Certainly. Evolution is a huge, complex, interconnected web of living things developing the faculties that best served their survival. Many of those faculties are held in common by large numbers of species, in varying degrees, styles and intensities. Rational thinking is one survival tool that many animals use to varying degree, depth, breadth and efficiency. I don't say humans are not the smartest and most linguistic; only that they are not unique in the ability to solve problems, and that setting problems to solve is the only way that I know of to test this ability.But, along with all the similarities, there must be differences. — Ludwig V
It's been going on for a considerable time - I think we're coming up on a century of scientific inquiry into the subject.So there is legitimate enquiry to be had here, surely? — Ludwig V
Indeed. But 'correct' isn't in the definition of reasoning, nor is the soundness of the result. It's a process that can be carried out more or less effectively.If the reasoning isn't correct, things can go very wrong. — Athena
It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. — Athena
'Incorrect', 'ill-informed', 'faulty', 'based on invalid premises and/or unfounded assumptions', 'inappropriate' and even 'fatally flawed' are descriptions that can be applied to:I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". — Athena
Webster: 1. The use of reason; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason. 2. An instance of the use of reason : argument.
I never claimed otherwise. And, in fact, the remark was not directed specifically at you - except inasmuch as you have been defending the human exclusivity position - but was an observation regarding a whole system of faulty/disingenuous human reasoning for the purpose of arriving at a desired conclusion.It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. — Athena
Why does 'reasoning' require a modifier? You can arrive at the wrong conclusion through a rational process, if you begin with false or incomplete information, if you start from an assumption that is later proven to be unfounded, if your initial purpose is to justify an act deemed wrong by others.I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". — Athena
No, but what I'm saying is that "reasons" are not necessarily the result of conscious rational deliberation either. — ChatteringMonkey
Biological impulse is the original response to the environment and survival. Instinct develops much later , in increasingly complex organisms. Instinct and memory form habitual behaviours, then the even more complex brain adds curiosity and imagination to extrapolate situations beyond the present and consider alternative actions to reach the same goal.Instincts are the original 'reasons'.. — ChatteringMonkey
By which time, thousands of species had been doing it for 50 million years, without pontificating about it.And then eventually, socrates put forwards the notion that we should have conscious rational deliberation prior to the act as the golden standard.... rational thinking instead of instinct. — ChatteringMonkey
Yes, all social animals learn their language from their elders.No animals don't already have a language. Language is next to culture, it has to be learned. — Athena
Not to mention all the means of mass extinction. The other animals fail most spectacularly by dying at our hands.Now here is where the rest of the animal realm fails. It took us centuries but we now of an amazing comprehension of pi. — Athena
Survival might be considered high on the list.I dunno, that is the question right? And that question in turn depends on what you would consider "a reason". — ChatteringMonkey
Yes: seeds scattered on the ground sometimes get covered by dirt. Having eaten all the visible seeds, the chicken scratches for any that were overlooked. Floors are artificial, beyond a chicken's repertoire of experience; she doesn't have sufficient information to be sure it won't yield to scratching.Does a chicken have a reason the scratch the ground when looking for food? — ChatteringMonkey
That's where it begins. Drive - habit - instinct - adaptation - thought.So a lot of that behaviour seems to be instinctual. — ChatteringMonkey
We also have habits and instincts, yes. And many perfectly reasonable decisions that we don't dwell on, simply because they're learned reactions; considered appropriate to a familiar situation. Reason can't have been invented in response to being challenged: that's the wrong way around. Who was there to challenge an action prior to the concept of rational thought?I think a lot of what we humans do is more or less the same, we do seem to do a lot of things without conscious rational deliberation, out of instinct. — ChatteringMonkey
They already have a language. The argument is over whether and how well they learn some version of a human language.The argument about chimpanzees and their ability to communicate is more complex than whether they learn a language or they can not. — Athena
Why would they want to? Wolves have very effective communication skills among themselves. Besides familial and social exchange of vocalizations, postures and gestures, they have quite a sophisticated method of organized hunting.Our cats and dogs may be very good at communicating with us but wolves do not have that kind of relationship with humans. — Athena
