Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

Pure reason as a capacity makes experience - self-consciousness - possible. It has a necessary structure, which he deduces. There are more contemporary works on a similar theme, such as Mind and World. It is a good book if you have time. Since I get a theme of 'science above all else' from the people with whom I have discussed things so far, I'm not surprised that this position is deemed outside its scope. However, I find that in many instances people with that view, also tend to hold claims as true, that they cannot hold. Since you have a 'I don't know', you appear less affected. Why does this matter? Because self-consciousness still falls into the 'I don't know' category - and since we are 'in' it, investigations such as Kant's still hold relevance in my opinion since they look from the inside, rather than from the outside.

I'm not here to convince you of this, however, if most Christians, and their greedy interpretation of scripture, weren't destroying the world and atheists didn't sign up to transhumanism and similar retard ideologies - I would be a pluralist about ontologies. Now I see them both as an acute danger to the world and its possibility for a rich (not money) experience.

I guess we part at "pure reason." We are human, which includes limited and imperfect. We aren't capable of "pure" anything - and "pure reason" is simply (to me) a theoretical construct with no parallel in existence. It is reminiscent (to some degree) of Plato's "forms." Reason is a function of brain. It develops as that brain develops and can be compromised by compromises to that brain. It is the ability of the brain to process input, but those inputs can and do develop that reason. If I could make an analogy, reason is to brain what "power" or "force" is to muscle. It's what using the muscles do: produce power/movement/force. And just as using (or not using) those muscles changes the ability of the muscle to exert force, using (or not using) the brain changes the ability of the brain to apply reason.

Because on the one side is the empirical and on the other, the rational. A lot of people have gone heavily into the empirical - reducing the rational into it completely. Largely by creating a simplistic model, and limiting criticism of that model by its own criteria. There are other interpretations of phenomena, which have their own merits and issues. Kant has one of them.

Well, there is little question in my mind that the brain comes before the reason. Without "brain" we have no ability to reason. I'm not sure if that is your reference. Using brain, five senses, and the ability of the brain to reason, we perceive and gain information that we can reason upon. It is not clear to me that the brain would have anything to reason upon if there were no input. It is akin to a computer without any input/output devices. Can the computer do anything? You'd have to assume it already had software running on the hardware, but that assumes that software "got in there" somehow. Without any software, the computer is a collection of hardware with potential but not much else. Is the human brain much the same? Or does the brain have "firmware" that is part of its structure and could operate without input/output? I have no idea.

I'm not sure, it sounds like the cart is going before the horse. A rule doesn't teach you duty, it provides something to which you could be dutiful. That ability to bind yourself to it, and uphold it, was there prior. That ability is a rational one. It comes with its own rules about how it treats itself, and by extension, others of its type - i.e., other beings that can bind themselves.

I think we look at this differently. A rule is something created by the mind. It is essentially the articulation of a decision made that, under X conditions, Y is chosen. The rule doesn't impose the duty. We articulate the rule to codify the sense of duty we have. All of that traces back to our sentience, the wide range of actions available to us, and our desire to move towards "the best" as we define it.

Again, I jumped in on page x. I'm just here to provide a grounding for reason and rationality. Kant, while himself religious, did not really have a religious philosophical story. He was quite critical of our ability to know if God exists.

What do you mean by a "grounding?" Are you looking for an explanation for why it exists? Trying to identify what gives it rise? Trying to determine its relationship to the universe? Something else?

[carpedm9587]

Were you designed to operate according to the laws of reason and logic?

As best I can tell, my ability to reason is something gained over eons of evolution. Presumably, the ability to reason provides a survival advantage for a species- at least in the short term. The jury is out as to whether or not it provides a long term advantage. It may be that "sentience" is a characteristic that leads a species to burn hot in the short term, but ultimately sentient beings are so short-term-focused that they end up destroying their own environment and with it themselves. We don't know. We only have one species with significant capability in this area (us) and we've only been in existence for a few hundred thousand years.

