Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[inocente]

You don’t!
You are the source of your thoughts.​

How can a product direct itself? Only thinkers direct their thoughts and even they don’t always do that.

Verily this doth not compute - a glass of water cannot drink itself. So are you (a) your thoughts or (b) directing your thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

Only ludicrous for some** body** who regards the mind as a fantasy produced by accidental juxtapositions of molecules…
How can a mindless **body **be in a position to assert anything reasonable whatsoever?

Personhood and identity don’t even exist in the materialist’s impersonal universe. They are meaningless myths in a meaningless universe.

Neither truth, goodness, freedom, justice, equality, purpose, personal fulfilment or love is affected by time or space. The most precious and significant aspects of life are intangible and indestructible - unlike the material objects on which materialists unrealistically stake everything.

Although it is concerned only with physical reality science - like mathematics - is also intangible. Physical constants, ratios, proportions, relations, hypotheses, theories, axioms and explanations are certainly not fictions that exist only in the mind yet they cannot be observed by the senses. It was indeed the **principle **of sense verification that led to the downfall of logical positivism!

 

[tonyrey]

For the sake of discussion:

The null hypothesis H0 is that the mind arises from the physical alone.

The null hypothesis H0 is 0!

Alternative hypothesis H1 is that the mind arises from both the physical and the non-physical.
Alternative hypothesis H2 is that the mind arises from the non-physical alone.

Alternative hypothesis H3 is that the mind is a fundamental reality.

The mind is nowhere! It itranscends time or space.

This suggests you’re proposing H2 …

H3!

The ludicrous hypothesis that a lump of tissue inside the skull is the **sole source **

of our consciousness,
… while this suggests you’re proposing H1.

H3!

Which is it, H1 or H2 (or another)?

H3!

In practice H1 will appear exactly the same as H0 in all circumstances unless you have a testable prediction to tell them apart.

H2 would fail immediately as it can’t be tested and doesn’t even seem to make sense - for instance if your mind is non-physical, how come your thoughts emanate from wherever your body happens to be located?

Your tests presuppose H0 which is not in fact the null hypothesis.

*The ludicrous hypothesis that a lump of tissue inside the skull is the **sole source ***

of our consciousness, power of reason, beliefs, insights, intuitions, goals, values, ideals, principles, conclusions, aspirations, and **voluntary **decisions is hopelessly inadequate and unrealistic because it not only fails to correspond to the way we live and regard ourselves and others as rational, autonomous persons with a right to life and happiness but also implies we are freaks of nature which exist for no reason or purpose in an irrational universe where truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are mere figments of the imagination.
I can understand your fear that H0 could undermine values, but think actually it’s the opposite – the more we understand, the more we realize how unique and precious we are.

The fear exists only in your imagination! The more we understand about ourselves (not our bodies) and physical reality the more we realize how unique and precious we are. Socrates - who was no fool - said "Know yourself".

 

[inocente]

Alternative hypothesis H3 is that the mind is a fundamental reality.

It’s not an alternative, since whether matter or mind is fundamental doesn’t affect anything. You can still sit in a chair while thinking it’s really a chair-idea. Whether or not there is mind-independent existence doesn’t stop us explaining anything else so there’s no reason why it would prohibit an explanation of mind.

And if it does, we can all temporarily become materialists to reassert our freedom from arbitrary rules.

*The fear exists only in your imagination! The more we understand about *ourselves (not our bodies) and physical reality the more we realize how unique and precious we are. Socrates - who was no fool - said "Know yourself".

I don’t see your point - why the change of heart when you’ve previously been arguing against explanation (or at least against your atomistic interpretation of science)?

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not an alternative, since whether matter or mind is fundamental doesn’t affect anything. You can still sit in a chair while thinking it’s really a chair-idea. Whether or not there is mind-independent existence doesn’t stop us explaining anything else so there’s no reason why it would prohibit an explanation of mind.

Nothing at all - apart from the fact that a matter-dependent existence precludes a rationa explanation of anything!

And if it does, we can all temporarily become materialists to reassert our freedom from arbitrary rules.

It doesn’t! What are the arbitrary rules by the way? “rules” are mental not material constructs.

I don’t see your point - why the change of heart when you’ve previously been arguing against explanation (or at least against your atomistic interpretation of science)?

No change of heart at all. On the contrary I have been defending rational explanation against those who consider humanity is predominantly irrational…

Is the atomic theory no longer accepted by scientists?

 

[inocente]

Nothing at all - apart from the fact that a matter-dependent existence precludes a rationa explanation of anything!

Ah, I understand the problem now - are you confusing science with metaphysics?

The body of knowledge built by science is sans metaphysics, we are free to interpret it any way we please. The laws of nature remain the same whether we think atoms are made of substance or are in the mind of God, or whatever else.

