **discover **natural laws and invent methods of communication. It is not a question of values but facts.

Your post #158:

The acid test of rationality is whether beings can **understand **logical principles, **communicate **with others, **discover **natural laws and invent methods of communication. Have you no idea whether aliens may be to able to achieve these goals?

In the earlier post the beings that understand logical principles, etc. are being tested, in the later post they are the ones doing the testing. So what you said in the post #174 was not at all what you said in post #158.

That’s two days running I’ve had to waste time fixing your misunderstandings.

                                                  .......

I’ve no idea what the other half of that post signifies.

 

[inocente]

It is pointless attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who constantly evades answering questions.
inocente;10164657:

That was my best answer, why do you think it’s an evasion?
tonyrey;10164848:

If it’s not an evasion it’s lack of persuasion!

No, as I said it wasn’t an evasion. If you like I’ll repeat that in the really big font size and swear by Almighty God while pressing the send button.

How many levels of existence do you think there are?

And you’ve piqued my interest now, why did you imagine I was evading when I said there aren’t a definite number of levels of existence? Do you think there should be? Why do you think people generally go through life unconcerned at not knowing the answer to The Ultimate Question Of The Number Of Levels Of Existence? What do you mean by “levels of existence”?

 

[tonyrey]

Your post #174:

Your post #158:

In the earlier post the beings that understand logical principles, etc. are being tested, in the later post they are the ones doing the testing. So what you said in the post #174 was not at all what you said in post #158.

That’s two days running I’ve had to waste time fixing your misunderstandings.

I’ve no idea what the other half of that post signifies.

Thank you for your posts.

 

[tonyrey]

No, as I said it wasn’t an evasion. If you like I’ll repeat that in the really big font size and swear by Almighty God while pressing the send button.

How many levels of existence do you think there are?

And you’ve piqued my interest now, why did you imagine I was evading when I said there aren’t a definite number of levels of existence? Do you think there should be? Why do you think people generally go through life unconcerned at not knowing the answer to The Ultimate Question Of The Number Of Levels Of Existence? What do you mean by “levels of existence”?

Thank you for your posts.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.
2. Probability is not a human invention because it describes physical events.
3. The description consists of human symbols.
4. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.
5. The description is based on understanding physical events.
6. It is not by chance that we can understand physical events.
7. It is not by chance that physical events can be understood.
8. There is a reason why physical events are understandable and understood.
9. It is because physical reality is logically and scientifically explicable to such an extent that science is extremely successful.
10. Physical reality cannot explain why physical reality is logically and scientifically explicable to such an extent that science is extremely successful.
11. Physical causes alone are not an adequate explanation of reality because they exclude purpose.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I almost agree but. Some people say no big science projects should be funded while there are people in need

I’ve seen that before. Unfortunately since there is always some one in need this is an impossible precondition.

and the counter-argument is the track record of all the unpredicted spin-off benefits.

Ironically some of these spin-offs are of assistance to those in need. Many times the advantageous outcomes are unintended or indirect.

But would that excuse a project from failing to achieve its mission, would non-stick frying pan technology have excused NASA if it hadn’t got a man on the moon? It sounds a bit like saying you’d never have the benefit of this great view if you weren’t plunging to your death after falling out the aircraft, if you see what I mean.

Whether or not an excuse would be granted will probably vary on who is asked and their relationship with the project and their knowledge on what was going on and why the project failed or how they were impacted. If the person is not aware of any spin-offs that are of significant personal value then that person is less likely to excuse the failure. Ferdinand and Isabella might seen Columbus’s voyage as an overall success; he failed at finding a route to India, but he made them aware of a “new” full of resources. The natives that got kidnapped, killed, infected with “old world” diseases, and those impacted by the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade might have had a different perspective.