Aren't both you and the tree created by the same non-rational forces of nature?

Yes.

The tree buds, you spit out words - why are you rational and the tree not?

Because the tree lacks the ability to perceive, apprehend, and apply the basic principles of logic and mathematics, it is not considered "rational." Because I have these abilities (I hope), I am considered rational. Well, there are probably some here who would dispute that...

Trees doing what the non-rational forces of nature created them to do = not rational.

Humans doing what the non-rational forces of nature created them to do = rational.

AFAICT, rationality is not defined by how one acquired the ability.

[Zara]

I guess we part at "pure reason." We are human, which includes limited and imperfect. We aren't capable of "pure" anything - and "pure reason" is simply (to me) a theoretical construct with no parallel in existence. It is reminiscent (to some degree) of Plato's "forms." Reason is a function of brain. It develops as that brain develops and can be compromised by compromises to that brain. It is the ability of the brain to process input, but those inputs can and do develop that reason. If I could make an analogy, reason is to brain what "power" or "force" is to muscle. It's what using the muscles do: produce power/movement/force. And just as using (or not using) those muscles changes the ability of the muscle to exert force, using (or not using) the brain changes the ability of the brain to apply reason.

We? I'm articulating Kant. Let's not assume things too quickly here about me.

I'm not sure what limited and imperfect even have to do with transcendental categories. Pure isn't some innocence claim - it's just a structure that we know a priori i.e., must be present and is known about independent of sensory input. It is necessary to make sense of sensory input. Why that structure is and where it is is left empty.

I'm not even going to bother unpacking the rest of what you said - the brain is not a muscle. You've been listening to too much psytrance.

Well, there is little question in my mind that the brain comes before the reason. Without "brain" we have no ability to reason. I'm not sure if that is your reference. Using brain, five senses, and the ability of the brain to reason, we perceive and gain information that we can reason upon. It is not clear to me that the brain would have anything to reason upon if there were no input. It is akin to a computer without any input/output devices. Can the computer do anything? You'd have to assume it already had software running on the hardware, but that assumes that software "got in there" somehow. Without any software, the computer is a collection of hardware with potential but not much else. Is the human brain much the same? Or does the brain have "firmware" that is part of its structure and could operate without input/output? I have no idea.

According to what exactly? I'm getting undergraduate "we are computers" analogies - nice. You know why I hate transhumanism? Because of reductive retardation like this. Am I talking to your brain at the moment? I am talking to you, not your brain. Maybe it's mediated by a computer and a brain somewhere, but I am talking to you. We don't know what we are - we can use science to identify a world in which there are brains - that's it. All in terms of concepts that are, what exactly? Why don't you go read Mind and World, it's a good read and it might challenge your current certainties - which are more metaphysically informed than you might think.

The problem is that without a shared background we might as well be talking about apples and oranges as we shout our disagreement at each other.

I think we look at this differently. A rule is something created by the mind. It is essentially the articulation of a decision made that, under X conditions, Y is chosen. The rule doesn't impose the duty. We articulate the rule to codify the sense of duty we have. All of that traces back to our sentience, the wide range of actions available to us, and our desire to move towards "the best" as we define it.

All these terms thrown out - yet so so little understanding. We make ourselves responsible for what we do - because we are rational and can legislate ourselves. Calculators are not responsible for their actions, nor are falling trees. They compute, or fall. You can say that you're really just a big calculator - however, this is not the world you live in. You do the crime, you will be held responsible for your action as if you could have done otherwise. The calculator cannot commit a crime, it cannot he held responsible, and it is not rational in the sense that we are.

What do you mean by a "grounding?" Are you looking for an explanation for why it exists? Trying to identify what gives it rise? Trying to determine its relationship to the universe? Something else?

The thread is called 'can atheism account for rationality'. I am providing a way of accounting for it through Kant - which, since he doesn't force a God, could be sufficient

Why do you exist?

