Why does it matter whether our beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational? Is it because that is how we know that they are true - or, in the case of actions, justified?
So it seems that even if I believe my perceptions without any grounds, I can justify them - that is, provide reasons (grounds) for believing them - after I come to believe them. — Ludwig V

"Why does it matter"? :razz: What a delicious question. We can fall back on ancient beliefs to answer that question. Because, if we don't get things right and do the wrong things, the gods/nature will punish us. Coming from Athens the goal is to get things right. Meaning, understanding the universal laws and basing our decisions on knowledge of those laws, not our personal whims. However, to understand this, the masses must be educated to understand that reasoning and that is not how we have educated our young. Only the few who go to liberal colleges will understand that reasoning. If we wait until the young enter college before giving them a liberal education, the ignorant masses will outnumber the wise.

One serious problem is capitalism without wisdom or morals. If a person is going to work for low wages because the economy requires people who work for no pay or low wages, what is that person's reward for putting the health of the national economy first? Should we close these people out of society's benefits because they can not pay for those benefits, or do we need planning, cooperation, utilities and a big "thank you" as opposed to a snide "oh, that is welfare"? What is the rational way to educate and order a civilization?

I am not sure but I think animals tend to be limited by a might makes right mentality and because of our success and huge populations, our failure to base our decisions on knowledge of the bigger picture is disastrous.

That explanation of why civilizations fall is elegant. Does anyone here disagree with that explanation of why civilizations fall? If we all agree about why civilizations fall, can we use our rationale to prevent that from happening?

In Scientific, Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist who studies language at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says You Don’t Need Words to Think — Patterner

Your link requires a subscription so I look for another. It is a fascinating subject and I am so glad you brought it up. Hellen Keller was deaf and blind and she did not have language until she was taught language. Young children are dependent on caregivers and function without language. And here is the link I found. Thank you for making us aware of such information.

The lack of an inner monologue has been linked to a condition called aphantasia — sometimes called "blindness of the mind's eye." People who experience aphantasia don't experience visualizations in their mind; they can't mentally picture their bedroom or their mother's face. Many times, those who don't experience visualizations don't experience clear inner speech, either, Lœvenbruck noted. You can participate in Lœvenbruck's research on aphantasia and inner speech via a survey starting this month.
https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monologue.html

Maybe we don't all have the same definition of 'advance'. Maybe some territories were too remote and poor for conquest, and therefore the inhabitants of those undesirable lands didn't have their traditional lifestyle ripped away and destroyed, as so many others did. By the same token, having territory with scant resources means there is not much leisure time for contemplation or extra material for development.

But if you mean, what caused civilization where it did happen, that's a more complex answer. It probably doesn't belong here, but I can point you to a source for the basics. Fundamental difference: enough surplus (of food, natural resources and labour) to support specialized unproductive classes of people, such as administration, priesthood, judiciary and law enforcement, military and clerical, thus stratifying the society and perpetuating a power structure. The influential classes can then patronize artisans and inventors and allocate resources to their own comfort, enrichment, armaments/fortification and glorification through ritual, spectacles, monuments and elaborate burials. — Vera Mont

That is a good explanation. Now how about the Glory of Islam, 8th to 13th century, and the decline? How about China that was more advanced than all of Europe and its decline?

China's “Golden Age”: The Song, the Mongols, and the Ming Voyages
This period of Chinese history, from roughly 600-1600 C.E., is a period of stunning development in China.
From the Tang (discussed in the unit on the Tang Dynasty)
through the "pre-modern" commercial and urban development of the Song, ca. 1000,
to the Ming voyages of exploration (1405- 1433) with ships that reach the coast of Africa.
(The achievements of China under the Song are the subject of Marco Polo's "fantastic" reports when he journeys to China under the Mongols, who rule in China for eighty-nine years (1279- 1368) as the Yuan dynasty, between the Song and Ming) https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/main_pop/kpct/kp_1000-1450ce.htm#:~:text=The%20Song%20dynasty%20(960%2D1279,called%20%22China's%20Golden%20Age.%22

What has caused advancing civilizations to decline and in some cases to totally distruct?

Even when the river has cement banks... Yes. There have always been movements in civilized societies, of a small number of people who lived, or attempted to live, a more genuine, nature-grounded lifestyle.
I wouldn't call the fugitive subsistence of the Mashco Piro Eden, exactly, though they look pretty healthy. I see no reason we couldn't strike a compromise between the destruction of nature and our own needs. But humans tend to run at everything at full tilt. — Vera Mont

People around the world live as they did at the beginning of humanity. They can use nature to meet their needs, as animals do, but they did not advance as people in the modern world did. Why? Why don't all humans advance?

Scientific principles and theories require justification and proofs backed by demonstrative argument. I am not sure what you mean by the standards of formal logic, which makes the whole humanity irrational. Why would formal logic make the whole humanity irrational? Formal logic is another area of academic subjects which enables human reasoning more rational. — Corvus

It is not desirable to be 100% formal logic because what is so may not be so tomorrow and our thinking needs to be flexible. We need to be creative. We need to think about what is and what can be. Humans have taken creative thinking and created their own reality. This is beyond what animals do.

