Surely it is possible to remember a sequence of events without visualizing them? Actually, for me, it's not a choice. The sequence of events since I last had it occurs to me without pictures. — Ludwig V

I don't know. it never occurred to me to try. I just automatically start visualizing the events. I don't know how I would do it. Lol.
"Ok, after I paid, I put the card back in my wallet. When it was in my wallet, I put it in my back pocket. I grabbed my bags, a couple in each hand, and walked to the car. I opened the car door, put the bags in, took my wallet out and threw it on the passenger seat. I don't remember taking it off the seat when I took the groceries in. AH!! Maybe it fell between the seat and the door!"

How would I know I did those things if I wasn't picturing the sequence of events in my head??

Doesn’t ground mean some sort of cognitive capacity? Learning to use this capacity, and having this capacity in the first place are two different things. There seems to be a debate as to how modular our cognitive systems are. Is the brain a general processor or does it have domains? If it has domains does “rational thinking” count as a domain- a specialized brain/cognitive capacity? A dog solving a puzzle and a human inferencing- is that the same capacity/region or two similar but different capacities? — schopenhauer1

I don't know the answers to most of those questions. Yes, I do think that being able to justify one's beliefs (and act on them) is an important cognitive capacity.

I'm thinking maybe the capacity to think rationally is hardwired in. But we must learn how it works. — Patterner

In the end, it will not be for philosophers to decide what is "hard-wired in". But I'm inclined to think that what we call rationality is mostly learned by shaping the basic reflexes. For example, (as I understand it), babies are born with a reflex to seek mild and drink, to smile back at a smiling face. Both these activities seem to give them pleasure and the lack of them - or at least the lack of the former - gives them "pain". So a few reflexes, pleasure and pain, plus the ability to notice and remember what is associated with what (behaviourists were not complete idiots) are probably all that is needed. The basis of rationality is the discovery of what brings success and what brings failure. Then there's all the learning from those around us, including what counts as success/failure.

How would I know I did those things if I wasn't picturing the sequence of events in my head?? — Patterner

Well, you may have written that list by describing your visualations. But if you can remember what was on the list (in words), then you can also write it without. But perhaps it's just how one's memory works.

I don't know. it never occurred to me to try. I just automatically start visualizing the events. I don't know how I would do it. Lol. — Patterner

Most of our memories just come when we want them. "Trying to remember" is possible, though I don't find that I know exactly what I do when I'm trying or even succeeding. It just happens - or not.
What is really weird is that I've noticed that sometimes I know that I've remembered before I've remembered the details.

The basis of rationality is the discovery of what brings success and what brings failure. Then there's all the learning from those around us, including what counts as success/failure. — Ludwig V

But therr are irrational proper. I wonder how many different reasons there are for that. The baby's brain grows/is wired as those things are happening, because that's what the DNA designed it to do. What if it gets no interaction? Does the brain wire badly? Does a time come when it is too late for things to work out well, no matter what happens? And what about irrational people who got the interaction that works best in the vast majority of cases?

What is really weird is that I've noticed that sometimes I know that I've remembered before I've remembered the details. — Ludwig V

Sure. I don't have to sing Hey Jude to know I know all the words, or recite my children's birth dates and Social Security numbers to knows I know them.

What if you're all alone on a desert island, building a shelter, foraging for food, making tool and working on an effective SOS signal, and there is nobody to demand an explanation of why you're doing these things? Are you irrational then?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I think that's implicit in what I said - indeed it is the justification for what I said. I should have said so upfront. — Ludwig V

Not disagreeing; amplifying. People can be seen to act rationally even when they don't explain their motivations and sources of information. When you see someone doing the very same thing you would do in their circumstances, it's reasonable to assume they're thinking the same way. Sometimes we may be wrong, and alternate explanations might be given (Like Dortmunder telling the judge when he was caught with a television in his arms that he wasn't stealing it; he had interrupted the real thief and was putting it back.) but it would still be reasonable to start with the most obvious explanation until we know more facts.

Most of our memories just come when we want them. "Trying to remember" is possible, though I don't find that I know exactly what I do when I'm trying or even succeeding. It just happens - or not. — Ludwig V

I wish I could remember the tv show I saw one time, lo these many years ago. Sadly, decades. One charter told another that she could remember much greater detail if she tried to walk through it slowly, step by step. That's why I do it the way I do. Only a few days, before any memories fade away. I start with a detail that I remember well. Then I move forward. As slowly as I can. When I do that, I remember little things you wouldn't normally. Glance over because someone coughed, and notice their blue shirt. You never know what you'll dredge up.

Ludwig said,
"The basis of rationality is the discovery of what brings success and what brings failure."
If you try to build your hut's support beams out of jellyfish, Shaka, when the walls fell. If you think rationally, you'll try something else. If you are a poor swimer, it would be irrational to try to swim home. You don't have to attempt to explain anything to anybody.

One charter told another that she could remember much greater detail if she tried to walk through it slowly, step by step. — Patterner

I recently saw a documentary about Australian natives constructing mental maps in that way. The person who doesn't know the way is escorted along the route and told at certain intervals to make note of some feature of the landscape. Then they would walk the route in their head, recalling the sequence of features.
When I lose things - more often every week, it seems - I do the same thing: try to retrace my steps internally, and then see if I can follow the same sequence of things I noticed when i was carrying the flashlight or eyeglasses (the two most AWOL-prone objects in my household).