[seer]

As best I can tell, my ability to reason is something gained over eons of evolution. Presumably, the ability to reason provides a survival advantage for a species- at least in the short term. The jury is out as to whether or not it provides a long term advantage. It may be that "sentience" is a characteristic that leads a species to burn hot in the short term, but ultimately sentient beings are so short-term-focused that they end up destroying their own environment and with it themselves. We don't know. We only have one species with significant capability in this area (us) and we've only been in existence for a few hundred thousand years.

Carp, you keep pointing to computers which are created by rational minds. But you believe that the non-rational created us. I think I'll slip God in here...

Because the tree lacks the ability to perceive, apprehend, and apply the basic principles of logic and mathematics, it is not considered "rational." Because I have these abilities (I hope), I am considered rational. Well, there are probably some here who would dispute that...

But you are no less determined than the tree, and you have been created by the same non-rational forces. I mean if you have no choice in any of this you have no choice in thinking that you are rational whether you are or not.

Rationality is not defined by how one acquired the ability, AFAICT. Again, I see nothing in the definition or common usage that mandates/specifies how rational ability arises.

But if determinism it true even claiming that you are rational is a completely circular claim. You have no choice in making that claim, it is as determined as the tree falling in the forest.

[carpedm9587]

We? I'm articulating Kant. Let's not assume things too quickly here about me.

I admit I leaped to the assumption that you are also human. If that was presumptuous, then I apologize.

I'm not even going to bother unpacking the rest of what you said - the brain is not a muscle. You've been listening to too much psytrance.

Hence the term "analogous." I didn't say the brain was a muscle. It is more like a computer. If you disagree - then what exactly do you think the brain is?

According to what exactly? I'm getting undergraduate "we are computers" analogies - nice. You know why I hate transhumanism? Because of reductive retardation like this. Am I talking to your brain at the moment?

In a manner of speaking - yes.

I am talking to you, not your brain.

Have you ever tried having a conversation with a person who doesn't have one? Or has an inert one?

Maybe it's mediated by a computer and a brain somewhere, but I am talking to you. We don't know what we are - we can use science to identify a world in which there are brains - that's it. All in terms of concepts that are, what exactly?

Complex firings of the brain, as best we can tell. Functional MRIs show this rather nicely.

Why don't you go read Mind and World, it's a good read and it might challenge your current certainties - which are more metaphysically informed than you might think.

I'm not sure how "I don't know" became a certainty. ABout the only thing I know is a) I have a brain, b) my sense of "me" arises from that organ, c) if that organ is compromised, my sense of self can be altered and/or destroyed.

The problem is that without a shared background we might as well be talking about apples and oranges as we shout our disagreement at each other.

I agree that the more people share commonalities, the easier it is to talk about concepts and ideas. AFAIK, we share humanity and this planet. I assume we share other things in common as well. But you may be right that we do not share enough common background to have a meaningful discussion. As I noted, my "Kant brain cells" are pretty dusty.

All these terms thrown out - yet so so little understanding. We make ourselves responsible for what we do - because we are rational and can legislate ourselves.

Agreed (well, at least for the second part), and essentially what I said. Our sense of duty arises from ourselves and the circumstances of our context - not from the rules. The rules simply reflect the duty we feel.

As for not understanding, that is entirely possible. Always willing to learn new things when a good teacher shows up.

Calculators are not responsible for their actions, nor are falling trees. They compute, or fall. You can say that you're really just a big calculator - however, this is not the world you live in. You do the crime, you will be held responsible for your action as if you could have done otherwise. The calculator cannot commit a crime, it cannot he held responsible, and it is not rational in the sense that we are.

Agreed - a calculator lacks the characteristic of "sentience." Until self-awareness is present, duty and responsibility are not possible. A thing cannot articulate "I should" if there is no "I."