As long as we have theories and centuries-old Eurocentric philosophical maxims regarding the nature of nature, we can deny the less adamantine evidence of direct observation, direct interaction. — Vera Mont

I am feeling a little frustrated in part because I am aware of a serious family problem and it seems next to impossible to get my mind to focus on anything else. The next piece of frustration is conveying the fact that our reality has almost nothing to do with nature. We are not consciously living in a world created by nature or a god. Our reality is 100% man-made. When we walk along the river enjoying the beauty, we are escaping from our man-made reality. No other animal experiences life in this way and we do not experience nature as an animal does. Aborigenies that never had contact with modern man experience life as the animals do but once they have contact with modern man, they too are thrown out of Eden. Adam and Eve enjoyed Eden until they tasted the forbidden fruit.

Brown realized that the oysters had corrected their activity according to the local state of the moon; they were feeding when Evanston—if it had been by the sea—would experience high tide. He had isolated these organisms from every obvious environmental cue. And yet, somehow, they were following the moon.

Might that mean oysters are sensitive to the gravitational pull of the moon?

Researchers have also found some specialized cells in birds' eyes that may help them see magnetic fields. It is thought that birds can use both the beak magnetite and the eye sensors to travel long distances over areas that do not have many landmarks, such as the ocean.
https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/how-do-birds-navigate#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20also%20found%20some,landmarks%2C%20such%20as%20the%20ocean.

We do not experience nature as the animals do.

A part of the universe is aware of itself. — Patterner

Chardin was a Catholic priest who lived in China and the Chruch forbade him to publish his book.

He said something like this, "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man".

The parts of the universe that become aware of themselves and other parts only do so by distinguishing themselves and other parts from everything else. — Janus

Nice thought. Does this link compliment what you said?

1. Representationalism
Representational theories of consciousness reduce consciousness to “mental representations” rather than directly to neural states. Examples include first-order representationalism (FOR) which attempts to explain conscious experience primarily in terms of world-directed (or first-order) intentional states (Tye 2005) as well as several versions of higher-order representationalism (HOR) which holds that what makes a mental state M conscious is that it is the object of some kind of higher-order mental state directed at M (Rosenthal 2005, Gennaro 2012). The primary focus of this entry is on HOR and especially higher-order thought (HOT) theory. The key question that should be answered by any theory of consciousness is: What makes a mental state a conscious mental state? https://iep.utm.edu/higher-order-theories-of-consciousness/

The same way you are. The biological clock that came with our brain, plus changes in the environment, plus experience, plus memory. People and other animals kept daily and seasonal routines long before anybody built a stone circle and very long before we let ourselves be ruled by mechanical horologes. I have no idea why other people think this is remarkable, when we all not only have a sense of time, but can witness every living thing around us respond to the passage of time. — Vera Mont

Your comments are perfect for continuing the conversation.

The animals will not be ruled by our modern cultural understanding of time. They will never rely on clocks to regulate their lives. The forces of nature will always regulate their lives. None of them will ever complain they want to be lazy and stay in their pajamas all day, but they have to go to work. A dog will never understand the reasoning behind our modern-day way of life and excitingly, not that long ago, no human being would understand our modern way of life. Comparably we are not living our lives but like puppets, our rationale controls us while we do not perceive life in the raw. It takes something like a hurricane to get us out of our heads and back into life.

Our rational notions of life are pretty disconnected from nature. :lol: That is to say we do not experience the tree, but what we think about the tree. Does that make sense?

My goodness, so much concern about the dog knowing the time. Did the dog have a watch? Is there a clock on the wall of the train station? How is the dog informed about the time?

Does the dog believe the train arrives at 5 o'clock?
19 minutes ago — creativesoul

Dogs may not be able to count to 10, but even the untrained ones have a rough sense of how many treats you put in their food bowl. That's the finding of a new study, which reveals that our canine pals innately understand quantities in much the same way we do. https://www.science.org/content/article/dog-brains-have-knack-numbers-much-ours#:~:text=Dogs%20may%20not%20be%20able,the%20same%20way%20we%20do.

do have a sense of time, but it differs from the way humans perceive it. A dog’s concept of time revolves around routine, daily patterns, and associative learning. Dogs can’t understand time in the abstract sense of hours and minutes, but they do have an internal awareness of time intervals.

What if we did not have a system for numbering things and a system for telling time? What if our experience of life were the same as other animals without our thinking systems? How would that affect our sense of reality and our sense of importance in the scheme of things?

I watched "What the Bleep Do We Know" again last night and got a new understanding of what the movie intends to say. The movie blends quantum physics with spirituality. It questions what we think we know because each of us has a personal story as our life experiences are different. Two sisters will experience the same family but this shared reality is experienced differently for each one. From there the arguing can begin and it may never end. Each is sure the other is wrong.

A whole nation will have the same leader but the citizens can have opposing thoughts about the desirability of the leader. This opposition can be very emotional. When it comes to religion people can be strongly emotional about what they believe and what others believe. Everyone believing s/he is being rational even when they start killing each other.

