Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[tonyrey]

I addressed them en bloc. Posts containing numbered bullets are like the preambles to a European Directive - just add “Whereas” to the front of each bullet to see what I mean. It’s not necessary to comment on each preamble when the directive itself is faulty.

It is begging the question to assume the preamble is “faulty”.

Nope. IQ basically tests the kind of reasoning required by industry and taught in schools. They’re not intended to measure, and fail to predict, other kinds of intelligence such as who will be a great artist, actor, composer, mother, etc.

An evasive qualification of reasoning. The fact remains that basic intelligence is scientifically measurable.

Some apes didn’t and are still around, other apes did and that’s us.

That statement is not an explanation.

You seem to be defining intelligence very narrowly to fit with some preconception. Are sentences an objective marker for high intelligence? I wouldn’t have thought so since we can imagine a higher still intelligence which dispenses with sentences.

The issue is not intelligence but the power of reasoning which entails insight and all the other factors I have listed.

 

[inocente]

No rational Christian believes human beings are created entirely by blind events.

Who told you that?

The false dilemma is the choice between science and sprinkling with holy water

Details, details. Science holds out the offer of treatments which have been tested and found to work, ignorance doesn’t.

(which rational Christians do not consider magical.)

Correct, Baptists don’t distinguish it from tap water.

An uncomfortable fact for those who attribute everything to blind events…

An ad hominem isn’t an uncomfortable fact, it’s an informal fallacy.

 

[inocente]

A surmise based on the assumption that monkeys have an abstract concept of independence rather than the more realistic view that they simply remember situations similar to previous situations and act accordingly.

No. A moment’s thought would tell you that your “realistic” view is unrealistic since it cannot explain the complexity of the observed behavior.

 

[inocente]

It is begging the question to assume the preamble is “faulty”.

I give up.

An evasive qualification of reasoning. The fact remains that basic intelligence is scientifically measurable.

I give up.

That statement is not an explanation.

I give up.

The issue is not intelligence but the power of reasoning which entails insight and all the other factors I have listed.

I give up.

 

[tonyrey]

It is begging the question to assume the preamble is “faulty”.

 

[inocente]

Yes, I forgot how dull life can be when there is no open dialog.

 

[tonyrey]

No rational Christian believes human beings are created entirely by blind events.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I forgot how dull life can be. Merry Christmas.

And a Happy New Year!

 

[tonyrey]

A surmise based on the assumption that monkeys have an abstract concept of independence rather than the more realistic view that they simply remember situations similar to previous situations and act accordingly.

Hypothetical complexity doesn’t confer free will or responsibility on monkeys - or on human beings for that matter…

 

[inocente]

Hypothetical complexity doesn’t confer free will or responsibility on monkeys - or on human beings for that matter…

My strong impression has been that you don’t want to talk to me, which I took to be confirmed when you speedily posted a thumbs up sign when I said I was giving up.

Now you post this. OK, I’ll reply but seriously, can we both stop behaving as if millions will die if we put a foot wrong. This is only an internet debate. To continue…

The complexity is observed not hypothesized. It can be explained by the animals conceiving at some level of others as agents acting independently. I don’t see what free will or responsibility has got to do with it, observations are observations are observations whatever the hypotheses.

We should expect to find evolved traits in other animals, perhaps in more primitive form. It seems improbable that human cognition is brand new from the ground up.

 

[tonyrey]

My strong impression has been that you don’t want to talk to me, which I took to be confirmed when you speedily posted a thumbs up sign when I said I was giving up.

What was the point of writing “I give up” several times if you didn’t intend to give up?
I had the overwhelming impression you had decided to give up; otherwise you would have made some attempt to answer my statements…

The complexity is observed not hypothesized. It can be explained by the animals conceiving at some level of others as agents acting independently. I don’t see what free will or responsibility has got to do with it, observations are observations are observations whatever the hypotheses.

We should expect to find evolved traits in other animals, perhaps in more primitive form. It seems improbable that human cognition is brand new from the ground up.

1. Human cognition presupposes free will.
2. If we couldn’t choose the most reasonable explanation our cognition would be the same as animal cognition, i.e. the product of factors** beyond our control**.
3. We would believe only what we are conditioned to believe regardless of whether it is true or false.
4. The power of **independent **thought would be an illusion and we’d be kidding ourselves we are rational.
5. The success of science hasn’t been achieved by physical events but by personal decisions.
6. Our rational conclusions are not caused by biological functions but voluntary choices.

 

[inocente]

What was the point of writing “I give up” several times if you didn’t intend to give up?
I had the overwhelming impression you had decided to give up; otherwise you would have made some attempt to answer my statements…

Then your presumption led you up the garden path. Starting at post #57, look at our conversation. Note the increasing frustration of one party at what he sees as the dismissive, cursory, and at times irrational style of the other, who gives no sign of noticing and in post #89 even forgets the entire conversation ever took place.

You may see it differently of course. Just as long as we both remember the irony that the conversation was about animals having empathy with each other, and that conversations require we have empathy with each other.

Anyhow…

*1. Human cognition presupposes free will.

