. I fucked up the syllogism — Garrett Travers

Yeah, I fucked mine up too, but you get the idea...

Can't edit on my phone. :smile:

that doesn't mean that any of the arguments I have made outside of the syllogism are wrong — Garrett Travers

Correct. Your other arguments are wrong for their own reasons.

I already stated that if an animal does use sensory data to inform action, then that constitutes reason — Garrett Travers

In that view, a remarkably unintelligent bug senses things and acts in response, so the bug is using reason. And that is consistent with the notion of 'reason' in science?

And your notion of 'reason' seems to make it untenable to say that reason is the essential attribute of humans.

that doesn't mean that any of the arguments I have made outside of the syllogism are wrong — Garrett Travers

That's true. But I'd encourage you to try the syllogism again. Maybe there's a longer logical form your argument would fit into.

There's lots of logicians around. :smile:

It is very key to the Objectivist argument.

You did touch on it when you mentioned that animals don't use reason.

For sake of argument, let's set aside dolphins, ravens, primates and such, and let's simplify to say that only humans use reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

We don't have to set aside creatures that constitute a gap in knowledge regarding to what degree a term like reason applies to them, they're irrelevant. They can only be compared to young children who are underdeveloped and are also using a delimited reasoning capacity. It's not a factor here.

The Objectivist view then is that the essential property of being human is reason. Then with that essentiality premise, the argument goes through some steps to conclude that selfishness, and only selfishness, is ethical. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If reason is how we individually generate concepts, and if concepts are how humans survive, and if concepts include ethics, then ethics should be predicated on individual human survival. And reason is the method by which the process unfolds.

And if concepts include values, standards, methods, interests, or any other individually generated group of ideas from sensory data, then it follows that the individual's reason used to produce them is the proper predicate for them. And if one values reason, then he/she values himself in his basic nature as one who reasons. This is the selfishness Rand is speaking of.

Never read Ayn Rand, never will. There's something disingenuous about trying to turn the very uncomplicated act of being a reasonable person (within reason) into an institution.

That's true. But I'd encourage to try the syllogism again. Maybe there's a long logical form your argument would fit into.

There's lots of logicians around,.:smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

There is, I'd have to reorient my mind to do it. I'll try tomorrow. Let's see if we can get anywhere from where we are now. I literally just aced a logic class last semester, I flubbed this syllogism pretty hard.

In that view, a remarkably unintelligent bug senses things and acts in response, so the bug is using reason. And that is consistent with the notion of 'reason' in science?

And your notion of 'reason' seems to make it untenable to say that reason is the essential attribute of humans. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not if the act is simply a measure of instinct. Again, we don't know how high of a resolution animal reasoning is, if there is anything beyond instinct. If it is the case that data is integrated as a predicate for future behavior in some sense, then yes this is reasoning on some level by every cognitive standard I know.

And, no, it shouldn't. It is the essential element of human ability to survive in the world. I don't know what else to say. We don't survive in any other way. We build concetpual framework to guide behavior.

Correct. Your other arguments are wrong for their own reasons. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope, still working that one out.

I literally just aced a logic class last semester, I flubbed this syllogism pretty hard. — Garrett Travers

It happens.



I might say (as gently as possible) that the emotional satisfaction of certainty at times leads us all astray.

A good example of rationality taking an imperceptible irrational turn?


At any rate, that you're willing to admit a flub reflects well on you. Some folks around here will take their errors to their graves.

We don't have to set aside creatures that constitute a gap in knowledge regarding to what degree a term like reason applies to them, they're irrelevant. — Garrett Travers

Objectivism explicitly mentions the difference between humans an animals, as part of the explanation of the Objectivist notion of reason.

If reason is how we individually generate concepts, and if concepts are how humans survive, and if concepts include ethics, then ethics should be predicated on individual human survival. — Garrett Travers

There is no logical form there to suggest that those premises entail the conclusion that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.

reason is how we individually generate concepts — Garrett Travers

Merely responding to stimuli is not enough to constitute concept formation.

And if concepts include values, standards, methods, interests, or any other individually generated group of ideas from sensory data, then it follows that the individual's reason used to produce them is the proper predicate for them. — Garrett Travers

What does "proper predicate for" mean?

if one values reason, then he/she values himself in his basic nature as one who reasons. This is the selfishness Rand is speaking of. — Garrett Travers

Objectivism holds that we value reason because it is our means to survive. It would then be circular to say that we value our survival because we value reason.

