Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[rogue06]

Only on Tweb could this discussion drift over to one concerning farts.

00000000000000ars3k.gif

[Sparko]

Yes, it does.



It is a biological process. Yes, you can diagram it. You can explain the physics. You can understand the physics. That does not make the plant "rational." YOU, a rational person, can understand the plant's biology. You, a rational person, can explain the physics associated with the plant. As far as I know, the plant cannot apply logic or reason. If you can show me that it can, then I would agree that the plant is a "rational" thing.

your definition didn't say "operates using and applying reason and logic" it say "operates according to reason and logic" - meaning it has to be something that IS logical, not USES logic. no wonder you and seer (and now I) am talking past each other.

[carpedm9587]

How is it different from a fart?

Umm...you really need me to explain to you how a brain is different from a fart?

Does a fart violate any law of logic?

Nope. It is nonrational as far as I know. It has nothing to do with the laws of logic.

Does it cause any contradictions?

Same answer.

How is a fart not operating according to the laws of logic?

It has nothing to do with the laws of logic, so it's not operating according to them or against them.

How can anything in the universe violate the laws of logic?

My son says, "A car is not a car."
Dad says, "That's irrational"

As far as I know, we're both in the universe.

They are "built in" to the reality.

Yes, and things that are not based on them are considered "irrational," unless you are suggesting that the word "irrational" has no meaning anymore?

[carpedm9587]

Only on Tweb could this discussion drift over to one concerning farts.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37947[/ATTACH]

I know...go figure. I have no idea how farts got into the discussion. Personally, I think it stinks...

[carpedm9587]

your definition didn't say "operates using and applying reason and logic" it say "operates according to reason and logic" - meaning it has to be something that IS logical, not USES logic. no wonder you and seer (and now I) am talking past each other.

Actually, the definition I have now posted multiple times says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." I suspect "operating" was left out because an object or an idea could be considered rational or irrational or nonrational. An idea doesn't operate. So a thing capable of "operating" can operate (act, decide, ect.) in accordance with reason or logic, or an idea could be assessed as being in conformance with reason or logic.

At this point, I have to admit that this is SO basic, and so obvious to me, I am beginning to think I am being trolled just to see how long I will keep responding.

I think I'm going to leave this discussion to you guys. It is beginning to border on the inane.

[seer]

OK, I worked REALLY hard to fight the desire to post this way, but I figured CP would just jump on it if I didn't.

Seer, if your thoughts are no different than your farts, I now understand why you have so many problems following a logical argument...

Sorry...but you lobbed that one WAY up there....I just had to swing...

Of course, but are they both equally determined biological functions?

Again, there is nothing in the definition of "rational" that specifies the thing, how the thing came to be, what powers the thing, what color the thing is, or whether the thing likes bananas. The thing is operating/acting rationally if those actions/operations are "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

Is what you think as rational biologically determined?

[seer]

Only on Tweb could this discussion drift over to one concerning farts.

Just trying to elevate the intellectual discussion...

[carpedm9587]

Of course, but are they both equally determined biological functions?

Yes, they are. Last I knew that had nothing to do with being "rational."

Is what you think as rational biologically determined?

I don't believe I am "determined." And, as has been said many times, determinism/free will and biological/electrical/chemical have nothing to do with being "rational."

[Sparko]

Actually, the definition I have now posted multiple times says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." I suspect "operating" was left out because an object or an idea could be considered rational or irrational or nonrational. An idea doesn't operate. So a thing capable of "operating" can operate (act, decide, ect.) in accordance with reason or logic, or an idea could be assessed as being in conformance with reason or logic.

At this point, I have to admit that this is SO basic, and so obvious to me, I am beginning to think I am being trolled just to see how long I will keep responding.

I think I'm going to leave this discussion to you guys. It is beginning to border on the inane.

Again, you are meaning "UTILIZING/APPLYING Logic and Reason" but your definition says "in accordance with" - and I think that is the confusion here. And why you and seer are talking past each other.

[carpedm9587]

Again, you are meaning "UTILIZING/APPLYING Logic and Reason" but your definition says "in accordance with" - and I think that is the confusion here. And why you and seer are talking past each other.

Again, the definition I have repeatedly posted says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Notice the presence of two conjunctions:

"based on" or "in accordance with"
"reason" or "logic"

An idea can be based on logic - so would be deemed "rational"
A person can be operating in accordance with reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A set of rules can be based on reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A computer can be operating in accordance with Boolean logic - so would be deemed "rational"

Nothing in the definition requires it to be or not be chemical, electrical, biological, determined, have free will, own a car, like walks in the rain, be alive, have noxious farts, or any other characteristic anyone wants to throw in that is not part of the definition. If a thing is assessed as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," we call it "rational."

