Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[Sparko]

I DO NOT use 'arguing from ignorance,' Chanus and you are resorting to this fallacy. I DO NOT claim "lack of evidence to the contrary." I address the possibilities and potential of science to achieve new knowledge and goals in the future, and Chawnus, and you are taking the negative skeptical approach as to what science cannot achieve actually without knowledge of the current advancements in science.

Misuse of arguing from ignorance by definition:

Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.

true
false
unknown
unknowable.[1]

Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim.[2][3]

A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly.[5] But it still may be convincing to some audiences.[5] This is why it is used in politics and advertising.

© Copyright Original Source

. . . because the skepticism is not grounded in science. Published peer reviewed science does not make the claims Chawnus, also commonly lee_merrill, and you make.

I am starting to think Shuny isn't sentient. He certainly isn't rational.

[Sparko]

So this confirms that your are adding "free thought" to the concept of "rational," which is why we do not agree that a computer is rational device. I am using the dictionary definition, which would include computers as rational devices because they operate in accordance with the principles of logic. I have been fairly clear that I do not believe they have achieved sentience (yet) nor have I suggested they are anything but the deterministic devices they are (so far). So Sparko was right, we appear to be talking past each other.

duh.

[Sparko]

It's all fun and games until she calls you Dave.

But what if my name IS Dave?

[tabibito]

But what if my name IS Dave?

Then you won't need to worry unless she says "I'm afraid, I can't do that"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...5g7J56Wy2lujDs

[little_monkey]

So I have two responses. First, while the symbol "mammal" is indeed a human term, it reflects an underlying reality: a group of animals that actually exist and have a common set of characteristics. By the way, so is "cat," and its characteristics make it a member of that group.

This common set of characteristics is a concept created by humans. And as such it has limited applicability. And like most concepts, there are objects which fall through the cracks - species that moved out of the reptilian set to the mammalian set. It's a continuum, though the fossil records tend to be rare for species that transitioned.

If all sentient life disappears, that symbol will disappear; the group of animals with common characteristics (presumably) will not. This is akin to what I said earlier about Pluto's membership in the list of planets orbiting this star.

Again, you're giving examples of concepts created by the human mind.

And my second answer: of COURSE the universe designates things as mammals. After all, we are part of the universe, right? So as soon as we created the concept "mammal," we added that to the universe.

You could say the same for so many other things: example, the alphabet... is that added to the universe??? The point is - if the earth were to be completely destroyed, none of those concepts would exist, but the universe would. It just is. We dissect its essence so that we can make sense of it.

[seer]

I actually don't disagree with this observation. I disagree with you adding "free will required" to the definition of "rational" or "rationality." Free will is required, AFAIK, for sentience and free decision-making (by definition). A choice freely made is free - and one determined is just that, determined.

I add free Carp because determinism excludes rationality.

That takes rationality as you are defining it out of the picture. By the dictionary definition, a concept can be "rational" and it does not have free will. A computer is "rational" for the reasons previously stated. A human is also capable of being rational if the choices/decisions they make are made in accordance to the principles of reason and logic. When they make their choices, they do so (presumably) because they have free will - so their rational AND irrational AND nonrational choices are freely made.

Free will does not ensure rationality.
For a thing to be rational does not require it to have free will. It merely needs to be in accordance with the laws of logic/reason.

This is how we have used the term. Your definition requires to never ever again utter the following sentences:

The argument put forward in that paper is a rational one (an argument has no free will, so it cannot be rational)
Where rational cultivation has been introduced, it has almost always been by women (cultivation does not have free will, so it cannot be rational)

We'll also have to ditch fields like "rational psychology," "rational cosmology" and "rational theology," since a field or discipline does not have free will and cannot be rational.

In short, Seer, I'm not arguing with your idea in general. I'm resisting your re-definition of a particular word to suit your needs. Rational means what rational means: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. You want to use "rational" as if it is synonymous with "the ability to reason freely." The word is not so limited.

ETA: You also still have the problem that you have no way of proving that YOU are making rational choices any more than I do. As with the naturalist who cannot show that their grasp of truth is actual - they could simply be programmed to grasp it that way - you too cannot show that your entire worldview was not simply "how you were programmed to believe." This "we cannot prove we are not a brain in a vat" type of argument, which you seem somewhat disposed to, is more than a little pointless, IMO. I'd recommend dropping it.

Off on another rant? The point is deterministic beliefs are not rational because they are not based on good reasons. Reasons (good or bad) never enter the causal chain. And the very forces that are causing you to have said beliefs care nothing for rationality, reason or the laws of logic, they are non-rational. And if that is the case, and all your thoughts are determined by these non-rational forces - what exactly in this picture is in accordance with reason or logic??????

[Sparko]

Then you won't need to worry unless she says "I'm afraid, I can't do that"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...5g7J56Wy2lujDs

I asked her to bring me a beer and she said she can't do that!

[seer]

I asked her to bring me a beer and she said she can't do that!

Typical woman!

[Sparko]

Typical woman!

completely irrational.

[carpedm9587]

This common set of characteristics is a concept created by humans. And as such it has limited applicability. And like most concepts, there are objects which fall through the cracks - species that moved out of the reptilian set to the mammalian set. It's a continuum, though the fossil records tend to be rare for species that transitioned.