And I value myself as one who reasons. But I don't subscribe to the Objectivist notion that actions are ethical if and only if they are selfish.

"[R]eason is the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic". - Peikoff

When I first retracted my fingertips from fire, I was not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When a bug responds to stimuli, it is not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When I immediately turn my head upon hearing a crashing sound, I am not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by the principles of logic. When a horse immediately runs away from fire, it is not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by the principles of logic. When adrenaline increases in me when I am threatened, that is not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by principles of logic.

Even though I must use reason to survive, it is not the only means I use to survive.

Altruism is, bottom line, cooperation; cooperation is, all said and done, a sign of weakness (I can't do this alone, help me). Am I now to take selfishness as sign of strength?

It is the essential element of human ability to survive in the world. — Garrett Travers

You're welcome for my having pointed out that essentiality (which you have omitted until now) not just necessity, is part of the Objectivist argument,.,

Objectivism explicitly mentions the difference between humans an animals, as part of the explanation of the Objectivist notion of reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And? That was decades ago. We've learned thing about the nature of human cognitive computation that have emerged in the past 2 years alone. For what its worth to Objectivism, she was ahead of her time. But, as far as the science is concerned, reason has an inextricable link to memory. So, when I say, if data can be used to inform future behavior in any capacity, then there is at least some reasoning going on.

There is no logical form there to suggest that those premises entail the conclusion that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze

An act is selfish if it is predicated on one's own reason as his/her means of survival.

Merely responding to stimuli is not enough to constitute concept formation. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay. Cool.

What does "proper predicate for" mean? — TonesInDeepFreeze

It means that the predicate has a place that is determined by the individual's nature. That being reason as his only means of survival, his means being confined to his body, his means having been developed for his specific use, and that use including the production of self-generated values, which renders him a source of value intrinsically.

Objectivism holds that we value reason because it is our means to survive. It would then be circular to say that we value our survival because we value reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No it wouldn't. Humans aren't a proposition, we're conscious beings constantly taking in data and generating concepts. Valuing reason because it allows us to survive is only circular linguistically, not functionally.

And I value myself as one who reasons. But I don't subscribe to the Objectivist notion that actions are ethical if and only if they are selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, neither do I. But, then again, I don't know of any type behavior that promotes flourishing more than this kind of rational selfishness. What would you regard as ethical behavior that falls outside of such category?

You're welcome for my having pointed out that essentiality (which you have omitted until now) not just necessity, is part of the Objectivist argument,., — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't use all words sometimes..? Your welcome.

We don't survive in any other way. — Garrett Travers

We don't survive in any way other than a combination of many faculties that are not reason with the faculty of reason.

When I first retract my fingertips from fire, I was not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When a bug responds to stimuli, it is not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When I immediately turn my head upon hearing a crashing sound, I am not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by the principles of logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

On what level do you think this is true? You quite literally used the pain to inform future behavior. That's conceptual.

We don't survive in any way other than a combination of many faculties that are not reason with the faculty of reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. Reason is how those tools get used.

I don't use all words sometimes — Garrett Travers

You omitted a key concept in the argument. It's not a matter of whether you sometimes don't use all the terminology.

You omitted a key concept in the argument. It's not a matter of whether you sometimes don't use all the terminology. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And I explained the same idea in detail. The word was not necessary.

When I first retract my fingertips from fire, I was not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When a bug responds to stimuli, it is not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. When I immediately turn my head upon hearing a crashing sound, I am not organizing perceptual units in conceptual terms by the principles of logic.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

On what level do you think this is true? You quite literally used the pain to inform future behavior. That's conceptual. — Garrett Travers

So animals conceptualize.

Reason is how those tools get used. — Garrett Travers

Sometimes they're used even without reason.

So animals conceptualize. — TonesInDeepFreeze

What have I already said? It is possible, if that data is used to inform future behavior. We don't know if this is happening.

The word was not necessary. — Garrett Travers

The concept is key.

Sometimes they're used even without reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

To survive?

So animals conceptualize.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

What have I already said? — Garrett Travers

Objectivism disagrees. Objectivism does not regard a bug turning to a sticky spot as reason.

The concept is key. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The concept is not key in any way that I didn't directly imply using other descriptors.

Objectivism disagrees. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Objectivism disagreeing with science isn't a thing. If science indicates that it is 'possible' on some level, then Objectivism incorporates as much.