1. If we couldn’t choose* the most reasonable explanation our cognition would be the same as animal cognition, i.e. the product of factors** beyond our control**.

1. We would believe only what we are conditioned to believe regardless of whether it is true or false.

1. The power of **independent **thought would be an illusion and we’d be kidding ourselves we are rational.

1. The success of science hasn’t been achieved by physical events but by personal decisions.

1. Our rational conclusions are not caused by biological functions but voluntary choices.

Taking preamble 1: Whereas human cognition presupposes free will.

No, it doesn’t. There is a philosophical question of whether our minds are independent or controlled by God/controlled by another agency/part of another mind.

However, the scientific null hypothesis is that our mind arises from the nervous system alone, which is bound only by the physical law. Our mind must then by logical necessity be independent (excluding silly imponderables such as The Matrix).

There is another philosophical question, which is that if reductionism implies determinism then it could be that our choices are predetermined, but that question is irrelevant to the null hypothesis since our cognition works exactly the same either way.

So no, human cognition does not depend in any way on philosophical presuppositions.

Incidentally that’s the case for all species, no x-factors, no differences in kind are required.

 

[tonyrey]

However, the scientific null hypothesis is that our mind arises from the nervous system alone, which is bound only by the physical law. Our mind must then by logical necessity be independent (excluding silly imponderables such as The Matrix).

1. A “scientific null hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone” is based on the theory of materialism, i.e. matter is the fundamental reality - which is clearly inconsistent with theism.
2. The scientific null hypothesis is subordinate to the metaphysical null hypothesis, i.e. all interpretations of reality are equally possible.
3. If our mind arises from the nervous system alone it is bound by the physical laws to which the nervous system is subject and cannot be independent.

There is another philosophical question, which is that if reductionism implies determinism then it could be that our choices are predetermined, but that question is irrelevant to the null hypothesis since our cognition works exactly the same either way.

I fail to understand how you reach this conclusion. If our thoughts are predetermined **we **don’t draw our conclusions: they are already drawn for us. In other words they are not “ours”.

So no, human cognition does not depend in any way on philosophical presuppositions.

How can** any** hypothesis possibly be independent of **all **philosophical presuppositions?

 

[inocente]

1. A “scientific null hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone” is based on the theory of materialism, i.e. matter is the fundamental reality - which is clearly inconsistent with theism.
2. The scientific null hypothesis is subordinate to the metaphysical null hypothesis, i.e. all interpretations of reality are equally possible.
3. If our mind arises from the nervous system alone it is bound by the physical laws to which the nervous system is subject and cannot be independent.

Preamble 1 miscomprehends the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is an unproven assertion, it is not a statement of truth or a statement of faith. A null hypothesis is the default, most likely position, requiring the least number of unproven assumptions - the one against which another is tested.

Preamble 2 is incoherent to me, please explain.

Preamble 3 - of course it can: (a) Reason requires laws, an absence of laws is the opposite of reason. (b) Astrology and sympathetic magic are not science. Your thoughts are completely independent of the dust collecting on the far side of the Moon (it is hoped ).

*I fail to understand how you reach this conclusion. If our thoughts are predetermined **we ***don’t draw our conclusions: they are already drawn for us. In other words they are not “ours”.

Whose are they then?

How can* any*** hypothesis possibly be independent of **all **philosophical presuppositions?

I suppose a philosopher could add some presuppositions after the fact, much as a philosopher could say hunter-gathering involves the philosophical presupposition that the world contains things to hunt and gather. But even the philosopher would have enough sense to see that doesn’t make hunter-gathering dependent on philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

             *1. A "scientific null hypothesis that  our mind arises from the nervous system alone" is based on the theory  of materialism, i.e. matter is the fundamental reality - which is  clearly inconsistent with theism.laws to which the nervous system is subject and cannot be independent.*

1. It is impossible for a rational hypothesis to exist in a void.
2. It remains a fact that the **scientific **null hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is based on the theory of materialism.
3. The hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is also inconsistent with theism.

A null hypothesis is the default, most likely position, requiring the least number of unproven assumptions - the one against which another is tested.

1. The most economical hypothesis is that there is **nothing **whatsoever - which is clearly absurd because a hypothesis presupposesamind rather than a complex nervous system.
2. The most economical **rational **hypothesis is that there is **One **Being rather than an immense number of atomic particles.

1. The scientific null hypothesis is subordinate to the metaphysical null hypothesis, i.e. all interpretations of reality are equally possible.

Preamble 2 is incoherent to me, please explain.

1. Science presupposes the existence of physical objects - which is a metaphysical assumption.
2. The metaphysical null hypothesis is that **nothing **exists - which is clearly absurd.
3. The only metaphysical null hypothesis which is rational is that all interpretations of reality are equally possible because at the outset all are equally probable.

1. If our mind arises from the nervous system alone

it is bound by the physical Preamble 3 - of course it can: (a) Reason requires laws, an absence of laws is the opposite of reason.
(b) Astrology and sympathetic magic are not science. Your thoughts are completely independent of the dust collecting on the far side of the Moon (it is hoped).)