If we were aliens looking at this reality would we believe humans can learn and that they are rational?
When social animals split and follow different leaders, they fight over territory and drive the other away.
Or if the social animals from one species cross each other's path, they will fight over the territory. There are factors that have led to humans living in large groups but how well is this working? What makes it possible for millions of people to live together?

I hardly doubt that family values exist in Buddhism, as this leads to creating concepts in our minds. However, there are some core values that can apply to family - such as understanding that the pain family causes is a consequence of our attachment to ideas. I don't believe family is necessary for happiness, but I advocate for the family institution since it's the primordial link in the broader social fabric. — Alonsoaceves

I googled for information about Buddhism. The first Buddha came from a royal family and he renounced those family ties and obligations. This set the stage for nuns and monks who abstained from sex and family obligations but interestingly society rationalized family values as compatible with Buddhism. So you are correct.

The nature and purpose of the Buddhist family
Buddhism has a long tradition of encouraging
monastic celibacy
. This is because the life of a nun or monk, free of sex and family responsibilities, may provide the best conditions for practising the Buddha’s teachings. However, most Buddhists live in couples or families, married or unmarried.

Buddhist families vary according to the customs of the country they live in, and include
nuclear families
, extended families and same-sex parents, as well as couples without children.

The Five Moral Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path are important guides for the Buddhist family and other areas of life. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zshf46f#zbjh3qt

Interesting is seeing marriage as a legal thing, not a spiritual thing. Especially Mormans see family as the ordering of life here on earth and in the afterlife. I think most, if not all Christians, look forward to being with their loved ones in the afterlife. More along the lines of reincarnation tying people to each other. I think Buddhaism favors breaking that karma and that would discourage family and having children.

You mentioned the fabric of society and I hope you have more to say about that. "The Fates, also known as the Moirai, are three goddesses in Greek mythology who weave the threads of life for mortals:" Interesting!

Probably not all. Hehe. Anyway, I certainly hope it works out! — Patterner

Regardless of what happens. Your words have changed how I think and I think I will like this change.

What we all want is love and love does increase love. It is only rational to give the screaming ego a sucker and tell it to sit in the corner. Its intentions are good but maybe it should not be the driver of our lives. This bleeds into the thread I started about being rational. Maturing is learning to be more rational and not letting our emotions control us.

Our child-rearing skills are different today from when we beat the devil out of our children. In the past how we reacted to children was dependent on how we felt. Today our reactions are more likely to be guided by research on child development. I think this is now an evolutionary change. I sure hope so.

However, I also think a better world means happier families. I think it is very damaging to children when parents divorce or move, always expecting the child to adjust to any changes the parents make. Emotional pain is passed on from generation to generation and I think we need to stop being so careless about how the children are affected.

The badly hurt children in my life are now the adults, and their pain became the pain and suffering of their children. Tolerating the use of drugs and alcohol is not good for the children. Wars and sending men and women home with serious disabilities and post-trauma syndrome is not good for the family. Severe economic depressions are terrible for individuals and families. I think cultural adjustments are necessary for a better civilization.

That is about the most profound little exchange I have seen on this site. Thank you both for your insight and honesty. I, too have to think for myself about this in my own life. — unenlightened

I like the word "profound". That is the perfect word for my experience.

A few months ago someone at the pool told me a Hawaiian greeting goes like this....

"I am sorry, I hope you forgive me. I love you. thank you." Can you see how Pattener's words played into that greeting?

Humans are the worst. It's hard to articulate how stupid we are. We know love is the best thing about life. We know you can't use it up, because giving love only generates more love. And yet, we so very, very ... very often blow it.

Pride is one of love's biggest enemies. I can hold my pride tight, or I can give and receive love. I can't do both. They're mutually exclusive. — Patterner

I have recently used that greeting with my sister and my granddaughter when fear and anger were being very destructive. Because of Patterner's post I realized it is my ego that rebelled against saying those loving words. What I want most is love for all of us, but my ego was saying "hello no, I am not going to let them believe they are right and all the emotional problems are because I have been so bad." My ego wanted them to see their wrong. But I didn't understand that my ego was making matters worse until I read Patterner's post.

Frustrating! I got that my sister and granddaughter are going through serious turmoil and therefore they are not being rational. I got that the emotional problems would not be resolved by trying to be rational with them. But to let go and give love a chance is a huge leap of faith in love. My ego is jumping up and down and screaming like a charter in the Disney movie "Inside Out".

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TcoLyjPSc8xYPSSTskszkutVMjNL8tMVUhMyi8tUUjNzS_JzM8rBgAoew7Y&q=disney+movie+about+emotions&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=disney+movie+about&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEC4YgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjE2NTE0ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:77b128da,vid:LEjhY15eCx0,st:0

It should be noted that animals have cultures, traditions and can pass on knowledge to others. There scope is limited compared to ours though. All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. Does rationality suddenly emerge because of this? Maybe that is your argument, I do not know? — I like sushi

No rationality does not suddenly emerge and that is the reason for this thread. It should be clear I am saying rationality must be learned. Unless we learn to think rationally, we base our thoughts on our feelings, and that can be very problematic. However, an argument against Daniel Kahneman's faith in the theory of fast and slow thinking, is the importance of our feelings and creative thinking. Life follows some rules but it is also chaotic and we can not always predict the future based on the past.

