Active Reaction of Thoughts

[Stosh]

Conception? Whats that mean here?

[Karl]

Conception? Whats that mean here?

 

Concept formation, the ability to reason. We are 3D to a 2D animal world. That's why a lot of the words like 'goal' are not really applicable. They are, in a sense, 3D words attempting to describe a 2D animal universe. People have a tendency to see the other forms of life as existing in the same mental context, because of the words used to describe it. This extends to inanimate objects as well as the mistaken belief that the Earth is a living entity just because there are living creatures living upon it.

 

Nature has produced us, we aren't some weird alien species but natures greatest triumph. The pinnacle of evolution and life. We are fallible because this is our nature, it is the cost of a conceptual living being. We are the rarest and most precious of things, yet our fallibility sows the seeds of self doubt, we can't come to terms with our mortality and yet it is precisely because we know that we are mortal that we can achieve such great things. All living things die, but, unlike man, they do not start out with the choice of holding life as a value. It's because we have to choose that we struggle with the loss of choice that death brings. We are woken, but we wish we were oblivious, unaffected, just perceptors, or inanimates devoid of consciousness.

[Stosh]

More specifically then, Whats reasoning ? The rest needs to wait till the bottom of this, please dont give me an example , to be self explanatory ,, What is reasoning composed of and unique about. All the way down, simplest components.....

Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

More specifically then, Whats reasoning ? The rest needs to wait till the bottom of this, please dont give me an example , to be self explanatory ,, What is reasoning composed of and unique about. All the way down, simplest components.....

 

It's not reducible. You are using reason to ask the question what is reason. If it exists then it exists. A is A. This is based on the primacy of existence.

 

The opposite is the primacy of consciousness which denies reason and focuses on internal feelings such as revelations, intuitions and innate ideas.

 

I can give definitions of reason, but I can't give you a reason for reason :-) for obviously you would be asking for proof of proof which would be a logical impossibility.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

It's not reducible. You are using reason to ask the question what is reason. If it exists then it exists. A is A. This is based on the primacy of existence.

 

The opposite is the primacy of consciousness which denies reason and focuses on internal feelings such as revelations, intuitions and innate ideas.

 

I can give definitions of reason, but I can't give you a reason for reason :-) for obviously you would be asking for proof of proof which would be a logical impossibility.

Who told you that crap ? Yes define please, reason , such as you think most fit. Ill help, ,you said concept formation is the ability to reason... Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Who told you that crap ? Yes define please reason , such as you think most fit. Ill help, ,you said concept formation is the ability to reason...

 

I didn't need to be told it, if I simply digested this stuff without being sure of what I was saying, then I might as well fall on my sword right now. This doesn't of course mean I'm correct, but it does mean that I have employed reason and logic to the best of my abilities to reach that conclusion. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, I did my best and can find no holes, cracks or flaws in my understanding.

 

I shall use Rand's definition as I'm blowed if I'm going to work out something better.

 

"The faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by mans senses"

 

To expand: the organisation of perceptual units in conceptual terms by the principles of logic.

 

"Why should I accept reason?" Means: "why should I accept reality" the answer is because existence exists and ONLY existence exists. Either accept reason or consign consciousness to a void.

 

To repeat as peikoff wrote: "one cannot seek proof that reason is reliable , because reason is the faculty for proof; one must accept and use reason in any attempt to prove anything. But using reason one can identify its relationship to the facts of reality and thereby validate the faculty.

 

You might suspect this is circular reasoning and you would be right. Trying to prove an axiom by reference to itself it to say the same thing as existence exists, consciousness is consciousness and reason is reason.

 

Either you accept those axioms or you don't. If you don't then that's fine you can explore the alternative which is that consciousness has primacy. In which case existence is the result of the conscious knowledge of it and only consciousness is (how consciousness can be thought of as non existent is beyond my Ken to grasp, so I have no alternative but to refute it). If consciousness is prime, then reason is invalid and nothing can be proven. That is indeed the model of the sceptics and many on here support that philosophy in various forms.

 

Im sure you will reach the right conclusion.

[Stosh]

Then an animal has only to identify and integrate perceptual data ,to be said to have reason, according to Rand. To expand ,by compilation ,reason ,,is the beginning of what gets called logic. So with this clarification you have provided, we should be able to agree that animals including humans can be said to reason. And humans with greater capacity, may perform logical thought.

Yes?

[Karl]

Then an animal has only to identify and integrate perceptual data ,to be said to have reason, according to Rand. To expand ,by compilation ,reason ,,is the beginning of what gets called logic. So with this clarification you have provided, we should be able to agree that animals including humans can be said to reason. And humans with greater capacity, may perform logical thought.

Yes?

