Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[Sparko]

I think you two need to pause and define "rational" because it seems you both mean something different by the word.

[carpedm9587]

If what you believe in being dictate by nature how on earth do you/we know we are rational? You say because you follow certain principles, but those beliefs too are being dictated. You can not decide to be rational, you can not choose to be rational, you just spit out what you have been programmed too. You can not and do not even decide what the laws of logic are either. You just slavishly parrot what the laws of nature determined. You have no basis for even suggesting that the computer is rational. You again are just spitting out what you were determined to. And I do not see that reaction any different or more rational that our bear friend pooping in the woods.

OK, Seer. We are back to your "tenacity" and all you are doing is repeating the same argument over and over again and essentially ignoring the responses. Meanwhile, I am answering your repetitions, and it has moved into "tedious."

Personally, I find this entire discussion a bit silly and pointless. Every belief system will have unprovable starting places. Those should be only what is absolutely necessary to get started. I would include on that list:

1) I exist
2) There is an objective reality that exists and I can experience
3) The truth of the fundamental principles of logic and mathematics

If you want me to prove to you any of these, you're out of luck. No one can - including you. You have all the same problems, but in your worldview it's because you cannot prove that you aren't simply programmed to believe what you believe by a malicious supernatural entity, including your belief that you have free will.

If you want to keep cycling over and over again on these tedious (and rather silly) points, I'll leave you to it. If you have something new to offer, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll let my previous responses stand.

[carpedm9587]

I think you two need to pause and define "rational" because it seems you both mean something different by the word.

I believe I have posted the dictionary definition about four times now. But I agree there is a definition problem. I'm using what is in the dictionary, and Seer is apparently creating his own so he can sustain his argument. So, maybe we should do this:

Dictionary Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Seer Rational: capable of free choice based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

A person and computer are both (presumably) Dictionary Rational.
A person is Seer Rational (presumably) but a computer is not (yet).

Maybe that will help.

[Darfius]

I prefer to be civil, carp. I don't enjoy conflict, I just have no fear of it and sometimes see why it's necessary. I appreciate your pleasant demeanor as well.

I've spotted your error. You keep professing that free will is not necessary for rationality while simultaneously defending the notion that the computer is making a choice--"though a determined choice." A determined choice is an oxymoron. If a program or a robot or a refrigerator is merely responding to stimuli, as the tree responds to the stimuli of weakened bark and fierce wind, that is not a choice.

[seer]

1) I exist
2) There is an objective reality that exists and I can experience
3) The truth of the fundamental principles of logic and mathematics

How are these thoughts any more rational than any other biological function like a good fart?

[Sparko]

I believe I have posted the dictionary definition about four times now. But I agree there is a definition problem. I'm using what is in the dictionary, and Seer is apparently creating his own so he can sustain his argument. So, maybe we should do this:

Dictionary Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Seer Rational: capable of free choice based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

A person and computer are both (presumably) Dictionary Rational.
A person is Seer Rational (presumably) but a computer is not (yet).

Maybe that will help.

neither of those definitions is very clear to me. What does it mean to be "based on reason or logic?" That sounds suspiciously like saying some has to be intelligently designed or caused by an intelligent reasoning mind. Which I know you don't believe. So that definition is not sufficient for how you are using the word.

[carpedm9587]

I prefer to be civil, carp. I don't enjoy conflict, I just have no fear of it and sometimes see why it's necessary. I appreciate your pleasant demeanor as well.

Darf, if I may be so bold - perhaps if you entered into a discussion the way you are engaged now, you would find conflict less necessary. There was a day when I would have responded to you in kind, and we probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Just a thought.

I've spotted your error. You keep professing that free will is not necessary for rationality while simultaneously defending the notion that the computer is making a choice--"though a determined choice." A determined choice is an oxymoron. If a program or a robot or a refrigerator is merely responding to stimuli, as the tree responds to the stimuli of weakened bark and fierce wind, that is not a choice.

Again, let's turn to the dictionary:

Choice: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities
Select: carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

So we're caught in a definition circle (which is not uncommon) but there is nothing here about "free will either." In science, we call it "natural selection" when a species survives for no other reason than it is better suited to the environmental niche. There is no conscious, logical force at will. Nature "selects" by nothing more than letting the laws of nature play out. Find a ravine with an overhang that is narrow at the upper end expanding to its widest at the lower end. Climb down to the bottom of the ravine and you will find that the rocks that have fallen into the ravine are "sorted" with the smallest rocks at the upper end and largest rocks at the lower end. There is no consciousness at work, only gravity and the simple principles of geometry. Still, sorting (another form of selection) has occurred.

As I have said from the outset, you and Seer (for some reason) feel a need to add "freely and consciously" to the definition of select, sort, and choose, and that concept is simply not a required part of the definition OR the common usage of the terms. A computer is operating on completely deterministic principles, yet it is designed on the very basis of the rules of logic. It's why we call them "logic gates" and "logical operators."

Now if you want to make an argument that the rational nature of the computer is not the same as our rational nature because the computer is determined in its rationality and we are (presumably) not, I have no problem with that distinction. I agree with it (for now). But simply declaring, by fiat, that the machine is not "rational" because you want to reserve rationality to "beings of free will," that is defining your way to a conclusion, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

neither of those definitions is very clear to me. What does it mean to be "based on reason or logic?" That sounds suspiciously like saying some has to be intelligently designed or caused by an intelligent reasoning mind. Which I know you don't believe. So that definition is not sufficient for how you are using the word.

