Reason.

[RichardY]

Reason.

[shirgall]

Reason.

 

Any evidence?

[RichardY]

Any evidence?

 

Phishing for responses. Thinking about how to eat the Elephant whole. What is at the core of reason? Memes; a way to express reason? Intuitive reasoning and problem solving. Prerequisites required to apply reason. Emotional aspects of reason? Reasonable or unreasonable? Arguments or just presenting the facts. Reason without empiricism; is it possible, innate ability?

 

Distinctions between: Reason, Logic, Rationality, Organisation, Knowledge. 

 

Probably add some more meat later if the thread doesn't pick up any, Wikipedia has a broad page on reason. An informal thread, not exactly many threads on reason imo.

 

 

[shirgall]

 

Phishing for responses. Thinking about how to eat the Elephant whole. What is at the core of reason? Memes; a way to express reason? Intuitive reasoning and problem solving. Prerequisites required to apply reason. Emotional aspects of reason? Reasonable or unreasonable? Arguments or just presenting the facts. Reason without empiricism; is it possible, innate ability?

 

Distinctions between: Reason, Logic, Rationality, Organisation, Knowledge. 

 

Probably add some more meat later if the thread doesn't pick up any, Wikipedia has a broad page on reason. An informal thread, not exactly many threads on reason imo.

 

[RichardY]

Yeah. You meant society in general

[shirgall]

Yeah. You meant society in general

 

No, the joke was we always talk about "reason and evidence" that I bet if Stefan said "reason" and paused on a podcast we'd all say "and evidence"  to fill in the blank. Reason is not enough on its own, or all of answers about everything would spring unbidden from thinking about them. We have to go out and experience the world, systematically, identifying and correcting sources of error.

 

By the way, "phishing" is putting out something that looks official in an attempt to steal critical personal information. "Fishing" is the process of asking a leading question to elicit a desired response.

[RichardY]

No, the joke was we always talk about "reason and evidence" that I bet if Stefan said "reason" and paused on a podcast we'd all say "and evidence"  to fill in the blank. Reason is not enough on its own, or all of answers about everything would spring unbidden from thinking about them. We have to go out and experience the world, systematically, identifying and correcting sources of error.

 

By the way, "phishing" is putting out something that looks official in an attempt to steal critical personal information. "Fishing" is the process of asking a leading question to elicit a desired response.

Totally missed that one then.Yes, Stefan repeats the phrase, reason and evidence quite a bit. I remember an early video where he mentions the a priori(Before Experience) and posterori(Following Experience) of Kant, and thinks its an open and shut case, experience trumps rationalism(?).

 

I'm not so sure the a priori should be discounted. I remember Stefan talking about Ayn Rand and her updated "Aristotelianism" that her work on Epistemology being basically right, but Ethics, not so much. In Objectivism the Sub-conscious mind is supported and unconscious mind rejected. However after listening to some of J.Petersons videos and thinking again about the unconscious, I think that the Unconscious is correct.

 

A question that comes to mind is: Is the Unconscious mind Tabula Rasa from birth or does it contain some form of Genetic Memory? If it contains Genetic Memory is there a way to infer its existence? I remember from a documentary on elephants, that they may have some form of genetic memory to help them go to water sources, as well as to mineral deposits in caves to supplement their diet. Spiders weave webs, can instinct be a form of knowledge that can expand in the absence of consciousness(Empiricism(?)), my answer would be yes.

 

Is a preference a reason in itself, is it integrated into a wider network? Why do Girls generally prefer dolls and the colour pink, Boys the colour blue and trucks.

 

The movies Jacobs Ladder (1990) and The Green Mile (1999) come to mind.

 

Thank you for the correction on phishing, didn't know it only refereed to corrupt practices.

[shirgall]

I give "evidence" a stricter tone than "experience" but if evidence is contrary to a rational conclusion, the rational conclusion requires recalculation.

[richardbaxter]

On 12 April 2017 at 2:06 PM, RichardY said:

Reason.

Hi Richard - What I find fundamental about reason is that in order to speak about it one must assume that they are reasonable, but an assumption of their reasonableness (under physicalism) requires the physical construct to have evolved reason - the processing of information according to the rules of logic. Therefore, any communication is reliant on the assumption that our particular universe evolved in such a way that reason (conformity to logical rules) would be adaptive for the organism.