We're not only different in our capacity to learn, the speed at which we do it and in our ability to retain and recall information.Individually, we are different in our ability to learn. More dramatic is the fact that baboons like to eat termites as much as chimps. They watch the chimps make tools to fish the termites, but they do not imitate the behavior, although they want the termites just as much as the chimps. I think that is equal to me wanting to understand math, and I just don't get it. — Athena
What makes language the criterion for rational thought? Are there not math questions and diagrams on an IQ test? Does the crow deciding to use the short stick to retrieve the long stick to push the cheese near enough the bars so that he can reach it with the short stick require him to explain as he goes?Intuition is not rational thinking because there is no language involved. — Athena
Didn't people have a reason for their actions until somebody forced them to explain? We sometimes need to rationalize actions (decisions) that prove counter-productive, or that others disapprove, but how often does anyone justify preparing food, building a shelter or using a hammer to drive a nail into wood? The rationality of those actions is self-evident.Post-hoc rationalisation probably was the original form of 'rational thinking', as social group-animals it was pretty important to justify/rationalize our actions. — ChatteringMonkey
It's very possible that all models are flawed; I haven't seen a large enough sample to judge. I'm saying there are not enough axes. Thus, the areas of overlap will still represent only primary coulours, rather than a spectrum. Actual social systems are far more complex and nuanced than that, and they change over time.If having axes make a model flawed, then all models are flawed. It sounds like you're describing 3 disconnected points rather than a triangle with an area. — Brendan Golledge
He was thinking rationally: looking at a problem and finding a solution. He did it quickly, because it was very simple problem. (One might question the rational thought-process of the genius who designed the gate.) Reason is nothing more complicated than finding the connection between cause and effect, then projecting the if-then dimension. A causes B; therefore, if I affect the function of A, then B alters accordingly.But my dim-witted friend did not take time to think through the problem. He put his hand through the gate and opened it from the outside. — Athena
Then the model is fatally flawed. Consider any real-life human being. Does he or she really only need or want one singular function from their society? Or in their life?The 3 axes of the model are communism/equality, individualism/freedom, and authoritarianism/stability. — Brendan Golledge
Here is a crow using a stick to get food. Do you think this is rational? — Philosophim
Of course.Do animals have rational thinking? — Athena
Of course.Do animals have communication skills? — Athena
Intuition is a shortcut to an answer in the absence of sufficient evidence to draw a logical conclusion. It is based on recalled experience and knowledge.Is intuitive thinking rational or maybe something better? — Athena
Is there enough air for everyone to breathe? Is there enough clean water for everyone to drink and wash in? Is there enough food for everyone to be nourished? Is there enough shelter for everyone to be warm and dry? I don't see the problem -- except that a few people take a hundred or thousand or million times as much as they need, piss in the pool, and leave the other people to fight over whatever's left.The problem lies in the application and logistics. — I like sushi
I'm not for or against it. I haven't been and will not be instrumental in the events; I have not been and will not be consulted in the matter. I see people stacking eggs on top of eggs on top of eggs and I predict that the stacks will topple over and the eggs will break.You are for "smashing eggs" then? — I like sushi
What would you die without? So would everyone else. What would you die from? So would everyone else. Supply the first group of elements and eliminate the second. Maslow proposed a good starting point.The question is still left open about how you know what everyone needs? — I like sushi
A hoped-for destination, yes. So you have a criterion for judging each proposed step - is this getting us closer to the desired outcome or veering off in some other direction? Each legislation, each reform, each legal decision, each commercial transaction, each building construction, each technological innovation moves us toward or away from peace, health and comfort.You oppose 'social engineering,' as do I to a degree, yet seem to hold some form of it in your head as you have a theory (a vision to work toward) — I like sushi
It's not that. I haven't called for revolution or a philosopher-king with unlimited power. The way things stand, I'd rather see a supercomputer in charge than the motley collection of humans who run things now. But my main contention is that the way things are can't keep standing very much longer. Tipping points loom hither and yon.I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet." — I like sushi