 

[tonyrey]

A recent German supercomputer simulation estimated the number of **galaxies **in the universe to be 500 billion. It seems unreasonable to believe we are the only rational beings in such an incredibly immense system. It also seems unreasonable to believe we are the only rational beings who understand the physical universe sufficiently to invent methods of the transmission and reception of messages beyond their galaxy. That is why it is unscientific to renounce the attempt to discover whether there are rational beings besides ourselves. One thing is certain: in every case the ability to communicate to such an astonishing extent would be due to the power of thought, not feeling…

 

[Sair]

A recent German supercomputer simulation estimated the number of **galaxies **in the universe to be 500 billion. It seems unreasonable to believe we are the only rational beings in such an incredibly immense system. It also seems unreasonable to believe we are the only rational beings who understand the physical universe sufficiently to invent methods of the transmission and reception of messages beyond their galaxy. That is why it is unscientific to renounce the attempt to discover whether there are rational beings besides ourselves. One thing is certain: in every case the ability to communicate to such an astonishing extent would be due to the power of thought, not feeling…

Yet were it not for the fact that researchers felt an emotional attachment to their quest for knowledge in this regard, the project would get nowhere. Part of the problem in focusing exclusively on rationality is that we can lose sight of just how potent a role our emotions play in fuelling our supposedly rational endeavours. The two are not separate realms, but intricately intertwined. That is, in large part, why we are only sometimes rational beings, and that imperfectly.

 

[tonyrey]

*A recent German supercomputer simulation estimated the number of **galaxies ***

The dominant factors in all moral, scientific and philosophical progress are the power of thought and the power to control emotions - especially those which stem from physical urges…

 

[tonyrey]

At Christmas it is appropriate to consider whether the message of Christ is reasonable. Richard Dawkins has stated that “Jesus, if he ever existed (or whoever wrote his script if he didn’t ) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history - the Sermon on the Mount was way ahead of its time”. In a recent book Ian Guthridge, an ex-Jesuit priest, who doesn’t believe a man who walked this earth can be the Creator, has stated:

Instead, the message of Jesus was a message of love: the love that God has for all men, and the love that all men should have for God and each other. And this love was to uplift them, not terrify them - to change them into a completely new “breed” of men who were early recognized as such by the anti-Christian Roman Emperor Julian (361-3 A.D.) when he marvelled at “how these Christians love one another”.

*Faith, Fact or Fantasy *p.119

Throughout the world countless people have become Christians down the centuries regardless of their cultural background because the truth shines by its own light. But the truth is not the monopoly of Christianity. Other religions and even individuals with no religion often give us insight into spiritual facts. Atheists and agnostics serve a useful purpose in refining our beliefs because human words cannot possibly express the richness and depth of reality. The very word “love” illustrates how inadequate they are but we know how its power can transform existence into a life of joy, beauty and gratitude:

Meanwhile, to imagine that the only “facts” worth bothering about are those that come from science - that surely must be one of the great “fantasies” of our time.

ibid. p.157

May your life always be inspired by the reality of the love revealed by Jesus!

 

[Sair]

The dominant factors in all moral, scientific and philosophical progress are the power of thought and the power to control emotions - especially those which stem from physical urges…

So you discount empathy as a prompt to moral action, and fascination as a prompt for scientific or philosophical investigation? Life would be unbearably bland if reason were all that guided us…

 

[Sair]

Don’t forget, also, that without emotion, without subjectivity and preference, there is nothing to which one might object in the regimes of the likes of Hitler - he was ruthlessly efficient, even ingenious in achieving his goals, and there is nothing inherently irrational in his expressed desire to achieve racial purity and living space for the German people (although the former may be dismissed as preferential, it is no different to breeding other animals for desired characteristics). It is only our innate, emotional, gut-wrenching revulsion for his treatment of Jewish folk (among others) that prompts us to denounce his policies as immoral. Reason cannot tell us what is morally acceptable without the assistance of emotion.

 

[tonyrey]

The dominant factors in all moral, scientific and philosophical progress are the power of thought and the power to control emotions - especially those which stem from physical urges…

“the power to control” doesn’t mean “discount”.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t forget, also, that without emotion, without subjectivity and preference, there is nothing to which one might object in the regimes of the likes of Hitler - he was ruthlessly efficient, even ingenious in achieving his goals, and there is nothing inherently irrational in his expressed desire to achieve racial purity and living space for the German people (although the former may be dismissed as preferential, it is no different to breeding other animals for desired characteristics). It is only our innate, emotional, gut-wrenching revulsion for his treatment of Jewish folk (among others) that prompts us to denounce his policies as immoral. Reason cannot tell us what is morally acceptable without the assistance of emotion.