The thread is called 'can atheism account for rationality'. I am providing a way of accounting for it through Kant - which, since he doesn't force a God, could be sufficient

Then you might want to connect with Seer. He is the one predominantly committed to requiring a god-centered universe for rationality to exist. This thread started as a continuation of a discussion he and I were having in a separate thread.

Why do you exist?

I am not sure exactly what "why" means here, so there are several possible answers:

For what purpose do you exist? Purpose requires a purposer, so this question cannot be answered in any absolute sense. The best I can tell you is the purposes I choose for myself.

How did you come to exist? We don't know how the universe came to exist. Given the universe and its operational principles, I came to exist by the natural process of evolution.

What is your function? Whatever I choose it to be. Sentience made that possible. Before sentience, a species function is nothing more than the specific role(s) it plays within a given environmental niche.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you keep pointing to computers which are created by rational minds. But you believe that the non-rational created us. I think I'll slip God in here...

Well, if "creation" generally means "cause to exist," then yes, as best I can tell a non-rational process resulted in rational beings who can in turn create objects that operate rationally or objects that have nothing to do with rationality. You are free to "slip god in" if you wish - I don't "slip god in" just because I can't explain something.

But you are no less determined than the tree, and you have been created by the same non-rational forces.

That is an assumption you cannot show to be true. Again, last I checked, there was nothing in the definition of "rationality" or "rational" that specified how the rational thing was required to come into existence. You keep defining your way to conclusions.

I mean if you have no choice in any of this you have no choice in thinking that you are rational whether you are or not.

But you are in that same bucket, Seer. If a malicious creator-being created you, you would have no choice in thinking how you think if that is what the creator being wanted.

Setting those silly arguments aside, the fact is I have an experience of "self." The fact is I grasp concepts I have called "logic" and I use them to make arguments and sort through experiences to make decisions. I am sentient. I am rational. Until you give me reason to think all of that is an illusion, I'll accept it as my reality because I have really no choice but to do so: any other choice would leave me in an absurd position.

But if determinism it true even claiming that you are rational is a completely circular claim. You have no choice in making that claim, it is as determined as the tree falling in the forest.

We've had this discussion before, Seer - we all end up at a starting place that can only be defended circularly. Circular proofs actually prove nothing - so we are basically accepting these claims prima facie. I cannot prove that the universe I experience exists. I accept it prima facie. I cannot prove I am not a brain in a vat. I accept that I am not prima facie. I cannot prove the truth of the core tenets of logic. I accept them prima facie. I accept a thing prima facie in two places:

1) When I have no choice but to do so.
2) When I accept the word of an expert without doing the work myself (because we build on one another's experiences and knowledge). I am essentially acting in trust, that they have not accepted things prima facie unnecessarily.

I find it important to NOT accept things prima facie if:

1) It is not necessary that I do so, AND
2) It is a vital issue whose truth value is critical to my existence and/or well-being

[Zara]

I agree that the more people share commonalities, the easier it is to talk about concepts and ideas. AFAIK, we share humanity and this planet. I assume we share other things in common as well. But you may be right that we do not share enough common background to have a meaningful discussion. As I noted, my "Kant brain cells" are pretty dusty.

Like I said, read Mind and World. It is an excellent book and probably at your level - it is hard going, as a warning.

I'm bowing out of the rest of the conversation. Sorry for calling you a retard - I need to find something else to do.

I am not sure exactly what "why" means here, so there are several possible answers:

For what purpose do you exist? Purpose requires a purposer, so this question cannot be answered in any absolute sense. The best I can tell you is the purposes I choose for myself.

Good! This is an excellent answer.

How did you come to exist? We don't know how the universe came to exist. Given the universe and its operational principles, I came to exist by the natural process of evolution.

Damn, you lost some points. But good try.

What is your function? Whatever I choose it to be. Sentience made that possible. Before sentience, a species function is nothing more than the specific role(s) it plays within a given environmental niche.

Better than the previous answer but not as good as the first.