And that applies to all science, including the science of the human mind.

It doesn’t! What are the arbitrary rules by the way? “rules” are mental not material constructs.

Any metaphysics which in principle precludes inquiry into any subject is anathema.

No change of heart at all. On the contrary I have been defending rational explanation against those who consider humanity is predominantly irrational…

Is the atomic theory no longer accepted by scientists?

Does the world keep turning even if there are no philosopher’s around to ask?

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing at all - apart from the fact that a matter-dependent existence precludes a rationa explanation of anything!

Are you confusing metaphysics with science?

The body of knowledge built by science is sans metaphysics, we are free to interpret it any way we please.

Science is based on metaphysical principles not on thin air!

The laws of nature remain the same whether we think atoms are made of substance or are in the mind of God, or whatever else.

The laws of nature presuppose rational minds capable of interpreting perceptions and formulating the laws of nature.

And that applies to all science, including the science of the human mind.

The science of the mind is not a physical science.

It doesn’t! What are the arbitrary rules by the way? “rules” are mental not material constructs.

Any metaphysics which in principle precludes inquiry into any subject is anathema.

Which do you have in mind?

No change of heart at all. On the contrary I have been defending rational explanation against those who consider humanity is predominantly irrational…

There have been very recent posts to that effect on this very thread. Perhaps you are extremely well acquainted with them…

Is the atomic theory no longer accepted by scientists?

Does the world keep turning even if there are no philosopher’s around to ask?

Is the atomic theory no longer accepted by scientists? (No philosopher’s what?

 

[inocente]

Science is based on metaphysical principles not on thin air!

Makes no difference, the laws of nature are exactly the same whether you’re a theist, an atheist, a deist, a realist, an idealist, a dualist or whatever - whatever interpretation you have of reality does not alter the body of knowledge or the process. This applies to all science, including the explanation of mind.

The laws of nature presuppose rational minds capable of interpreting perceptions and formulating the laws of nature.

So what? The laws of nature remain the same whether we think atoms are made of substance or are in the mind of God, or whatever else.

The science of the mind is not a physical science.

Why would it make any difference whether we’re talking about chemistry or neuroscience?

Which do you have in mind?

You seemed to be suggesting your metaphysics would close down inquiry (“The ludicrous hypothesis that a lump of tissue inside the skull …]”).

There have been very recent posts to that effect on this very thread. Perhaps you are extremely well acquainted with them…

I was wondering about you saying you “have been defending rational explanation”.

Is the atomic theory no longer accepted by scientists? (No philosopher’s what?

I’d have thought everyone these days learns of quanta but no one thinks that’s the only way to interpret the world (present company excepted of course ).

 

[tonyrey]

The mind is nowhere! It itranscends time or space. The only thing more ludicrous than the notion that the mind arises from the brain would be this.

No response!

How can you be in any position to assert this about the mind?

How can a mindless **body **be in a position to assert anything reasonable whatsoever?

No response!

And if the mind is nowhere - that is, nonlocalised in your body, for one thing - how does that give you any possibility of personhood or identity (both of which you appear to value)?

Personhood and identity don’t even exist in the materialist’s impersonal universe. They are meaningless myths in a meaningless universe.

Neither truth, goodness, freedom, justice, equality, purpose, personal fulfilment or love is affected by time or space. The most precious and significant aspects of life are intangible and indestructible - unlike the material objects on which materialists unrealistically stake everything.

Although it is concerned only with physical reality science - like mathematics - is also intangible. Physical constants, ratios, proportions, relations, hypotheses, theories, axioms and explanations are certainly not fictions that exist only in the mind yet they cannot be observed by the senses. It was indeed the **principle **of sense verification that led to the downfall of logical positivism!

No response!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Either we were designed to be reasonable (which is certainly a reasonable explanation - we could never imagine a computer assembling itself to calculate - but we know computers can be designed to calculate) … or we became reasonable purely by an accident of evolution. The former is probable, and the latter is improbable. It would certainly be unreasonable to assert that the latter can be proven by any scientific means.

 

[tonyrey]

Either we were designed to be reasonable (which is certainly a reasonable explanation - we could never imagine a computer assembling itself to calculate - but we know computers can be designed to calculate) … or we became reasonable purely by an accident of evolution. The former is probable, and the latter is improbable. It would certainly be unreasonable to assert that the latter can be proven by any scientific means.

The cult of Unreason is not only unreasonable but self-destructive. The pathetic hypothesis that purposeless particles transform themselves into saints and Nobel laureates is unscientific nonsense. From the ridiculous to the sublime!

 

[Sair]

Either we were designed to be reasonable (which is certainly a reasonable explanation - we could never imagine a computer assembling itself to calculate - but we know computers can be designed to calculate) … or we became reasonable purely by an accident of evolution. The former is probable, and the latter is improbable. It would certainly be unreasonable to assert that the latter can be proven by any scientific means.