No. It means the operation of the thing (specifically related to selection and choice) is governed by (or perhaps "based on") the fundamental principles of logic. We use those principles all the time. The computer's operation is governed by the flow of electricity through architectural constructs known as "logic gates" or "logical operators." These are specifically designed to be a hardware implementation of the principles of logic. We rational beings created that machine, but it makes no difference if it was created by a rational being or if the capability arose "naturally." The capability is what makes it "rational," not how the capability came to exist.

[Sparko]

No. It means its operation of the thing (specifically related to selection and choice) is governed by (or perhaps "based on") the fundamental principles of logic. We use those principles all the time. The computer's operation is governed by the flow of electricity through architectural constructs known as "logic gates" or "logical operators." These are specifically designed to be a hardware implementation of the principles of logic. We rational beings created that machine, but it makes no difference if it was created by a rational being or if the capability arose "naturally." The capability is what makes it "rational," not how the capability came to exist.

So it seems to me that you are using "rational" to mean "we can make sense of it and understand it"

[carpedm9587]

So it seems to me that you are using "rational" to mean "we can make sense of it and understand it"

Well, if its rational, we (hopefully) can make sense of it an understand it. But, again, whether or not we can make sense of it or understand it is not what makes it rational. I am using the term exactly as it is defined: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

The entire computer is based on logic circuitry. That is what a processor fundamentally is. It is based on Boolean logic. Our brains are also processors of a sort, but exponentially more complex with far more capability (in some respects). They are also "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" which we use when we make decisions or frame arguments. Anyone who's ability to do that is impaired is said to be "irrational" because they are NOT basing their decisions/choices "in accordance with reason or logic."

[Sparko]

Well, if its rational, we (hopefully) can make sense of it an understand it. But, again, whether or not we can make sense of it or understand it is not what makes it rational. I am using the term exactly as it is defined: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Who's reason? the observer or the object? A computer has no reason. And if you mean the observer (you) then we are back to "it makes sense to us and we can understand it"

The entire computer is based on logic circuitry.

the "logic" in a computer is not the logic of reasoning.

It is a series of gates and switches that mimic Boolean logic - which is different from "logic" as in the philosophy we are discussing. Boolean logic is basically a form of algebra.

You are confusing two different meanings of the word logic.

And what about a flower. You claim it is "rational" - in what way? because we can observe and understand it, right?

[carpedm9587]

Who's reason? the observer or the object? A computer has no reason. And if you mean the observer (you) then we are back to "it makes sense to us and we can understand it"

The principles of reason/logic are accepted to be universal and absolute, Sparko, as previously discussed. Anything acting in accordance to them is considered "rational," what is not in conformance is either nonrational (if it is not related) or "irrational" is it outright defies them.

the "logic" in a computer is not the logic of reasoning.

Boolean logic is pretty basic logic, Sparko. We use the principles all the time as we "reason/think."

It is a series of gates and switches that mimic Boolean logic - which is different from "logic" as in the philosophy we are discussing. Boolean logic is basically a form of algebra.

Boolean operators are used in mathematics and pretty much any decision-based reasoning process. If it rains and there is no lighting, I will go fishing. The decision to fish is based on the both conditions evaluating to "true." If either evaluates to false, I'll stay home.

You are confusing two different meanings of the word logic.

What are these two meanings?

And what about a flower. You claim it is "rational" - in what way? because we can observe and understand it, right?

Where did I say a flower is "rational?"

[Sparko]

The principles of reason/logic are accepted to be universal and absolute, Sparko, as previously discussed. Anything acting in accordance to them is considered "rational," what is not in conformance is either nonrational (if it is not related) or "irrational" is it outright defies them.



Boolean logic is pretty basic logic, Sparko. We use the principles all the time as we "reason/think."



Boolean operators are used in mathematics and pretty much any decision-based reasoning process. If it rains and there is no lighting, I will go fishing. The decision to fish is based on the both conditions evaluating to "true." If either evaluates to false, I'll stay home.



What are these two meanings?



Where did I say a flower is "rational?"

I give up. You are determined to be as confusing as possible. "in accordance with logic" doesn't actually clarify anything. In accordance how? How can something that exists NOT be in accordance with logic? Give me an example.

And IS a flower a rational object or not? You tell me.

[seer]

As I have said from the outset, you and Seer (for some reason) feel a need to add "freely and consciously" to the definition of select, sort, and choose, and that concept is simply not a required part of the definition OR the common usage of the terms. A computer is operating on completely deterministic principles, yet it is designed on the very basis of the rules of logic. It's why we call them "logic gates" and "logical operators."

Now if you want to make an argument that the rational nature of the computer is not the same as our rational nature because the computer is determined in its rationality and we are (presumably) not, I have no problem with that distinction. I agree with it (for now). But simply declaring, by fiat, that the machine is not "rational" because you want to reserve rationality to "beings of free will," that is defining your way to a conclusion, IMO.

I just don't see how you make the distinction; one deterministic biological function (a good fart) is non-rational, but another equally deterministic biological function (a thought/belief ) is some how rational.

[Sparko]

I just don't see how you make the distinction; one deterministic biological function (a good fart) is non-rational, but another equally deterministic biological function (a thought/belief ) is some how rational.

OK I tried with carp and he won't give a good definition of what he means by "rational" -- So I am asking you to define what you mean by "rational"