How can you say how your vision works for everyone? — I like sushi
There you again, confusing needs and wants. We all need the same things, adjusted for size and level of activity, and we don't have to know in advance what everyone wants. People are capable of expressing their desires and aspirations; they're capable of reciprocity and of co-operating on community projects. All they require from their society is freedom to pursue those aspirations - so long as they don't harm the environment or restrict other people's freedom.Is that not like stating you know what everyone want. — I like sushi
Some people make a strenuous and sustained effort to misconstrue and contend, I suppose because that's what they want. Some people seek clarity and consensus, because that's what they want. The world is big enough for both kinds of personality and many more besides.I am guessing not, but you can probably see how easily this can be misconstrued. — I like sushi
It's a theory. You can't get there from here without climbing over a whole lot of rubble.It is just a fantasy, yes? — I like sushi
Knowing what a place looks like and having a roadmap to it are separate ideas. I know what it looks like to me; i know how it works for everyone. I know you can't get there from here by pieces or meals or revolutions or engineering.t seems you are more or less Piecemeal then rather than having any explicit idea of what utopia would look like let alone laying out any particular roadmap for it. — I like sushi
I believe you are advocating for Piecemeal rather than Utopian Engineering? — I like sushi
I am closer to Auden than Eliot as a life partner. — Paine
Break, break, break,
On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!
And I would that my tongue could utter
The thoughts that arise in me.
O, well for the fisherman’s boy,
That he shouts with his sister at play!
O, well for the sailor lad,
That he sings in his boat on the bay!
And the stately ships go on
To their haven under the hill;
But O for the touch of a vanish’d hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!
Break, break, break
At the foot of thy crags, O Sea!
But the tender grace of a day that is dead
Will never come back to me.
Do you try to memorise poems? — Amity
That's the one. I like old songs - you know, from when they had discernible melodies and intelligible lyrics. I caught from my mother the habit of singing while I do mundane chores, and so from years of repetition, I have a much bigger store of song lyrics than poems.I don't know if this is the song you mean but I'll play it anyway. Lean back and listen or sing along... :cool: — Amity
It's possible. I've proved this on several occasions. Their public output is how they want to be known by other people. His public output is toxic assholity. I'm just fulfilling his express desire by expressing the reaction he's worked so hard to elicit.I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. — AmadeusD
I'm not privy to any of that. I hope his god takes it into account.Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. — AmadeusD
Background; struggle with and recovery from substance abuse; helping other addicts - that sort of thing? I know nothing of his private life, hobbies or charities. It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse.Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect. — AmadeusD
It tends to keep the homicide stats down. Opposing 'views' can be hard on a society. Eg. "There is no such thing as witchcraft" vs "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."Why people care about 'agreeing' like it is something to be valued I have no idea. — I like sushi
Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour?Or is this just sort of yelling into the ether — AmadeusD
Show me. In context, if at all possible.You brought it up on that particular point and I have no idea why. — I like sushi
Could - not must. OKI mentioned that to achieve utopia could involve something along those lines or some other means of levelling the playing field. — I like sushi
Instances of ideological conflict were obvious. To what extent they were utopian, or even sincere, is questionable.Instances of these kinds of actions were obvious enough in the 20th century. — I like sushi
Yup. Fundamental difference of opinion.I am stating that aiming for a utopian ideal is wrong and you are saying it is right. — I like sushi
Yup. "some better world" is too vague for my taste. Better than what? Better for whom? Better in what ways?Aiming for a utopian ideal would involve having a target to aim for, not merely the incremental pursuit of some better world. — I like sushi
It wouldn't, had I done so.arguing about the present situation helps your position how? — I like sushi
Yup. That has to be one of the first problems needs solving - assuming there is time to solve problems before the whole house of cards collapses. Is it a conflict between two individuals, or between two equal sized groups of persons? Or between a very few people and an enormous number? I wonder how that would play out, hand-to-hand, without a mercenary army on one side.We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. — I like sushi