Were people rational before Aristotle wrote down the rules for logical thinking? We can argue the meaning of rational and we also understand our rational today is far from our rational in ancient times.
I am struggling to understand how given our modern, science-based understanding of life, can people still believe the Bible is a good explanation of reality. If our bodies were chemically more like clay statues than the bodies of apes, I could believe a God made us of mud, but I don't know how anyone could believe that today. This is important because we base decisions on what we believe is true about our creation. Our ability to make good decisions rests on what we believe is so.

Explaining how much we are like the rest of the animal kingdom, does not support a belief in a God walking in a Garden with a man made of mud and a woman made from his rib. That notion comes from a Sumerian story of creation, and it is not the word of God. How can know that? By translating and reading the Sumerian story. In the original story, the goddess who helped heal the river was associated with the rib and healing. Or we can examine the chemistry of humans and animals and realize our bodies have more in common with animals than mud. Rational thinking uses evidence. But faith is all about feeling! I feel this is true because when I started praying to God for help, I stopped being so afraid and He has helped me so many ways, versus the belief has been life-changing. I am voting for Trump because I believe he is God on earth and democrats are possessed by the devil and our minister told us to vote for Trump. :rofl: What is rational?

Believing in AI could be even worse than Orthodox religions and well-meaning efforts to control people.

Critical thinking is a higher-order thinking skill. Higher-order thinking skills go beyond basic observation of facts and memorization. They are what we are talking about when we want our students to be evaluative, creative and innovative.

When most people think of critical thinking, they think that their words (or the words of others) are supposed to get “criticized” and torn apart in argument, when in fact all it means is that they are criteria-based. These criteria require that we distinguish fact from fiction; synthesize and evaluate information; and clearly communicate, solve problems and discover truths.

https://cetl.uconn.edu/resources/design-your-course/teaching-and-learning-techniques/critical-thinking-and-other-higher-order-thinking-skills/

That is not my definition but I agree with the definition. I am passionate about it because I believe the US is in big trouble because it changed how children are taught to think. Now instead of Walter Cronkite and rational media, we have news that is emotional yellow journalism and people are basing their judgments on how they feel, not having a clue that something is wrong with their rational thinking. They are not well informed and we are not using the higher order thinking skills. We are overly dependent on our emotions. What is happening today happened in Germany before the Second World War. Education for technology is not the liberal education that dominated education in the US before 1958. How we teach our children to think matters.

The trouble is that there is nothing to prevent people using the word "rational" in different ways.
The truth is that even we humans are not rational simplicter. We are a mixture. Our starting-point is the ability to learn - this happens automatically from the moment we are born. There's a range of skills involved and there's no guarantee that everyone will learn all of them.
The word "thinking" is very, very difficult to pin down. We distinguish explicit thinking from acting, forgetting to notice that thinking is something we do, and so is also an action - thought sometimes thoughts just occur to us and we aren't deliberately doing it and sometimes it is not under our control. So is more like breathing - it can be automatic, and it can be under voluntary control.
But we can act without explicit thinking beforehand, and I don't think there is any reason to say that all such actions are non-rational. But it is complicated. Habitual actions, for example, are a bit marginal; we often do them, as we say, without thinking - that's when the habit doesn't adjust to unusual circumstances. We can also react very fast in an emergency and these actions can be more like a reflex than a true action. (True actions need to be under our conscious control.)
I hope I'm not confusing you. I'll stop there. — Ludwig V

The problem is not answering the question. Is believing and defending a myth or false belief, rational thinking?

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 popular science book by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. Wikipedia

The book Emotional Intelligence gives a good example of fast thinking. A father shot and killed his son thinking his son was away at college and the person who jumped out of the closet was an intruder. The father reacted in fear before thinking. Emotions play a big role in our thinking, especially if we do not habitually use the higher-order thinking skills. It is likely this year our votes will be based on our feelings, not rational thinking.

We can also divide thinking as literal or abstract. Is Satan and his demons real? Do we need fear being possessed by demons which is interpreting the Bible literally? Abstractly is a demon is just an unpleasant thought that we can get rid of by being rational? That would make demons an abstract thought.

Information about changes in our brains may help with understanding how human brains are different from other animals.