No. Animals automatically process perceptually. I said that previously. An animal does not need to apply reason to its own life. We, in a sense, are at a kind of disadvantage because we aren't born with the automatic capacity of animals, we are forced to think every step of the way. We have an infinite amount of choices to cope with every second of the day. We don't automatically know what to eat, we don't know how to get the food. We must learn and plan everything.

 

Anyway, time to cast you free to prove your own assertions-requiring reason as the basis. So, if you think you can prove animals have the faculty of reason then you should do so. It would be Earth shaking news if you could. Scientists have been at it for many years. Philosophically it's impossible from an objectivist perspective which is why I don't spend a lot of time thinking about. However, if you want to become a real life Dr Doolittle go for it :-)

Edited April 2, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

Animals clearly collect process and integrate perceptual data, do they not? Im thinking you pretty much declared that already. Rand, who you quoted , says this is reasoning.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Animals clearly collect process and integrate perceptual data, do they not? Im thinking you pretty much declared that already. Rand, who you quoted , says this is reasoning.

 

What makes you think that ? What are your observation ? What can you prove ?

 

Start from there. I can't give you any more than I have already done. Only you can determine the truth of it.

 

As soon as you say "Rand said" then you are already committing a logical fallacy of the appeal to Authority. I can use Rand's work to illustrate some point because I understand the point from first principles, but that shouldn't sway you to belief, or rejection of her premise. It's a starting point. If you think that animals have the same reasoning faculty as humans then work through the logical proof, observations, data, concepts and perceptual information. You might do something that is a real advance on current thought.

[Stosh]

My proof is pointing at what you already agreed was true. The Authority is whom you presented as agreeing with. Within the context of your own beliefs already, I have no proving to do. It should strike you just as obviously as it does to me , that you either agree with the authority quoted, or disagree.

If you agree, then one can state in what should be total agreement with your own views, that animals reason. If you disagree, then you do not have a consistent definition which would allow someone else to self consistently agree With. Its really rather frustrating for me that your logic is inconsistent in this matter and prevents coming to an accord.

Why is it so objectionable to you, to consider that animals do rudimentarily reason? That still doesn't make them humans, and so you could still eat them with clear conscience. Or you might have more empathy for them ,, which might make you a more sensitive and compassionate,, which feeds back to having even more sensitivity and compassion for humans who are humble and simple. Which most I think would think is kind of nice charming welcoming and so forth.

[Karl]

My proof is pointing at what you already agreed was true. The Authority is whom you presented as agreeing with. Within the context of your own beliefs already, I have no proving to do. It should strike you just as obviously as it does to me , that you either agree with the authority quoted, or disagree.

If you agree, then one can state in what should be total agreement with your own views, that animals reason. If you disagree, then you do not have a consistent definition which would allow someone else to self consistently agree With. Its really rather frustrating for me that your logic is inconsistent in this matter and prevents coming to an accord.

Why is it so objectionable to you, to consider that animals do rudimentarily reason? That still doesn't make them humans, and so you could still eat them with clear conscience. Or you might have more empathy for them ,, which might make you a more sensitive and compassionate,, which feeds back to having even more sensitivity and compassion for humans who are humble and simple. Which most I think would think is kind of nice charming welcoming and so forth.

 

It is not about me agreeing or disagreeing Stosh. It's what you can prove to yourself, you do not have to prove it to me, I already know.

 

I don't know what 'rudimentary' reason is, I haven't experienced something that isn't reason, only what is. It's like you are saying rudimentary flying, when flying is flying I cannot conceive a rudimentary form that doesn't involve flying. A is A a thing is a thing.

 

If an animal reasoned as a human does then they would no longer be instinctive, automatic creatures. You would have cats doubting their existence or committing suicide. As soon as reason is present, then so are all the other attributes. You cannot plug a device into the mains and then get rudimentary activity, the device either functions or it doesn't.

 

Try and remember context. Logic/reason provides proof, but I can't give you proof of proof. An animal requires no proof, that is the difference between animals and humans, that's why it's is perceptual. That is the context. The logic is absolutely consistent, but logic is not a trait applicable to animals only to man.

 

It is not an emotional response that I have to the idea of animals having reason, but an epistemological one. Its like a tower block in which you are insisting one corner should be made of jelly. If I stick jelly in the place you believe it can be, then the entire block falls to the ground. The conceptual hierachical is such that not one piece can be altered. It's like a domino effect, or a finely balanced equation. I can't just go around adding square roots pragmatically.

 

Compassion is a fine thing, but really, it's not a great guide or has much practical value. A guy I used to work with programmed high level PLCs. Occasionally we would visit a client who had made a complete mess specifying the hardware that he was hoping we could overcome his errors. The guy I worked with woukd say ' I can't make the impossible, possible, I can make sympathetic noises if it will help, but beyond that you are on your own'.

 

Don't get to thinking I'm a cold hearted robot either. I resent that accusation as it holds no truth what so ever.