What's causing the growing strain in your scenario? Differences among persons, disparity of resource distribution, ideologies or goading by demagogues with their own agenda?What I am saying is that as population grow and conflicts of interest appear then there is growing social strain - this should be apparent enough from what I have previously written surely? — I like sushi
There is nothing feasible about means that would destroy the ends they aim for.our reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal. — I like sushi
Yes, and that's pretty much the point. Up front, I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disparity, uneven distribution of resources and ideological indoctrination. You seem to assume these things are inevitable and unavoidable. I believe they will crumble with the current world order.We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. you can se this literally anywhere on the planet. When there is a problem with resources or large cultural disparities - basically conflicts of interest - then things can turn nasty fairly quickly. This is not new news to anyone. Understand? — I like sushi
As I've said several times already: You can't get there from here, except with many, many baby steps (some of them backward). Nationalism and religion have to go. Politics has to change dramatically. Tradition is okay, in the form of parades and festivals, as long as it doesn't try dictate decisions for the future.there would still be matters of religion, pride in the group, politics, traditions and of course individual abilities. — I like sushi
We are basically the same. Two arms, two legs, one head, opposable thumbs, warm blood, insufficient body-hair, big brain, needs air, water, food, shelter, mating opportunities, companionship, something to think about, something to do, respect of peers...The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not. — I like sushi
In general, I would prefer a leader with vision. In particular, I would want to know what improvements they proposed to make.If the head of state in your country decided to reveal an incremental roadmap towards some vision of utopia would you back them over someone looking to make some improvements to the existing scheme without any idealistic goal? — I like sushi
All right. I won't do that.I am not interested in some combative debate where one of us pumps the air with our fists at the end taking delight is 'winning an argument' rather than exploring ideas. — I like sushi
That's because "exist" is such a difficult word to agree on. I consider something that exists to be tangible, measurable; real. Concepts do not exist - that is, they have no material reality. They are products of the imagination and of language - which means, open to a great range of interpretations.I find a difference between saying 'personal identity exists' and saying 'we experience the life of being a person.' — Paine
I didn't drag genocide into this discussion.Killing? Conflict does not mean 'killing'. — I like sushi
There would be all kinds of local disharmonies. So what? Any functioning society can institute a mechanism whereby people can resolve their arguments and restore harmony to the community. It's certainly not an existential problem.There would be disharmony of a sort.
Then why is every society on Earth not tearing itself apart over the existence of all those fat and thin, dark and fair, tall and short, clever and dull, brisk and relaxed men, women and others, some of whom like jazz while some prefer rock, some of whom eat rice while some like potatoes?Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. — I like sushi
And yet consider us so short-sighted and intolerant that we can't live in a society with people who are unlike us, or share resources among occupations.Believe it or not I am optimistic for humanity — I like sushi
You don't need to argue about it. You only need to experience it. And if you doubt other people's ability to identify you, try committing a crime and claiming that, since it happened last month, some other guy did it. It's not just a rule; its our modus operandi.There can be no arguments to prove or disprove personal identity. — Thales
It all makes sense from a certain perspective, based on a certain set of assumptions. You may be right; humanity may be altogether irredeemable. I was speculating based on a different POV.Is anything I have been saying made any sense whether you agree or not? — I like sushi
I will try.Did you look at the book by Nozick btw? It is an interesting read. — I like sushi
Well, if you're not inclined to kill people for being different, why assume everyone else is? Why assume diversity equals conflict? I have lived peaceably among enough people who are different from me and different from one another not to believe that.No? This is not about me. Kill? That is a bizarre interpretation of what I outlined. — I like sushi
It cannot be brought about in one fell swoop. I have several times stipulated as much: the good society is an ideal to aspire to and work toward, not a state that can be created wholesale.Utopia cannot be brought about under any state of affairs without causing mass harm, genocide, homicide or some means of 'levelling the playing field'. — I like sushi