Yes, children's brains undergo significant changes around the age of eight, including the development of new neural circuitry:
Frontal cortex
The frontal cortex, which controls thinking and logic, begins to develop, allowing children to think more complexly and reason.
Integration
Children can now process two things at once, which makes them more reasonable and less impulsive.
Cognitive development
Children can mentally combine, separate, order, and transform objects and actions. They can also apply logic and reason, and focus their attention.
Creativity
Children develop creative skills through writing, acting, inventing, and designing.
Interest
Children begin to collect things and develop an interest in projects. They also develop a sense of right and wrong, and care about fairness.
The brain's development is a complex process that continues into early adulthood. The early years of childhood are especially important for brain development, as experiences during this time strongly influence the development of sensory and perceptual systems.
https://www.google.com/search?q=brain+nureons+change+at+age+8&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=brain+nureons+change+at+age+8&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgkIBRAhGAoYoAEyCQgGECEYChirAjIHCAcQIRiPAjIHCAgQIRiPAtIBCjE0MzUzajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This is false. Chimps can cooperate and problem solve, as can chickens. The latter may be mere 'programming' but I would not say we can state one way or another what we mean by 'language' to begin with. — I like sushi

Is it rational to literally interpret the Bible and believe it is the word of God? How about if we interpret the Bible abstractly, is that rational? Would animals also have literal interpretations and abstract ones?

Isn't it a bit difficult to comprehend thinking without words? I know preverbal babies do have thoughts without words, but once we learn words in a way we are thrown out of Eden because words separate us from experience. That is we are aware of what we are thinking and no longer have a pure unadulterated experience of life. Now we can envy the animals that are still one with nature.

Imo, a young Japanese macaque, was the first to wash her food, a sweet potato, in 1954:
Hundredth monkey effect - Wikipedia

Imo did not think she did not like sand in her food and consider ways to resolve the problem. She experienced a washed yam and began washing yams. Slowly the rest began imitating her although she did not explain to them why she washed yams and they did not discuss if this is a good idea or not. While the college student may be unable to figure out how to clean a yam if there is no faucet with clean water nearby. In some ways, our ability to resolve problems is diminished with thinking. Such as I could not get out of the gate that required a code but my friend with a lower IQ did not hesitate in sticking his hand through the gate and opening it from the outside.

The reason I am arguing so strongly is we learn how to think and we should not expect everyone to think rationally without training. We should not take thinking for granted.

Eros leads the way upwards, as Plato says in the Symposium: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Women were not permitted to attend "respectable" symposia in ancient Greece, but high-class female prostitutes (hetairai) and entertainers were often hired to perform and converse with the guests.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/ancient-greece-symposium-dinner-party#:~:text=In%20ancient%20Greece%2C%20wealthy%20men,women%2C%20wine%2C%20and%20song.

That order of things is not apt to bring us close to the good life because women were not equals and leaving men in charge is problematic. Appreciating beauty, good music, and good art and intentionally becoming refined may bring heaven to earth, but not if women are excluded.

When I see fathers with their children, I have hope that we will see a better day. I think our culture has been male-dominant, especially since industrialization. I think we are suffering serious problems because of that. Homes without good fathers are not a good thing.

"Several years later"? Don't I wish! :rofl: I'm 60. — Patterner

You are still a kid.

It is wonderful to have a place where thinking people can gather and share their thoughts and what they have learned. I was intellectually starving to death before the Internet. The media talks about the problems with social media, but I see reason to hope for a better world because of social media.

From the standpoint of Buddhism, love would be the act of mindfulness—the inner peace and interconnectedness we reach when we momentarily touch Nirvana. In a more mundane sense, loving kindness in our thoughts, words, and deeds is a consequence of love. I would say it's not necessary to "know" the person or thing that receives love; simply being aware makes it possible to express and share this mind state. — Alonsoaceves

I am beginning to understand that of which you speak. There was a time in my life when I could not imagine happiness and love. I had done my best to have a happy family and failed. A problem I have with Buddhism is, I have not picked up family values from Buddhism. In my later years, I have the luxury of focusing on my own happiness and it is no longer dependent on family, but I think civilizations depend on families. That may not be true. However, if civilization is dependent on families and our happiness depends on happy families, we are in trouble.

If anything I've learned from my own failures helps, then I'm happy. Love to you. — Patterner

I don't know about you but when I was 18 I thought I was an adult and knew everything that I needed to know. Several years later it is amazing how much more there is to learn. It is a shame it takes so long to learn how to live well, and then we are old and no one wants to listen. What hurts is seeing how family problems can affect the children for several generations.

Seagulls are more careful about mating and birds do not reproduce until they have a nest. I think a god could have made us smarter before giving us freedom of will and setting us out to fend for ourselves.

I can hold my pride tight, or I can give and receive love. I can't do both. They're mutually exclusive. — Patterner

Hours later your words mixed with another thought I am holding and together those thoughts could potentially be life changing. I take pride in being pretty egoless, but I became aware of what my ego has to do with some conflict resolution failures. Interesting. I look to seeing if a changed behavior pattern gets better results. I thought that you might like to know your words were so effective.

Pride is one of love's biggest enemies. I can hold my pride tight, or I can give and receive love. I can't do both. They're mutually exclusive.

As Ed learned on Northern Exposure, low self-esteem is also a big problem. It's difficult to accept love when you don't think you're worthy of it. And it's difficult to give love when you think your love isn't worthy.

Fear. "What if it's too late?" "What if s/he doesn't feel the same any longer?" But, if you don't try, you definitely lose. — Patterner

It has been pretty easy for me to be egoless and giving rather than taking. I associate what you said with the Hippie movement. As I saw communes struggling, I realized we were not cultivated to live communally. Today not even families can not live together. We all have to have our own homes and live apart to avoid all the conflicts of interest.