Again, you're giving examples of concepts created by the human mind.

LM, I think you're pushing this "concept" thing a bit too far. The fact that you can keep saying "that's a concept invented by humans" is because language is invented by us humans, and we cannot even have this conversation without language. Everything I say will be a symbol created by humans. That does not eliminate the objective reality those symbols are designed to represent. Although you earlier said that you agreed there is an objective reality, you appear to want to continually imply it doesn't exist.

Yes, we categorize and represent things symbolically. Those symbols are never "perfect" because...well...because they are symbols. They represent something. They cannot BE the thing they represent. So being aware of how our symbols are imperfect is important. That does not alter the fact that things exist and have attributes, which we represent with symbolic language so we can talk about them.

You could say the same for so many other things: example, the alphabet... is that added to the universe???

Of course it is. Do you think the alphabet is somehow "outside" the universe? The alphabet exists in physical form (paper, stone monuments), electronic form (computers), optical form (signalled morse code), and in our minds. All of that is "in the universe."

The point is - if the earth were to be completely destroyed, none of those concepts would exist, but the universe would. It just is. We dissect its essence so that we can make sense of it.

And if the earth were completely destroyed, the earth would not exist and the rest of the universe would. What's the point? That we derive language to symbolicly represent reality? I think that's pretty obvious.

[carpedm9587]

I add free Carp because determinism excludes rationality.

Determinism excludes freedom of choice. It does not exclude "rationality" as it is conventionally defined. It simply excludes "rational things dependent on free will," pretty much by definition. The rational algorithm will still be a rational algorithm if it is consistent with logic. The rational nature (i.e., based in logic) of a computer will still be intact since it doesn't depend on free will. Would sentience be possible? Can a deterministic system allow for the agents to have the illusion of free will even when they are entirely determined? I have absolutely no idea what the answer to those questions is.

Off on another rant? The point is deterministic beliefs are not rational because they are not based on good reasons. Reasons (good or bad) never enter the causal chain. And the very forces that are causing you to have said beliefs care nothing for rationality, reason or the laws of logic, they are non-rational. And if that is the case, and all your thoughts are determined by these non-rational forces - what exactly in this picture is in accordance with reason or logic??????

See the response above. Deterministic beliefs that are aligned with (consistent with, in accordance with) the rules of logic will still be rational, and deterministic beliefs that are not will still be irrational. All you are basically saying is, "rational things dependent on free will cannot exist if everything is determined." I agree. That sentence is pretty much self-evidently true.

And I have to wonder what you think this observation accomplishes?

[seer]

Determinism excludes freedom of choice. It does not exclude "rationality" as it is conventionally defined. It simply excludes "rational things dependent on free will," pretty much by definition. The rational algorithm will still be a rational algorithm if it is consistent with logic. The rational nature (i.e., based in logic) of a computer will still be intact since it doesn't depend on free will. Would sentience be possible? Can a deterministic system allow for the agents to have the illusion of free will even when they are entirely determined? I have absolutely no idea what the answer to those questions is.

See the response above. Deterministic beliefs that are aligned with (consistent with, in accordance with) the rules of logic will still be rational, and deterministic beliefs that are not will still be irrational. All you are basically saying is, "rational things dependent on free will cannot exist if everything is determined." I agree. That sentence is pretty much self-evidently true.

And I have to wonder what you think this observation accomplishes?

Carp let me repeat: If all your thoughts are determined by forces that care or know nothing of the laws of logic or reasoning, what in this picture is in accordance with reason or logic? Exactly? It is not the non-rational forces of nature, and it certainly is not us who just spit out what these non-rational forces dictate.

[carpedm9587]

Carp let me repeat: If all your thoughts are determined by forces that care or know nothing of the laws of logic or reasoning, what in this picture is in accordance with reason or logic? Exactly? It is not the non-rational forces of nature, and it certainly is not us who just spit out what these non-rational forces dictate.

If I am "determined" to see A = A, then I am determined to operate using a "rational" concept and my behavior will be rational. If I am "determined" to see A != A, then my behavior will be irrational. Essentially, I will be not much different than a modern computer. I will not be able to freely choose. I will not be able to reason as a free-willed person can reason. I will act "rationally" or "irrationally" on the basis of my conformance or lack of conformance with the principles of logic, as the definition of the word clearly says.

[seer]

If I am "determined" to see A = A, then I am determined to operate using a "rational" concept and my behavior will be rational. If I am "determined" to see A != A, then my behavior will be irrational. Essentially, I will be not much different than a modern computer. I will not be able to freely choose. I will not be able to reason as a free-willed person can reason. I will act "rationally" or "irrationally" on the basis of my conformance or lack of conformance with the principles of logic, as the definition of the word clearly says.

So coming to conclusions and beliefs APART from good reasons could be rational according to you? Good reasons are not necessary for rationality?

[shunyadragon]

I am starting to think Shuny isn't sentient. He certainly isn't rational.

Not a sentient nor rational response. Is this a real person or a machine?

. . . also not response from seer for his misrepresentation of 'arguing from ignorance.'