It's a fairly simple concept. Why we have all of this hairsplitting is beyond me.

[Sparko]

Again, the definition I have repeatedly posted says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Notice the presence of two conjunctions:

"based on" or "in accordance with"
"reason" or "logic"

An idea can be based on logic - so would be deemed "rational"
A person can be operating in accordance with reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A set of rules can be based on reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A computer can be operating in accordance with Boolean logic - so would be deemed "rational"

Nothing in the definition requires it to be or not be chemical, electrical, biological, determined, have free will, own a car, like walks in the rain, be alive, have noxious farts, or any other characteristic anyone wants to throw in that is not part of the definition. If a thing is assessed as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," we call it "rational."

It's a fairly simple concept. Why we have all of this hairsplitting is beyond me.

I am just showing you why you and seer (and I) were talking past each other. I have no idea why you can't just say, "Oh thanks" but have to continue to argue about it even more. When I asked you what you meant by "rational" you gave an unclear definition and when I finally understood what you meant and repeated it back to you, rather than saying "yes" or "no" you just repeat the same old obscure definition. You seem completely incapable of communicating in a clearcut manner, or giving an inch in any discussion. It's very frustrating.

[carpedm9587]

I am just showing you why you and seer (and I) were talking past each other. I have no idea why you can't just say, "Oh thanks" but have to continue to argue about it even more. When I asked you what you meant by "rational" you gave an unclear definition and when I finally understood what you meant and repeated it back to you, rather than saying "yes" or "no" you just repeat the same old obscure definition. You seem completely incapable of communicating in a clearcut manner, or giving an inch in any discussion. It's very frustrating.

Obscure definition?

Sparko - if pasting a definition right out of a dictionary is "obscure," then I guess the dictionary was "obscure" and I offer my apologies for resorting to such a noxious source for a discussion about the meaning of a word. If you have another source I should be using instead, by all means let me know what it is.

And yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that response. This has become a little silly. I was going to commend you for joining into the discussion in such an even handed manner, given our past exchanges, but I guess we're right back to the same-old-same-old.

[Sparko]

Obscure definition?

Sparko - if pasting a definition right out of a dictionary is "obscure," then I guess the dictionary was "obscure" and I offer my apologies for resorting to such a noxious source for a discussion about the meaning of a word. If you have another source I should be using instead, by all means let me know what it is.

And yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that response. This has become a little silly. I was going to commend you for joining into the discussion in such an even handed manner, but I guess we're right back to the same-old-same-old.

Obscure was the wrong word. Ambiguous would have been a better word to use. The meaning of "in accordance with" doesn't convey the use that you were using, as "utilizing reason and logic"

[Darfius]

https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-inte/

Much as intentionality (“aboutness” or representation) is central to intelligence, felt qualities (so-called “qualia”) are crucial to sentience. Here, drawing on Aristotle, medieval thinkers distinguished between the “passive intellect” wherein the soul is affected, and the “active intellect” wherein the soul forms conceptions, draws inferences, makes judgments, and otherwise acts. Orthodoxy identified the soul proper (the immortal part) with the active rational element. Unfortunately, disagreement over how these two (qualitative-experiential and cognitive-intentional) factors relate is as rife as disagreement over what things think; and these disagreements are connected. Those who dismiss the seeming intelligence of computers because computers lack feelings seem to hold qualia to be necessary for intentionality. Those like Descartes, who dismiss the seeming sentience of nonhuman animals because he believed animals don’t think, apparently hold intentionality to be necessary for qualia. Others deny one or both necessities, maintaining either the possibility of cognition absent qualia (as Christian orthodoxy, perhaps, would have the thought-processes of God, angels, and the saints in heaven to be), or maintaining the possibility of feeling absent cognition (as Aristotle grants the lower animals).

Take note of a couple things here. This is a secular website discussing artificial intelligence, and yet it makes reference to Christian thought to explain these concepts. Intentionality is cited as central to intelligence...intentionality requires free will.

Have you heard of the Turing test, carp? The inventor of computers knew they were not rational machines and devised a method of testing when they could have become rational. What say you to that?

[carpedm9587]

Obscure was the wrong word. Ambiguous would have been a better word to use. The meaning of "in accordance with" doesn't convey the use that you were using, as "utilizing reason and logic"

I'll leave it to Seer to indicate whether or not he agrees with your assessment. I frankly have no idea why this has continued on for as long as it has, or what the issue is.

Given that your stated intent was to try to help the two of us see what the impasse was, I apologize for my comment in the previous post. It was inappropriate. I am probably guilty of assuming that your apparent dislike of me was coloring your responses, and reacting defensively when no attack was intended. My thanks for your attempt.

We'll see what Seer has to say.