Given the quality of these answers, maybe try some existentialism or phenomenology - Heidegger has a good book, Being and Time.

[seer]

Well, if "creation" generally means "cause to exist," then yes, as best I can tell a non-rational process resulted in rational beings who can in turn create objects that operate rationally or objects that have nothing to do with rationality. You are free to "slip god in" if you wish - I don't "slip god in" just because I can't explain something.



That is an assumption you cannot show to be true. Again, last I checked, there was nothing in the definition of "rationality" or "rational" that specified how the rational thing was required to come into existence. You keep defining your way to conclusions.

For the life of me Carp, I can not see the distinction. The non-rational forces nature determine the flower to bloom, and cause you to spit out the words "I'm rational." You see one as non-rational and one as rational.

[little_monkey]

I guess I'm still struggling with "logic is a human construct." The implication of accepting that statement at face value seems to be that we can simply decide, at some point, that the Law of Identity is suspended, which seems to me to be somewhat irrational. Yes, humans (or more generally "sentient beings") are the ones who symbolically represent the principles on which the universe operates. I 100% agree with that. And our representation, if it doesn't accurately capture the reality it represents, can break down. Or it can be misapplied. If that is what you are saying, then we are in agreement.

You seem to believe that the universe operates on principles. While I believe that we create those principles so we can make the universe more comprehensible to us. From my POV, logic a human conception, and we use it for its usefulness - when confronted with a series of statements, we want our conclusion to be "logically" consistent as to not deceive ourselves (survival is a remnant of evolution). Where it doesn't apply, we have to resort to other concepts. This is not the only case we are confronted with - for instance, in physics the concept of energy is useful. Energy in = energy out. But it failed to account that heat flows from hot to cold, so we needed to come up with another concept - entropy. In all of this enterprise, we're describing what we observe in a language that our mind can grapple. The universe doesn't owe us anything - it need not be rational or logical. That's just our wishful thinking.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, read Mind and World. It is an excellent book and probably at your level - it is hard going, as a warning.

I'm bowing out of the rest of the conversation. Sorry for calling you a retard - I need to find something else to do.

I have already added it to my reading list. As for the appellation, you can be assured that I am fairly regularly called (or accused of being) many things around here, many of them both uncivil and simply wrong. Such is life. But your apology is rare and refreshing. Thanks!

Good! This is an excellent answer.

Damn, you lost some points. But good try.

Better than the previous answer but not as good as the first.

Given the quality of these answers, maybe try some existentialism or phenomenology - Heidegger has a good book, Being and Time.

I actually read that one, a while ago. Also dusty brain cells. In a manner of speaking, existentialism is part of my philosophy in so far as I believe that the individual person is a free (but limited) rational being, and they are a responsible agent that determines their own (bounded) course through acts of the will. As for phenomenology, I agree that "reality" is comprised of objects (things in space) and events (acting/moving in time) and that we experience that reality through our senses as processed by our brains. Concepts like "soul" and "spirit" have little meaning to me outside of being vague references to human consciousness. I don't believe supernatural beings exist outside of movies, a good horror story, or other vehicles for the human imagination.

[carpedm9587]

For the life of me Carp, I can not see the distinction. The non-rational forces nature determine the flower to bloom, and cause you to spit out the words "I'm rational." You see one as non-rational and one as rational.

I cannot fathom why you do not. I see nothing in the definition of "rationality" that has anything to do with how it came to be. I fashion a hammer. I fashion a computer. A hammer is unrelated to the laws of reason. A computer is specifically designed to functionally implement those laws. As far as I can tell, non-rational forces can give rise to non-rational or rational "things." Rational "things" can give rise to non-rational and/or rational things. A thing is rational if it operates/chooses/decides according to the basic laws of reason. It is nonrational if it does not. It is irrational if it violates those laws.

Why this is a problem for you is beyond my understanding. It doesn't seem all that complex to me.

[carpedm9587]

You seem to believe that the universe operates on principles.