Emotion cannot tell us what is morally acceptable unless it is subject to reason. Fanaticism is the result of **unreasonable **emotion - like the aggressive hatred of religion.

 

[Sair]

Emotion cannot tell us what is morally acceptable unless it is subject to reason. Fanaticism is the result of **unreasonable **emotion - like the aggressive hatred of religion.

But it seems that reason must follow from emotion, rather than preceding it - we can’t reason before the fact as to what will best serve the interests of human flourishing. Most regimes that have tried to do so have come up sharply against real emotional objections, and have only been able to meet them with a forceful abuse of power. Morality can’t have one without the other…

 

[tonyrey]

*Emotion cannot tell us what is morally acceptable unless it is subject to reason. Fanaticism is the result of **unreasonable ***

You need to explain what you understand by “human flourishing”.

Most regimes that have tried to do so have come up sharply against real emotional objections, and have only been able to meet them with a forceful abuse of power.

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are objective, universal and rational rather than subjective, individual and emotional.
Morality can’t have one without the other.
It doesn’t follow that reason follows from emotion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But it seems that reason must follow from emotion, rather than preceding it - we can’t reason before the fact as to what will best serve the interests of human flourishing.

Research by Antonia Damasio(Neuro Scientist) and others support this.Theres a book that he published ( Descarte’s Error) contains a summary of some of the cases that he used to come to this conclusion.

 

[inocente]

Whether or not an excuse would be granted will probably vary on who is asked and their relationship with the project and their knowledge on what was going on and why the project failed or how they were impacted. If the person is not aware of any spin-offs that are of significant personal value then that person is less likely to excuse the failure. Ferdinand and Isabella might seen Columbus’s voyage as an overall success; he failed at finding a route to India, but he made them aware of a “new” full of resources. The natives that got kidnapped, killed, infected with “old world” diseases, and those impacted by the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade might have had a different perspective.

True, although SETI is unlikely to find a new world imho. It was worth having a look, but if we haven’t found anything after one full search of the sky then diminishing returns make it increasingly unlikely anything will be found by continually finessing the detectors.

There’s a tendency to think there are lots of simultaneous civilizations, but R[sup][/sup]* in the Drake equation is a reminder that the United Federation of Planets is fiction. Also L could be very short, given we’re already changing from broadcast to point-to-point technologies.

 

[inocente]

Thank you for your posts.

Happy to give that one up as I think that if aliens know pi then they can probably reason, but since we don’t yet understand much about how we ourselves reason, we don’t stand much chance of working out a test for reasoning in general.

Thank you for your posts.

OK, but the “levels of existence” discussion could have been interesting, as the levels at which we model and represent the world do seem to have a direct bearing on how well we can reason about the world.

 

[inocente]

Don’t forget, also, that without emotion, without subjectivity and preference, there is nothing to which one might object in the regimes of the likes of Hitler - he was ruthlessly efficient, even ingenious in achieving his goals, and there is nothing inherently irrational in his expressed desire to achieve racial purity and living space for the German people (although the former may be dismissed as preferential, it is no different to breeding other animals for desired characteristics). It is only our innate, emotional, gut-wrenching revulsion for his treatment of Jewish folk (among others) that prompts us to denounce his policies as immoral. Reason cannot tell us what is morally acceptable without the assistance of emotion.

I just read the following article for something unconnected with CAF. It’s a great example of a cognitive bias we apparently all have, which is both reasoned and unreasonable, with both negative and positive effects.

*72 female subjects were made to watch a confederate receiving [simulated] electrical shocks under a variety of conditions. Initially, subjects were upset by observing the apparent suffering of the confederate. However, as the suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, the observers began to derogate the victim. Derogation was greater when the observed suffering from shock treatments was greater. However, under conditions in which subjects were told that the victim would receive compensation for her suffering, subjects did not derogate the victim. Lerner and colleagues replicated these findings in subsequent studies, as did other researchers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
*