[RichardY]

11 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Hi Richard - What I find fundamental about reason is that in order to speak about it one must assume that they are reasonable, but an assumption of their reasonableness (under physicalism) requires the physical construct to have evolved reason - the processing of information according to the rules of logic. Therefore, any communication is reliant on the assumption that our particular universe evolved in such a way that reason (conformity to logical rules) would be adaptive for the organism.

Yes there has to be something in common between 2 people communicating, the person also has to take context into account. To use assumption though, would that be the same thing as using the word faith? Instead of assumption could some form of precedence be taking place.

Could reason be said to only be a conscious process? If reason is adaptive, could reason be said to be purely DNA or something like a Universal Constructor?

In terms of the metaphysics of Physicalism; How would Monism or "The One" be located? Thinking in terms of a sphere with mass, would the centre be infinitesimally small as to not exist?

 

 

 

[os.motic]

I see it as the mental capacity to accurately distill sense data into a logical framework you build off of. 

 

[spencer54]

Hi all...long time since I've stopped in here. I would contend the following:

Reason "proper", originates out here in the physical world...not in our heads.

We learn reason from the physical world - or "reality" - were we intellectually sense/learn the real world to the best of our ability growing up, that then creates our percieved world view in our heads, that is held together in our head .....by our "perceived" logic and reason for the things we've experienced.

Note first that we live in 2 worlds: the one out here, and the one in our heads - that we "think" we is the one our here (not precisely).

Note that everything out here is calculated, and so determined/manifested, one moment to the next, from cause to effect, by a single "universal reason" (i know crazy...but I can demonstrate)...there's absolute physical rules. In our heads...no rules.

This calculation out here, in between cause and effect, is mathematically absolute.

Reality is considered "real", because it can only be real, in the sense that it cannot be mathematically false.

All cause and effect, one moment to the next, is by the same fundamental reason, and is what makes reality "logical"...because everything is connected by the same reason to everything else.

Physical reality, in "reality" is a "suspended" physical state, where everything is being determined at every moment. Even the things you see right now - still - on the table in front of you, are being determined moment to moment. Right now they're still because they're sitting in equilibrium.

The different atoms with electrons spinning around each atom, combine to make the basic elements, that combine again to make the things in front of you. They were not determined long ago, but are being determined this very moment...from the bottom up.

So, reason and logic "proper", does not originate in our heads.

The answer you're looking for is not in our heads...it's out here...demonstrable and self evident.

[HasMat]

RichardY, have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason?

I think his grasp of Reason is very good.

Intuition leads to Imagination, leads to Reason.

Intuition gives a priori data about the modality itself (context data, sound in general is soundy)- analytic.

Imagination gives hypothetical examples in the modality (what would it sound like if you farted)- synthetic union of context and content.

Reason uses logic to compare synthetics to each other, or ultimately to empirics (content data, that sound is lovely). This is why Reason and Evidence go together.

 

Reason is made of knowledge well, logic, and empiricism.

For something to be reasonable it must be CONSISTENT with our previous knowledge well. If you saw a unicorn it would be unreasonable to believe it because it violates our worldview.

If something satisfies CONSISTENCY with knowledge well, it must then satisfy LOGIC, using the rules of that system. A horse doesn't violate our worldview, but if you saw a horse it can't be piloting a UFO, or playing chess (or else you question sanity/dreamstate).

Lastly what is CONSISTENT with knowns, conforms to LOGIC of system, cannot be reasonably asserted (as fact) unless EVIDENCE. It is not reasonable to deny God, because a lack of evidence is not proof of negative. Whatever conclusions you created via consistency and logic, which are disproven by evidence, must be seriously challenged and possibly discarded. Thus synthetic creations via imagination, that are transformed by logic, that demand a specific condition in the real world, that is clearly not the case, were false. For example, I imagined my wife would do the dishes, logically since I did them last and it was her turn, but I wake up and the dishes aren't done. Occam's Razor says: She didn't do the dishes.

 

Things that pass enough Evidence-checks get put into the knowledge well, and it expands.

 

Asserting God is also not Publicly Reasonable, but Consensus Reasonability isn't the endgoal of Theists (nor atheists), only agnostics. It should also be stated that many theists believe they have personal evidence, and thus their faith is technically a Reasonable conclusion given their account of sense data. But most theists don't believe in a Public Evidence of God. I've never heard of an atheist with a personal evidence of no god, but theoretically that would be reasonable too.