Do you mean something like?
How did you know the train was coming at 12:00?
Because the company's web-site said so.
Why do you believe what the company's web-site says?
Because it is almost always accurate.
Why do you believe it is almost always accurate?
Because I and many others have used it in the past.
Why do you believe that its accuracy in the past means that it is accurate now?.
Because I am rational.
Why are you rational?
Because it is the best way to get to the truth.
Why is it the best way to get to the truth?
?
All justifications end in "groundless grounds". — Ludwig V

It sounds like you are just checking and confirming with yourself what you see on the web site.
You may think that your blind faith of the accuracy of the web site is based on the past record of the accuracy on the information of the website, therefore you were doing an inductive reasoning. But it is still a blind faith on the info. because you have not made any scientific observations on the past events. Plus there is nothing scientific about the accuracy of the train time shown on the website, why it has to be the info, and not otherwise. There is nothing to think any further, why the info has the contents it has apart from it is just there for you to see.

Plus there are many possible chance the web site info might not be correct. Therefore it is not a rational thinking. It is just daily habitual acts of reading and confirming the info. There is nothing rational thinking involved in that process.

How is danger a linguistically generated concept? — Vera Mont

I didn't say it is I said 'danger' is a linguistically generated concept. Its a generalization and I doubt animals have a generalized conceptual notion we could refer as 'danger'. That said, how could we know either way? So we are merely working with what seems most plausible, and plausibility is in the final analysis in the eye of the beholder.



I don't find much to disagree with here so I'll just respond to those bits where I do diverge.

So generalizations and statements about abstract objects have different logical forms and hence different meanings. — Ludwig V

If you are treating abstract objects as particulars then yes. My point was that numbers are themselves generalizations. There are countless instantiations of 'two' just as there are of 'tree' or 'animal'.

They do not refer to specific individual things, so they do not name anything. — Ludwig V

Here I disagree again. 'Tree' does not name a particular thing but a particular category or class of things. 'Two' does not name a particular pair of things but names a particular quantity of things.

I don't see that what is going on in the llamas' heads is particularly important. It is this behaviour pattern in the context of their overall lives that we are trying to explain. — Ludwig V

Insofar as we have no way of knowing what goes in animal's heads apart from observing their behavior and body language I agree. On the other hand we via reflection on our own experience can notice the affects (such as fear for example) that our emotive words refer to and since there seems to be a commonality of body language across at least some species we can speculate about other animals experience.

Yes. I was just expanding the scope of what counts as being rational to include more than just the ability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.
— creativesoul
Yes, I would agree there's more to it than that. It is not rational to drop many different pairs of different objects from many different heights, and come out of it thinking heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That would be an inability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.. — Patterner

Whether or not it is rational to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones depends upon the individual's preexisting worldview.

Feathers. Bowling balls. Snowflakes. Leaves. Limbs. Trees. We can watch many different things fall through space. Watching many different things fall through space leads one to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Watching heavier objects traverse the same distance in less time than lighter ones is something that can be fully experienced by any creature capable of judging the travel speed(fall rate) variety of external objects relative to each other, a fixed object, from the creature's own vantage point.

One can only formulate beliefs about beliefs (recursion or meta-beliefs) in language. Though I would distinguish between formulating beliefs about one's own beliefs and formulating beliefs about other people's beliefs. The former seems to me problematic, because the recursion seems infinite and, in the end, empty, whereas the latter seems an everyday occurrence. (There's research in psychology about how and when small children become aware of other people's state of mind - empathy).
— Ludwig V

There's a big difference between formulating beliefs about beliefs and thinking about beliefs. Small children do not formulate beliefs about beliefs. — creativesoul

I agree with both sentences. — Ludwig V

Formulating beliefs requires language. Acquiring them does not always. I do not find the invocation and use of the term "formulating" helpful. "Forming" snuggles the world. Formulating and articulating one's own thought and belief presupposes language use. Prior to formulation and articulation comes what both of those concepts presuppose. Something to formulate. Something to articulate.

Pre-existing meaningful experience consisting of thought and belief about the world and oneself.

Human thought, belief, and experience existed in its entirety prior to our talking about it.



One can believe that touching fire hurts long before ever being able to articulate that. We're looking for some basic set of common denominators/elements shared between all cases of language less thought and/or belief. That basic foundation must also be shared by ourselves. Tacit reasoning spans the bridge between language less thought and belief and linguistically informed and/or articulated thought and belief. That's an interesting avenue.

Tacit and articulate reasoning overlap one another. Articulate reasoning consists - in very large part - of language use. Language less creatures have none. Language less creatures cannot form, have, and/or hold articulate reasoning. Yet they can learn that touching fire hurts by recognizing/attributing causality. They can learn to use a stick to eat ants/termites. They can watch and learn how lifting the handle opens the gate. They can learn to greet by partaking in such practices(by doing it). One greeting another often and regularly enough amounts to ritual. Clearly, there is no language necessary for basic notions of rational thinking. Or... learning how to open a gate by observation and practice does not count as rational thinking.

That sort of understanding becomes tacit to us. We do not express our wanting to use the gate hardly ever after learning how to use it. I'm not sure how the notions of "tacit" and "articulate" are adequate tools for acquiring knowledge of that which existed in its entirety prior to our knowledge of it.

We are in dire need of a criterion.

Yes, rationality includes more than differentiating between accurate/inaccurate information. I was making that case.
— creativesoul
Yes. But it does include differentiating between accurate and inaccurate information, doesn't it? — Ludwig V

I'm not fond of "information". It smuggles meaning.

There are all sorts of language less creatures(creatures devoid of naming and description practices) capable of differentiating between distal objects. Again, I'm not fond of invoking some notion of "information". That's adding complexity. I'd rather excise the unnecessary and unhelpful approaches to the topic.

Not all differentiation between accurate and inaccurate information requires articulated reason/thought.