The former - that is, the notion that we are ‘designed’ to be reasonable, is only probable if you have unequivocal evidence for a designer. Whenever this is pointed out, the response tends to go along the lines of, “Well, we are obviously designed, so there must be a designer, so we are obviously designed.” Circular reasoning, at its most obvious.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
The former - that is, the notion that we are ‘designed’ to be reasonable, is only probable if you have unequivocal evidence for a designer. Whenever this is pointed out, the response tends to go along the lines of, “Well, we are obviously designed, so there must be a designer, so we are obviously designed.” Circular reasoning, at its most obvious. **

This is way off base.

The reason a designer is probable is not that we are designed, but that everything we produce ourselves is designed. It is reasonable to infer that if everything we produce has all the appearance of being designed by us, then we ourselves, who are vastly more complex than anything we have produced, ought also to be designed. That is a reasonable inference. What is not a reasonable inference is just the opposite. A computer never assembles itself in the laboratory, though one can be designed to produce other computers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
The former - that is, the notion that we are ‘designed’ to be reasonable, is only probable if you have unequivocal evidence for a designer. **

Why does there have to be unequivocal evidence for a designer, but no evidence at all that we are not designed?

 

[tonyrey]

Sair
**
The former - that is, the notion that we are ‘designed’ to be reasonable, is only probable if you have unequivocal evidence for a designer. **

Why does there have to be unequivocal evidence for a designer, but no evidence at all that we are not designed?

There is no evidence so far that there will be a reasonable answer - only one that is imagined to be produced by certain animals…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

God appears to have worked into the fabric of human reason the fact that for things to be accepted as true, they must be reasonable. What is more reasonable … that the universe just popped into existence without any reason … or that it was created for a reason?

 

[Sair]

God appears to have worked into the fabric of human reason the fact that for things to be accepted as true, they must be reasonable. What is more reasonable … that the universe just popped into existence without any reason … or that it was created for a reason?

That depends whether there’s a reason for the universe or not.

If there is, and if there’s a god who designed it for said reason, said god has been remarkably reticent about revealing it in any unambiguous fashion.

 

[tonyrey]

That depends whether there’s a reason for the universe or not.

If there is, and if there’s a god who designed it for said reason, said god has been remarkably reticent about revealing it in any unambiguous fashion.

Only if you reject **on principle **all the evidence presented on this forum and elsewhere - as if you have privileged insight into the nature of reality…

If the evidence were coercive no one would be free to choose what to believe and how to live.

 

[tonyrey]

It would be very interesting to know the statistics for the number of unanswered posts for and against the primacy of reason. It would give some indication of the relative strength of the two views. If statements are regularly unrefuted and questions regularly unanswered it is reasonable to believe they cannot be refuted or answered satisfactorily by the defaulters. Until they do so they are undermining their position rather than consolidating it - and the more dogmatic they have been the less convincing they become!

An appeal to “evolution” or “compatibilism” is an inadequate response because such terms tell us next to nothing. Without an outline of what they imply they are worthless. In this case it is not the devil who is in the details!

 

[Sair]

It would be very interesting to know the statistics for the number of unanswered posts for and against the primacy of reason. It would give some indication of the relative strength of the two views. If statements are regularly unrefuted and questions regularly unanswered it is reasonable to believe they cannot be refuted or answered satisfactorily by the defaulters. Until they do so they are undermining their position rather than consolidating it - and the more dogmatic they have been the less convincing they become!

An appeal to “evolution” or “compatibilism” is an inadequate response because such terms tell us next to nothing. Without an outline of what they imply they are worthless. In this case it is not the devil who is in the details!

I would hazard a guess that not everyone has every day to devote to debates on CAF! That being the case, it’s easy to miss posts from a page or two back - so the accusation of deliberate avoidance is not necessarily warranted.

Be that as it may, it’s also the case - at least, in my experience - that the determination of those who argue for ‘Intelligent Design’ is such that they will forward such bizarre and esoteric arguments that they cannot be answered immediately by any genuinely rational, matter-of-fact response. One must first wade through a vast cess pit of vague metaphysical assertions before even finding any concrete statement that is even open to refutation.

It’s very simple and straightforward, on its face, to state (as the likes of Dinesh D’Souza regularly do) that the universe must have some front-loading of rationality by an intelligent designer in order to be intelligible to beings that have the capacity for reason; it takes rather more effort of explanation to elucidate why this is not necessarily the case. My own intimations in this regard - to wit, that humans who exercise rationality evolved within the very universe we endeavour to explain - have thus far gone unanswered, except by being swept under the rug with blanket assertions that rationality must have been injected from the very beginning. What is one to say to this? It’s hardly my problem if those to whom I direct my arguments refuse to even consider them.