I want to focus on "I can hold my pride tight, or I can give and receive love." I don't have anything to say about that now, but want to write that thought on a piece of paper that I can read often and ponder. I have some pretty uneasy feelings when I read that thought and think of my behavior. I need to look deeper into why that thought makes me feel uncomfortable as though I have done something wrong.

Pride is important. It is why we do our laundry and take a shower and give social service but it could have a negative side if it isn't balanced. Hum,:chin: I have to think about that.

It could, especially if a nasty strain of Christianity ruled all their lives and limited what they were allowed to do. Even then, some families managed warmth and kindness, even if the parents could not love each other. — Vera Mont

I strongly favor studying animals to know ourselves. I also strongly favor cross-cultural studies.

I think our creation stories are very important and I do not like the Christian one. My first introduction to Eastern thought was a Hindu book putting the responsibility of making good choices on us without blaming an evil power and a God's curse for our struggles. I don't think Christians saw God as a loving God until our bellies were full. The Christian god was jealous, revengeful, and punishing, and I don't think that was good for loving families.

I also think our time and place in history makes a difference. Each cohort is affected by different historical events and movements. I am nostalgic for the Hippie period of love, a return to nature and equality. I remember troubles but our spirits were better and full of hope. We were going to make the world a better place and I think we made a lot of progress but it is not well balanced. I have a sense that between my generation and sister's, there was a shift a backlash maybe. Cooperate power and the drive for money over powered our drive for love.

Compassion is the embodiment of love. Through mutual understanding, we cultivate the willingness to connect and love unconditionally. When we show compassion to others, we also nurture ourselves. Ultimately, isn't the union of consciousness – where boundaries dissolve and we recognize our shared humanity – the true essence of love? — Alonsoaceves

I was wondering where Buddhist compassion played into love. I do not always see conservative Christians as loving people and I have gained some familiarity with Eastern religion and philosophy. I also pay much attention to awareness, consciousness, and intentional living.

Research tells us doing for others is a good way to make ourselves happy.

The movie What the Bleep Do We Know blends quantum physics with spirituality. That opens more questions than I have answers. Is pure consciousness loving?

Filial love, fraternal love, friendship, all go though changes over time. But they are all grounded in regard for that other person who is special to you for some particular reason.
Romantic love goes through changes, too. Sometimes it dies young, because its roots were shallow. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime and beyond, because its roots are deep: because the other person is special for reasons fundamental to your own well-being and happiness. — Vera Mont

I very much like what you said here because you covered many types of love. Hopefully, a mother and father feel love for a child, especially if the mother breastfeeds the baby, there are hormonal factors in that love. However, mothers and fathers do not always experience love for a child. In the past I don't think love had much to do with family. It was expected for a man and woman to marry and have children. From there was family duty. That could result in very unloving families. There was some charity but no government assistance. Which brings me to religion and God as love and how do we understand love?

I am most concerned with sisters and brothers loving each other and love of grandparents and grandchildren because these relationships have presented challenges. I get we love someone who is special to us but what if that person does not feel loved? No amount of effort can change the minds of people who do not receive love. At least I have not found the magic key that makes a hurt, scared, and angry person feel loved. And my gosh siblings who think they have to compete with a brother or sister for love can be miserable people.

A friend of mine feels strongly about everyone believing God is love. I think that is a wonderful fantasy but have to agree that that fantasy has had a good cultural benefit and for the people who believe, it is a very beneficial fantasy.

1. So do you think that the people who built the pyramids were rational or not? (They built them before the ancient Greeks started philosophizing.)

2. About the process of learning or acquiring a habit or routine. I grant you that putting on one's lucky trainers when going out to compete is not (normally) rational. But when the habit or routine is capable of rational justification - driving or fuelling one's car would be examples - is learning or practising those activities rational or not? — Ludwig V

I love that first question because it stretches our thinking!

That second one is hard to answer. Is it rational to believe something that is not true?

I agree rational thinking requires language and then questioning out one thinks and that animals do not do this and can not do so without language. However, there is evidence that bonobos can learn language and judge right from wrong. Why not, we are on the same branch of the tree. But it is curious in nature that bonobos do not develop language independent of human intervention. However, if a bonobo does learn language at least one of them has taught the offspring language. I am wondering if they would continue to pass on language and if so, would they develop better language skills in following generations? (evolution working)

More important, should we assume all humans are rational thinkers or must they learn the higher order thinking skills to be rational? Is believing and defending a myth, rational thinking?

Thank you everyone. I read all the posts and will contemplate them and my experiences with love as I drift off to sleep.

If you ask what makes us human, the answer will not be "rationality", but emotion. Ironical, don't you think? — Ludwig V

That is a very interesting comment. It deserves its own thread- What Makes Us Human. My first love was sociology. Compared to primitive cultures religions today might pose different reasoning regarding what makes us human. I am not sure if today, all people believe we are all human. We still live with the reasoning that some people are less than human.