[Stosh]

I didnt say you were cold. Far from it in fact. But no, you arent being self consistent in this minor detail, and no your entire basis of understanding things is not going to tumble like dominoes over this. From here It is like watching an exorcism though. Try it on for size, give it a whirl and repeat after me. Higher animals have a rudimentary ability to be rational. Even humans.

[Karl]

I didnt say you were cold. Far from it in fact. But no, you arent being self consistent in this minor detail, and no your entire basis of understanding things is not going to tumble like dominoes over this. From here It is like watching an exorcism though. Try it on for size, give it a whirl and repeat after me. Higher animals have a rudimentary ability to be rational. Even humans.

 

"The faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by mans senses"

 

Let me have one more try- "mans senses" not animals, they are excluded because they do not have the faculty of reason. Next you will be trying to cultivate rocks. Context is everything.

 

[Stosh]

And just how do mans senses vary from ..chimps? Youre going circular again, that mens senses are unlike animals because man reasons,,, So man reasons and other animals do not.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

And just how do mans senses vary from ..chimps? Youre going circular again, that mens senses are unlike animals because man reasons,,, So man reasons and other animals do not.

 

Senses aren't reasoning. Mans only means of survival is his mind. Go back a step and see a tree survives because it is goal oriented, it has no consciousness, it has no perception but it responds to stimuli. Yet, it still sheds leaves, grows, takes up water, moves its roots to find water and suck up nutrients. It converts Co2 to cellulose. You cannot then say that a cat is very similar to a tree, so then a tree must have rudimentary consciousness/perception. Then a rock survives so it must have some kind of stimuli to keep it looking like a rock.

 

Concentrate on human reasoning, ignore wild goose chases and blind alleys. Get that straight first. Animals and other living creatures are interesting but only in the sense that the contrast human activity. One of the key signs of abstraction is art. Early man produced art in caves. When your cat gives you a painting let me know.

 

 

[Stosh]

True my cat cant paint. I can also beat her in arm wrestling.

We need to take tiny steps and stay together here....

The faculty which identifies and integrates the perceptual data is reasoning regardless of whether its man or monkey, is that a correct adjustment?

[Karl]

True my cat cant paint. I can also beat her in arm wrestling.

We need to take tiny steps and stay together here....

The faculty which identifies and integrates the perceptual data is reasoning regardless of whether its man or monkey, is that a correct adjustment?

 

No, only for man. Animals integrate perceptually, but humans don't. Animals don't need concepts men do. Animals are short term, instantaneous and automatic. Man is born a clean slate and then must turn precepts into concepts then integrate the concepts. Man must plan long range, but animals have no sense of that, they just make perceptual integrations. Monkey see, monkey do.

 

Men have to form a concept and then use reason to integrate that concept with multiple others, but, unlike animals we choose what we do and don't integrate. Animals don't choose what they integrate, they just learn and apply. It's that extra stage in men that changes things completely.

[Stosh]

Back round the circle ok fine ,so all I have to do is point out an animal that is doing something which requires a concept, and youll admit none of what youre saying is based on fact, is that correct?

[Karl]

Back round the circle ok fine ,so all I have to do is point out an animal that is doing something which requires a concept, and youll admit none of what youre saying is based on fact, is that correct?

 

That has the faculty of reason you mean. Go for it.

[Stosh]

Make up your mind Karl, You just said that humans are required to form concepts animals dont and cant. Did you not? and that this is the extra stage that makes the difference. Yes? Do you concede they can have a concept then?

Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Kubba]

.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Kubba

[Karl]

Make up your mind Karl, You just said that humans are required to form concepts animals dont and cant. Did you not? and that this is the extra stage that makes the difference. Yes? Do you concede they can have a concept then?

 

Correct, but that's I cake and flour argument. Like all aircraft have wings as opposed to all aircraft fly. I make it that way because I know where you are going to go and I'm going to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about aircraft wings not being a flies wing or a birds. In the end you will come to see it, or you will find some other equivocation. Im trying to save my writing finger from punishment.

 

So, if you can keep in mind context and please don't stray too far off the path then I'm happy with men being the only animal that form concepts. If you start giving those arguments from equivocation then I shall not reply-and leave you to figure out where your logical fallacy by my silence. I will rejoin when you get back on track.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Why one reacts to one thing and doesnt to other can also come from your current state. If youre happy and relaxed and someone says something not plesant you may not react at all or just laught.

I'd also say that children are not only effects of parentsbehaviour. If that would be true then all children from one familly would behave exactly the same. Past lifes matter too.'

 

I like tantric teaching where emotions are not my or yours but they are understood as universal powers (not in a sense that you don't need to be responsible for them and act uncnsciously), facess of goddess.

 

Thanks for reading and commenting!