No. I defined it as a society that satisfies peoples needs and provides opportunity for people to satisfy their own and one another's wants. This should not be such a difficult concept, since all functional societies have a mandate to do this. They just don't do it very well.So you define a utopian society as being one that keeps people alive rather than one that also satisfies people's wants? — I like sushi
I say that if we don't have to fight over the necessities, we are better able to choose and create the luxuries. You say the luxuries must come with the package. You demand more than is possible and then argue that it's not possible.If we all envisage different things they also contradict each other. — I like sushi
And all these differences grate on you? You want to kill all those 'other' people? Me, I find uniformity rather a bore.Height, sex, weight, intelligence, personal preferences, tastes, fortitude, vulnerability, sociability, etc.,. — I like sushi
And yet they did. And we do, with people around the whole globe. (We're even trying to communicate with other planets.) Even now, with all the strife over territory and resources and population movement. So why would we suddenly stop being able to communicate if the strife ended and there was nothing major to negotiate? I don't see the logic of people being on the fringes (whatever fringes are when the needs of all are satisfied) because they're less able to communicate with people they don't choose for company than the ones they do choose.Because they would not be able to communicate and negotiate well enough leaving many on the fringes of society. — I like sushi
I'm not opting for it. The option was never open to me. I'm saying it's theoretically possible. And also that having a destination in mind is useful in choosing one's path; that a clear vision of how society should work is helpful in making incremental improvements. ....I do not feel that you appreciate the danger of opting for some utopian scheme rather than just trying to improve the current state. — I like sushi
Needs, yes. Wants are individual; all the society can or should do is provide the opportunity for people to satisfy their own wants.Satisfying people's wants and needs is part of the utopian ideal. — I like sushi
Why the hell not? Native tribes on various continents managed quite well to remain separate, and yet trade and party and look for marriage partners.Separate communities in a utopian society cannot stably coexist because of this limitation. — I like sushi
Why should they? What - aside from cultural indoctrination - are these prominent differences? Even with cultural diversity, people can get along just fine. Toronto used to enjoy a thriving Chinatown, a Jewish district and market, the Italian strip, the Ukrainian and Hungarian, Greek and Caribbean, Irish and Portuguese neighbourhoods. Yonge Street got pretty raucous during FIFA playoffs. St. Patrick's day was a lot of fun, and so was Caribana. If there is no scarcity of resources or ethnic dominance to compete for, and nobody inciting one group of people against another, what have they to grate about? Anyone is free to associate with those they find pleasant company and avoid people they don't like.Yes, but people still differ. the larger the population the prominent differences become as they grate harder on each other. — I like sushi
And yet, cities and nations consist of many million citizens, and don't break out in civil war. Why does everyone need a direct tie to everyone else? How long has the place where you currentIy reside existed? If you can tolerate the presence of strangers there, in spite of whatever inequalities, injustices and annoyances exist there right now, why could you not accept them in a fair and benevolent society?With Dunbar's Number we know that societal ties breakdown over a certain population threshold. — I like sushi
That was an example of how everyone would be happy. the simple truth is people are different and as long as they are different utopia is impossible - hence clones or forcing conformity. — I like sushi
Yes. It's an obstacle, just as long as egalitarian, democratic means of participation in "the state authority" is not available to all citizens.The push and pull between individualism and state authority is the biggest hurdle for utopian ideals. — I like sushi
What is a singular society? We currently have a number of countries where large numbers of individual have been able work out a system that accommodates most, and that could include all but the most aggressive and greediest - since they're the ones hogging the resources.In no way shape or form are humans alike enough to inhabit - en masse - a singular society. — I like sushi
Why can a good society not consist of many communities? All the bad ones and okay ones do.If they choose to leave then it is clearly not a utopian society. — I like sushi
Yes, I get that. It's like someone believing they know what's 'optimal', but they don't specify any metrics or benchmarks. The ideal, like the optimal, is just a big picture that we try to colour in, one tile at a time, coherently, instead of throwing random pigments at the bits we don't like at a given moment.It is the idea that someone believes they know what the best is that irks me. — I like sushi