Yet another criterion. The more requirements you add, the fewer entities may exercise a faculty that was once available to everything in possession of a cerebellum.
All thinking animals can act rationally, emotionally, instinctively or chaotically (when they're ill). I very much doubt that thought processes take different amounts of energy to perform. — Vera Mont

If you doubt that different thought processes consume different levels of energy you might google for information. There are problems with accessing some sites. The following site has the information but requires an email address and maybe you can find one that is easier to access. I already recommended the "Fast and Slow thinking" link but I don't think you paid attention to it.

Yes, it's true that some types of thinking require more energy than others, as complex mental tasks, like problem solving or learning new information, activate more brain regions and demand a higher level of neural activity, resulting in increased energy consumption compared to simpler thought processes like daydreaming or routine tasks.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/#:~:text=%22In%20theory%2C%20yes%2C%20a,percentage%20of%20the%20overall%20rate.

All thinking is not the same and animals that instantly do mathematical calculations, such as bats with sonar are not doing those calculations as we do them. Understanding differences in thinking is important to the subject rational thinking- human and animal.

It's genetics, not simply epigenetics. And don’t overlook the fact that not only are their brains not equipped for language, but neither are their vocal tracts, for which the h.sapiens anatomy is uniquely suited. — Wayfarer

There is no final decision about how information is transmitted from one generation to the next.

Memories passed down in our genes? Not exactly. But biologists have observed examples of learned behaviors and acquired responses being transmitted through several generations, contrary to the traditional rules of genetic inheritance. https://www.quantamagazine.org/inherited-learning-it-happens-but-how-is-uncertain-20191016/#:~:text=Memories%20passed%20down%20in%20our,traditional%20rules%20of%20genetic%20inheritance.

.

We do know that dogs that became used to humans became domesticated and that a gene controls if a dog can or can not be domesticated. The dogs that interacted with humans developed and spread this gene. This is not just about DNA but also RNA.

RNA, is another macromolecule essential for all known forms of life. Like DNA, RNA is made up of nucleotides. Once thought to play ancillary roles, RNAs are now understood to be among a cell’s key regulatory players where they catalyze biological reactions, control and modulate gene expression, sensing and communicating responses to cellular signals, etc. https://cm.jefferson.edu/learn/dna-and-rna/#:~:text=There%20are%20two%20differences%20that,uracil%20while%20DNA%20contains%20thymine.

.

Skills and Talents Influenced by Your Genes
Aptitude and talent in various fields, such as intelligence, creativity, and athleticism, are attributed to genetic factors. For example, drawing, playing an instrument, or dancing may come more naturally to some people than to others. Similarly, genetic factors can influence traits like analytical and critical thinking, communication, and research skills. Skills and Talents Influenced by Your Genes
https://seniorslifestylemag.com/featured/5-skills-and-talents-that-are-influenced-by-your-genes/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20drawing%2C%20playing%20an,%2C%20communication%2C%20and%20research%20skills.

I think this is about the process of evolution and how close humans and apes are.

Oh, we can be quite irrational in language, too. Just listen to a speech by.... never mind.
Humans have an enormous brain, only a small part of which is required to run the vital physical systems and another small part for reflex actions and survival instincts. The rest is available for learning, memory, language, culture, skill acquisition, storytelling, convictions, wealth accumulation, altruism, invention, emotional complexity, deceit, social bonding, philosophy, ambition, superstition, delusion and madness. As well as reasoning and assessment. — Vera Mont

But all that is not rational thinking. Rational thinking requires critical thinking and we would have an extremely short lifespan if all our awake time was also our critical thinking time.

Colloquially, “rational” has several meanings. It can describe a thinking process based on an evaluation of objective facts (rather than superstition or powerful emotions); a decision that maximizes personal benefit; or simply a decision that’s sensible. In this article, the first definition applies: Rational decisions are those grounded on solid statistics and objective facts, resulting in the same choices as would be computed by a logical robot. But they’re not necessarily the most sensible. https://qz.com/922924/humans-werent-designed-to-be-rational-and-we-are-better-thinkers-for-it

Rational thinking requires a huge amount of energy and we would have very short life spans if all our waking hours we were thinking rationally. Also, it is fun to know forgetting is as important to making sense of life as learning is. One of the hardest parts of learning is often we must forget to have useful information in the present. You don't want to know your grocery list for every time you have gone shopping. You only want today's grocery list and if too much information is in our conscious thoughts it becomes useless.

Completely rational thinking has draw backs and here is an explanation of that...same link

“If you fine-tune on the past with an optimization model, and the future is not like the past, then that can be a big failure, as illustrated in the last financial crisis,” he explains. “In a world where you can calculate the risks, the rational way is to rely on statistics and probability theory. But in a world of uncertainty, not everything is known—the future may be different from the past—then statistics by itself cannot provide you with the best answer anymore.”

Henry Brighton, a cognitive science and artificial intelligence professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who’s also a researcher at the Max Planck Institute, adds that, in a real-world setting, most truly important decisions rely at least in part on subjective preferences.