I believe the universe is repeatable and predictable. That repeatability/predictability can be represented symbolicly as "laws" or "rules" or "concepts" that describe how the universe operates. If there is no mind to represent these principles (or whatever you wish to call them), then the universe continues to function, indifferent to the lack of symbolic representation of its operation.

While I believe that we create those principles so we can make the universe more comprehensible to us. From my POV, logic a human conception, and we use it for its usefulness - when confronted with a series of statements, we want our conclusion to be "logically" consistent as to not deceive ourselves (survival is a remnant of evolution). Where it doesn't apply, we have to resort to other concepts. This is not the only case we are confronted with - for instance, in physics the concept of energy is useful. Energy in = energy out. But it failed to account that heat flows from hot to cold, so we needed to come up with another concept - entropy. In all of this enterprise, we're describing what we observe in a language that our mind can grapple.

So far so good, except that I believe all we are doing is creating the symbolic representation of an external reality. That representation is useful to the degree that it accurately reflects that reality.

The universe doesn't owe us anything - it need not be rational or logical. That's just our wishful thinking.

I am under no illusion that the universe "owes" us anything. I'm not sure where you got that. The universe is cosmically indifferent, as best I can tell. For example, we recently saw much discussion about the inclusion of Pluto in the list of planets in this solar system. That was a human discussion about human representation/categorization of the reality of our universe. Pluto has not been changed one iota by our categorization, and the universe doesn't give a fig if there are eight or nine planets circling our sun. They simply "are." The universe also won't care if someone concludes "the law of identity is wrong." Things will continue being themselves, indifferent to what anyone thinks.

[seer]

I cannot fathom why you do not. I see nothing in the definition of "rationality" that has anything to do with how it came to be. I fashion a hammer. I fashion a computer. A hammer is unrelated to the laws of reason. A computer is specifically designed to functionally implement those laws. As far as I can tell, non-rational forces can give rise to non-rational or rational "things." Rational "things" can give rise to non-rational and/or rational things. A thing is rational if it operates/chooses/decides according to the basic laws of reason. It is nonrational if it does not. It is irrational if it violates those laws.

Why this is a problem for you is beyond my understanding. It doesn't seem all that complex to me.

But you are not choosing anything, you are not making decisions to follow the laws of logic, or even decide what those laws are. That is all decided for you - determined by the laws of nature, like a bear pooping in the woods. How on earth could you even know what violated those laws? You are a slave to the laws of physics and only believe what they dictate.

[carpedm9587]

But you are not choosing anything, you are not making decisions to follow the laws of logic, or even decide what those laws are. That is all decided for you - determined by the laws of nature, like a bear pooping in the woods. How on earth could you even know what violated those laws? You are a slave to the laws of physics and only believe what they dictate.

So, again you have come back to "if it's determined it's not rational," so you are adding the need for "free will" to the definition without any justification I can see. A computer has a logic circuit. Depending on the inputs to the computer, the circuit trips in one direction or another. Two possibilities - choice made predicated on inputs. The choice is deterministic, but there are still two (or more) possible outcomes. If input is X - Y results. If input is A - B results.

Sorry - Seer. The computer may not be sentient (yet), but it is certainly a rational machine. The entire thing operates in conformance with the fundamental laws of reason. You haven't done anything to show otherwise except to continue to repeat "rational is limited to beings of free will." I see no such limitation in the dictionary.

As for sentience - I suspect we will see, as computer circuitry and software continually increases in complexity, the emergence of properties associated with sentience. Who knows, we may even see full-blown sentience emerge.

[seer]

So, again you have come back to "if it's determined it's not rational," so you are adding the need for "free will" to the definition without any justification I can see. A computer has a logic circuit. Depending on the inputs to the computer, the circuit trips in one direction or another. Two possibilities - choice made predicated on inputs. The choice is deterministic, but there are still two (or more) possible outcomes. If input is X - Y results. If input is A - B results.

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.