The laws of reason are not physical but metaphysical, logical and epistemological.

I fail to understand how you reach this conclusion. If our thoughts are predetermined **we **

don’t draw our conclusions: they are already drawn for us. In other words they are not “ours”.Whose are they then?

No one’s! (According to materialists. Persons don’t exist in their scheme of** things**.)

How can** any**

hypothesis possibly be independent of **all **philosophical presuppositions? I suppose a philosopher could add some presuppositions after the fact, much as a philosopher could say hunter-gathering involves the philosophical presupposition that the world contains things to hunt and gather. But even the philosopher would have enough sense to see that doesn’t make hunter-gathering dependent on philosophy. number of unproven assumptions - the one against which another is tested.

**Everyone **is a philosopher because everyone makes assumptions about the nature of reality. It is impossible to live rationally without believing in one’s existence, the existence of persons and things, the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the principle of cause and effect - to mention but a few essential presuppositions.

 

[Hamlet123]

1. It is impossible for a rational hypothesis to exist in a void.
2. It remains a fact that the **scientific **null hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is based on the theory of materialism.
3. The hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is also inconsistent with theism.
4. The most economical hypothesis is that there is **nothing **whatsoever - which is clearly absurd because a hypothesis presupposesamind rather than a complex nervous system.
5. The most economical **rational **hypothesis is that there is **One **Being rather than an immense number of atomic particles.
6. Science presupposes the existence of physical objects - which is a metaphysical assumption.
7. The metaphysical null hypothesis is that **nothing **exists - which is clearly absurd.
8. The only metaphysical null hypothesis which is rational is that all interpretations of reality are equally possible because at the outset all are equally probable.

The laws of reason are not physical but metaphysical, logical and epistemological.

                                                  No one's! (According to materialists. Persons don't exist in their scheme of** things**.)

**Everyone **is a philosopher because everyone makes assumptions about the nature of reality. It is impossible to live rationally without believing in one’s existence, the existence of persons and things, the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the principle of cause and effect - to mention but a few essential presuppositions.

oh me

 

[tonyrey]

oh me

!

 

[inocente]

1. It is impossible for a rational hypothesis to exist in a void.
2. It remains a fact that the **scientific **null hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is based on the theory of materialism.
3. The hypothesis that our mind arises from the nervous system alone is also inconsistent with theism.

I don’t understand what you mean but it seems very complicated.

Take the following hypotheses:

(a) The natural world exists.
(b) The natural world and a deity exist.
(c) The natural world and a deity exist, and the deity is the Christian God.

As you say later, (a) is a necessary assumption. It’s also a subset of (b) and (c), which involve additional assumptions.

Again:

(a) The natural world exists.
(b) The natural world and a supernatural world exist.
(c) A deity (and only the deity) exists.
(d) The supernatural world (only) exists.
(e) The natural world does not exist.

(a) again is a necessary assumption, the others aren’t.

*1. The most economical hypothesis is that there is **nothing ***whatsoever - which is clearly absurd because a hypothesis presupposesamind rather than a complex nervous system.

1. The most economical **rational **hypothesis is that there is **One **Being rather than an immense number of atomic particles.

No!!! The first isn’t a hypothesis, it’s irrational (it exists therefore something exists, therefore it disproves itself). The second is very complicated (if there’s only one being why are there lots of things, why are there lots of us, how come we feel we are independent agencies, who is this being anyway, etc.).

*1. Science presupposes the existence of physical objects - which is a metaphysical assumption.

1. The metaphysical null hypothesis is that **nothing ***exists - which is clearly absurd.

1. The only metaphysical null hypothesis which is rational is that all interpretations of reality are equally possible because at the outset all are equally probable.

Again I don’t understand what you mean.

The laws of reason are not physical but metaphysical, logical and epistemological.

We seem to have gone down a side street. The side street is named Calle Whatever.

No one’s! (According to materialists. Persons don’t exist in their scheme of* things***.)

I got lost again, we were talking about free will, suddenly we get on to zombies.

Remember you’re talking about a very large number of scientists and philosophers. My null hypothesis is that of course they believe persons exist and you are misrepresenting them.

***Everyone ***is a philosopher because everyone makes assumptions about the nature of reality. It is impossible to live rationally without believing in one’s existence, the existence of persons and things, the power of reason, the intelligibility of the universe and the principle of cause and effect - to mention but a few essential presuppositions.

Fine. You may be devastated to find that very large numbers of people, when making assumptions about the nature of reality, do not find it at all necessary to assume that humans are the only species in the universe to have non-physical minds,

 

[Robert_Sock]

If people are usually reasonable, why do we disagree so much?

 

[tonyrey]

If people are usually reasonable, why do we disagree so much?

1. We exist in order to choose what to believe and how to live.
2. There are many ways of interpreting life because it is so complex.
3. Our interpretation of life is deeply affected by our culture and personal experiences.
4. We are all fallible.
5. We often choose to be unreasonable because we are biased in favour of our own opinion.
6. Emotion plays a large part in our decision-making.
7. We are not logical machines!