“The number of objective facts deserving of that term is extremely low and almost negligible in everyday life,” he says. “The whole idea of using logic to make decisions in the world is to me a fairly peculiar one, given that we live in a world of high uncertainty which is precisely the conditions in which logic is not the appropriate framework for thinking about decision-making.”

Several Star Trek shows are about human judgment that is not based on rational thinking and I don't think Star Trek fans are in favor of AI ruling over us.

Experiences can be hard to explain to someone who has not had that particular experience. Remember Spock in a Star Trek episode, where he died and Doc asked him what it was like to die? Spock asked him if he ever died, and incredulously Doc said "no". Then Spock said, if he did not have the experience he had nothing to reference.

I rather be with people my own age, who have gone through my time in history, because they know what I am talking about. That is not the case when talking with younger people, who may be sure I am wrong because they have not had that experience. :lol: It is laughable when an organization has changed its policy and I object to the change, and the young person who has been on the job for maybe 6 months, tells me there was no change and things are as they always were.

Amazingly, human beings can proceed and believe humans are intelligent and capable of communication when they are not working with the same facts and understandings of life. While bees and ants have almost perfect communication. I don't think anyone would say they are intelligent. They are not self-aware and reasoning how to build their homes or go about their chores or who the queen should be queen. We might say the ants and bees are more rational than humans because they don't carry false or incorrect stories about what is so.

I think we could make a good argument that human beings are not rational. The chatter that goes on their heads may be totally incorrect but without critical thinking, they may be willing to kill for what they believe is so.

Thank you for opening the discussion on human thinking.

Well, they did survive, so they must have made some rational decisions along the way. We can't see the process, only the result. — Vera Mont

Surviving does not require the ability to think. You would not want to say alligators think, would you? They do not have a cortex and it is the cortex that makes us thinking animals. Alligators have reptilian brains, and so do we. I have been with severely brain-damaged people and they may be able to make some survival choices but their inability to think means very poor decision making.

Insects and animals do amazing things as a matter of instinct and want to add epigensome to this, which I define in my post just before this one. Our emotions can cancel out our ability to think, resulting in us reacting perfectly to an emergency or perhaps doing something we seriously regret. Just because we are capable of rational thinking, that does not mean that is what we are doing 24/7. Our brains are like chattering monkeys constantly running from one thought to another, but this is not rational thinking.

I think we need to understand the importance of language and learned logic skills for rational thinking. Not all thinking is rational thinking.

Some people say they think in images. (Planning how to pack a suitcase, for example). I don't, but how could I contradict them?
Sometimes, when we are improvising, we are thinking by doing.
Then there's all the thinking that goes on that we are not aware of. This is more controversial, philosophically speaking. My favourite example is our echo-location. Phenomenologically, we just know where a sound is. But the scientists tell us that we work out where sounds are by the difference in the sound between one ear and the other - it arrives later on the side furthest from the source.
This is sometimes called "tacit knowledge". There's a lot of it about, but philosophy regards it as secondary to conscious thinking. Short story. It's a bit of a mystery.
And Vera Mont is quite right to cite feral human children. When found, they are often completely without language, yet can clearly respond appropriately to what's going on. (They also, I understand, find it very difficult to learn language at all.) But that only demonstrates that it is possible to think unconsciously and without language. So it is important for this thread. — Ludwig V

I had to look up tacit knowledge and found this..

Examples of tacit knowledge include knowledge of how to manage an angry customer or the know-how required to complete a complex task. This type of knowledge is often not easily captured in words, and therefore not easily transferred from one person to another. https://helpjuice.com/blog/tacit-knowledge#:~:text=Tacit%20knowledge%20refers%20to%20the,Tribal%20knowledge

I knew a man who was mechanical and took a class in physics and failed, yet he could resolve a mechanical/physics problem that no one else in the class could figure out. I would say that is an example of tacit knowledge. It is not understanding theory which is a verbal explanation of how something works. Verbal knowledge is something the man has trouble learning but he has knowledge that is not verbal.

When speaking of rational thinking- human and animal, I think we should mull over what is a thought. You said a thought can be an image rather than words and I spoke with a woman who designs things for people who request designs such as a machine that makes concrete barriers for a fancy garden. She said she sees the required parts of such a machine. She came to her job by her unique skill, not education.

Now if we agree rational thinking requires words, the two people I mentioned are not thinking with words and that might be akin to how animals think. With sonar, a bat can do amazing things and that is not a verbal task. Animals in general do amazing thing without words and could label all this tacit knowledge?

When arguing bonobo can learn language I wanted to say something that I didn't have the words for. Your thoughts helped me find the right words...

We used to think that a new embryo's epigenome was completely erased and rebuilt from scratch. But this isn't completely true. Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance.

Epigenetic inheritance is an unconventional finding. It goes against the idea that inheritance happens only through the DNA code that passes from parent to offspring. It means that a parent's experiences, in the form of epigenetic tags, can be passed down to future generations. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

I believe bonobos have the potential for learning language but it is dormant because they lack the epigenome and inherited use of language that humans have. However, if they were taught communication as infants and were in an environment that encouraged communicating, their children would have epigenome and inherited language skills and they could eventually evolve into using language.