 

[Jsbrads]

On genetic memory:

It seems birds learn to migrate in a flock.

But cats seem to react to fake snakes that they have never seem. Check out cat cucumber on YouTube.

 

[ofd]

Quote

What is at the core of reason?

The same as for most other biological phenomena: passing your genes on to the next generation. The mental representation of the world and our understanding of it has to be good enough to achieve that. Anything more than that is an icing on the cake, to be frank.

[Mole]

On 4/12/2017 at 2:06 PM, RichardY said:

Reason.

Reason is the faculty that enables a consciousness to discover the nature of existents by organising perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic (Peikoff, 1993 p.152).

Note that the principles of logic are derived from the percepts themselves. A leaf cannot be seen as blue and green at the same time on the same point in the same relation. This gives us the principle of non-contradiction. Voila. All knowledge is derived from perception, and perception is a direct contact with reality. No room for intuition, convention, higher realms, etc.

[RichardY]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:06 PM, Mole said:

Reason is the faculty that enables a consciousness to discover the nature of existents by organising perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic (Peikoff, 1993 p.152).

Note that the principles of logic are derived from the percepts themselves. A leaf cannot be seen as blue and green at the same time on the same point in the same relation. This gives us the principle of non-contradiction. Voila. All knowledge is derived from perception, and perception is a direct contact with reality. No room for intuition, convention, higher realms, etc.

Some people are colourblind so that blue and green appear the same.

Unconscious Color Priming Occurs at Stimulus- Not Percept-Dependent Levels of Processing.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Unconscious-color-priming-occurs-at-stimulus-not-of-Breitmeyer-Ro/9ab13f71efbfe881233f3363cbf48a629557848d

[Mole]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:43 AM, RichardY said:

Some people are colourblind so that blue and green appear the same.

Blue and green can appear the same. However, the same cannot appear blue and green.

[RichardY]

19 minutes ago, Mole said:

Blue and green can appear the same. However, the same cannot appear blue and green.

It can if your vision fragments the spectrum of light. I wear glasses, and I had the effect happen during an eye test. Not Colourblind, though my father is.

[Mole]

1 minute ago, RichardY said:

It can if your vision fragments the spectrum of light. I wear glasses, and I had the effect happen during an eye test. Not Colourblind, though my father is.

I'm not sure what that means. Even something fragmented has specific points at specific times in specific relations. As long as those points cannot appear as blue and green at the same time, we can find non-contradiction.

[RichardY]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

I'm not sure what that means. Even something fragmented has specific points at specific times in specific relations. As long as those points cannot appear as blue and green at the same time, we can find non-contradiction.

Well your saying colour is a percept. The medical article I referenced says that it is not. Would be like looking at a colour chart with shading like on Corel draw, photoshop etc, where the colours blur into one given a high enough resolution.

A percept would be a unit. Colour is a sensation, some people have a condition synesthia; where they associate colours with numbers.

[Mole]

16 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Well your saying colour is a percept. The medical article I referenced says that it is not. Would be like looking at a colour chart with shading like on Corel draw, photoshop etc, where the colours blur into one given a high enough resolution.

A percept would be a unit. Colour is a sensation, some people have a condition synesthia; where they associate colours with numbers. 

Isn't it both? Sensations can be contradictory. The brain will have to integrate or block out any contradictions between sensations before it becomes conscious or perceived. For example, with binocular rivalry, I can have one stimulus through my left eye and another through my right. But I will only perceive one of these stimuli at any time. Perceptions are always integrated in such a way. For example, in the attached image, the smaller figure cannot be a cube inside a cube-shaped room and a notch of a larger cube or a smaller cube in front of a larger cube all at the same time. That would be logically contradictory. We can perceive one of these things at any time, and this demonstrates that perceptions are non-contradictory. The same with colour, I am sure there are some illusions where the perception of colours alternative. We derive logic from perception rather than sensation.

[barn]

////... or a small cube sliced out of a larger one... even so, we are able to see all of those once having understood their conceptual structure, albeit not at once but separately////

Pink* doesn't exist.

As in: (no light, no colours perception in general+), no pink-specific wavelength, human eyes are equipped with 3 different type light sensitive 'cones' (red+blue+green)

butttttt...

mix red with white paint and you get pink, so I just contradicted myself in a way...